DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-33) in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recitation in claims 10 and 27 requiring the crank to be “integrally formed” with the rotor is unclear and indefinite. A person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds of this element because it appears to be structurally inconsistent with base claims 9 and 26, respectively, which requires the crank and rotor to be “pivotably coupled”. If components are integrally formed, it is unclear how they can be pivotable. Applicant should provide clarity to this discrepancy. For examining purposes, when two components are directly coupled to each other they will be considered as being integrally formed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, 21-23, 25-27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgetts et al. (US Pat. No. 6,634,885) in view of Denne (US Pat. No. 5,605,462).
With respect to claim 1, Hodgetts et al. teaches a motion simulation system 6, comprising: a platform 24 configured to support a payload 10; a weight bearing actuator 30, and a positioning actuator assembly, comprising: a positioning actuator 14 comprising a stator and a rotor (i.e. motor shaft 16) configured to rotate relative to the stator (column 2, lines 25-36); and a connecting rod 22 coupled to the rotor (i.e. motor shaft 16), wherein the rotor (i.e. motor shaft 16) is configured to rotate to translate the connecting rod 22 and position the payload 10 supported by the weight bearing actuator 30. Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Hodgetts does not expressly teach the claimed structure of the weight bearing actuator assembly. Examiner cites to analogous art reference Denne for its express teaching of a weight bearing actuator 4A comprising the following: a pneumatic cylinder 20 defining a cavity (Fig. 3); and a piston rod 22 disposed at least partially within the cavity of the pneumatic cylinder 20, wherein a first end of the piston rod 22 and the cavity of the pneumatic cylinder define a volume of the pneumatic cylinder, and the volume of pneumatic cylinder is configured to be pressurized to support a weight of a payload 1 (column 3, lines 23-43; See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the weight bearing actuator of Hodgetts with the weight bearing actuator of Denne. The rationale to combine is set forth in Denne – “counter balancing the weight” of the payload as though it is “supported on a very soft spring system” – column 3, lines 40-43. The proposed combination has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary function of Hodgetts is not frustrated by the combination.
With respect to claim 2, Hodgetts teaches a second positioning actuator assembly 14 (Fig.’s 1-2), wherein the second positioning actuator assembly is configured to position the payload 1 supported by the weight bearing actuator 30 in cooperation with the positioning actuator assembly 14 - column 2 teaching three degrees of freedom movement; See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
With respect to 3, Hodgetts teaches a plurality of additional positioning actuator assemblies 14 (Fig.’s 1-2), wherein the plurality of additional positioning actuator assemblies are configured to position the payload 1 supported by the weight bearing actuator 30 in cooperation with the positioning actuator assembly 14 - column 2 teaching three degrees of freedom movement; See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber. Hodgetts discloses only a single weight bearing actuator as opposed to a “plurality of additional weight bearing actuators” as claimed. However, the Federal Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, providing two additional weight bearing assemblies comprising the structure of Denne would have the expected result of increasing damping effect or soft spring effect. This would be useful for heavier payloads that don’t have symmetrical weight distribution about the platform. Such modification would not adversely affect the primary purpose of Hodgetts since the weight bearing assemblies of Denne are capable of changing its length, thus being configured to work congruently with the position actuators. Moreover, applicant does not provide criticality to the number of weight bearing actuators being three. The combination is thus considered to teach wherein the plurality of additional weight bearing actuators are configured to be pressurized to support the weight of the payload in cooperation with the weight bearing actuator See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
With respect to claim 5, Hodgetts teaches a platform 24 coupled to connecting rod 22, and the platform 24 is configured to support the payload 10. Secondary reference Denne also teaches a platform 1 that is coupled to a second end of the piston rod 22. As such, the combination of references is considered to meet the claim. The rationale to combine Denne is the same as stated above. Examiner notes components can be “coupled to” each other through intermediate elements. Specifically, the claim element of “coupled to” is given a scope commensurate with “connected to” - The Federal Court has set forth wherein "connected to" includes being joined together, but can also be broader than that, wherein two things can be "connected" to each other by way of their common connection to something else. See Kreis AG v. American Hospital Supply Corp. (DC NIII) 192 USPQ 585.
With respect to claim 6, secondary reference Denne teaches wherein the weight bearing actuator comprises a buffer tank 36 defining a dead volume in fluid communication with the volume of the pneumatic cylinder (via port 31; column 3, lines 35-37; Fig. 1). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 8, secondary reference Denne teaches wherein the piston rod oscillates at its first end relative to the pneumatic cylinder by applying pressurized air into opening 31. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above. When the piston oscillates, it will pressurize the volume of pneumatic cylinder of the weight bearing actuator. See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber).
With respect to claim 9, Hodgett teaches wherein each positioning actuator assembly of the plurality of positioning actuator assemblies comprises a crank 18 coupled to the rotor 16 and pivotably coupled to the connecting rod 20 (column 2, lines 32-33). Hodgett fails to expressly teach wherein the crank 18 is pivotably coupled to the rotor 16. However, Hodgett teaches that it is known to pivotably couple a connecting rod 22 directly to the rotor 16. A person having ordinary skill in the art, at time of applicant’s effective filing, would have found it obvious to pivotably couple the crank 18 to the rotor 16. This will provide some give to the connection therebetween, which will expectantly mitigate cracking and limit unwanted vibrations.
With respect to claim 10, Hodgett teaches wherein the crank 18 is directly coupled to the rotor (column 2, lines 32-33). As such, these components are considered to be “integrally formed”. See Section 2 above.
With respect to claim 13, Hodgetts teaches a controller 50 configured to control operation of the plurality of positioning actuator assemblies (column 3). Denne teaches a controller configured to control operation of the weight bearing actuator (column 3, lines 27-29). As such, the combined teachings meet the claim limitations. The rationale to combine Denne is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 14, Denne, cited above for the weight actuator assembly, teaches wherein the controller is configured to pressurize the volume of the pneumatic cylinder 20 to a pressure (column 3, lines 27-43). This will reduce the weight or load applied to the positioning actuators, which will have the effect of reducing the forces applied to the positioning actuators. Since less force is applied to the positioning actuators, less power, and ultimately, less current will be required. As such, the structure provided by Hodgetts and Denne is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations - See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber. The rationale to combine Denne is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 17, Hodgetts et al. teaches a motion simulation system 6, comprising: a base 12; a platform 24 movable relative to the base 12 and configured to support a payload 10; a weight bearing actuator 30, and a plurality of positioning actuator assemblies, wherein each positioning actuator assembly comprises: a positioning actuator 14 coupled to the base 12, the positioning actuator 14 comprising a stator and a rotor (i.e. motor shaft 16) configured to rotate relative to the stator (column 2, lines 25-36); and a connecting rod 22 comprising a first end pivotably connected to the rotor (i.e. shaft 16) and a second end pivotably coupled to the platform 24 (column 2, lines 34-38), wherein the rotor (i.e. motor shaft 16) is configured to rotate to translate the connecting rod 22 and position the payload 10 supported by the weight bearing actuator 30. Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Hodgetts does not expressly teach the claimed structure of the weight bearing actuator. Examiner cites to analogous art reference Denne for its express teaching of a weight bearing actuator 4A comprising the following: a pneumatic cylinder 20 pivotably coupled (via “universal joints” – Fig. 1) to a motion system base 12/42 (Fig.’s 1, 3), wherein the pneumatic cylinder 20 defines a cavity (Fig. 3); and a piston rod 22 defining a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is disposed at least partially within the cavity of the pneumatic cylinder 20 to define a volume of the pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 3), the second end is pivotably coupled to platform 1 (Fig. 1), and the volume of pneumatic cylinder is configured to be pressurized to support the platform 1 (column 3, lines 23-43; See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the weight bearing actuator of Hodgetts with the weight bearing actuator of Denne. The rationale to combine is set forth in Denne – “counter balancing the weight” of the payload as though it is “supported on a very soft spring system” – column 3, lines 40-43. The proposed combination has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary function of Hodgetts is not frustrated by the combination.
Lastly, Hodgetts discloses only a single weight bearing actuator as opposed to a “plurality” of weight bearing actuators as claimed. However, the Federal Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, providing an additional weight bearing assembly comprising the structure of Denne would have the expected result of increasing the damping effect or soft spring effect. This would be exceedingly useful for heavier payloads that don’t have symmetrical weight distribution about the platform. This would not adversely affect the primary purpose of Hodgetts since the weight bearing assemblies of Denne are capable of changing its length, thus being configured to work congruently with the position actuators. Moreover, applicant does not provide criticality to the number of weight-bearing actuators being two or more.
With respect to claim 18, Hodgetts et al. teaches three positioning actuator assemblies, and a single weight bearing actuator assembly. In view of the combination of Hodgetts as modified above in the rejection of claim 17, the combined art teaches three position actuator assemblies and two weight actuator assemblies. However, the Federal Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza. Applicant does not provide criticality to the number of position actuator assemblies being twice as much as the weight bearing actuator assemblies. Adding an additional positioning actuator assembly would provide the expected result of adding a degree of freedom of movement of the simulation platform. Supplemental to this, in an alternative embodiment, Hodgetts expressly teaches wherein additional position actuator assemblies can be used (Fig. 4). As Hodgetts explains in reference to this alternative embodiment, the additional motors are added to provide additional degrees of freedom (column 2, lines 42-49). The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Hodgett expressly contemplates additional motor assemblies (i.e. position actuator assemblies).
With respect to claim 21, Hodgett, in the cited embodiment, teaches wherein the platform is movable in three degrees of freedom relative to the base (column 2, lines 42-45). However, in an alternative embodiment, Hodgett teaches wherein the platform is movable in six degrees of freedom relative to the base (column 2, lines 45-49). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide additional degrees of freedom of movement of the platform to better simulate real life motion.
With respect to claim 22, Hodgett, in the cited embodiment, fails to expressly teach wherein the platform comprises a plurality of legs, However, in an alternative embodiment, Hodgett teaches wherein the platform comprises a plurality legs (Fig. 4). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the frame cited in the embodiment of Fig. 4. The rationale to combine is to use a known frame structure to support a payload, while also providing convenient attachments to the supporting rods connecting the platform to the base. Denne shows wherein the second end of the piston rod is coupled to the platform (the rationale to combine is the same as stated above). Regarding the limitation that the second end of the piston rod of each weight bearing actuator of the plurality of weight bearing actuators is coupled to a respective leg of the plurality of legs of the platform, examiner notes this feature is taught by the combined art since components can be “coupled to” each other through intermediate elements. Specifically, the claim element of “coupled to” is given a scope commensurate with “connected to” - The Federal Court has set forth wherein "connected to" includes being joined together, but can also be broader than that, wherein two things can be "connected" to each other by way of their common connection to something else. See Kreis AG v. American Hospital Supply Corp. (DC NIII) 192 USPQ 585.
With respect to claim 23, secondary reference Denne teaches wherein the weight bearing actuator comprises a buffer tank 36 defining a dead volume in fluid communication with the volume of the pneumatic cylinder (via port 31; column 3, lines 35-37; Fig. 1). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 25, secondary reference Denne teaches wherein the piston rod oscillates at its first end relative to the pneumatic cylinder by applying pressurized air into opening 31. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above. When the piston oscillates, it will pressurize the volume of pneumatic cylinder of the weight bearing actuator. See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber).
With respect to claim 26, Hodgett teaches wherein each positioning actuator assembly of the plurality of positioning actuator assemblies comprises a crank 18 coupled to the rotor 16 and pivotably coupled to the connecting rod 20 (column 2, lines 32-33). Hodgett fails to expressly teach wherein the crank 18 is pivotably coupled to the rotor 16. However, Hodgett teaches that it is known to pivotably couple a connecting rod 22 directly to the rotor 16. A person having ordinary skill in the art, at time of applicant’s effective filing, would have found it obvious to pivotably couple the crank 18 to the rotor 16. This will provide some give to the connection therebetween, which will expectantly mitigate cracking and limit unwanted vibrations.
With respect to claim 27, Hodgett teaches wherein the crank 18 is directly coupled to the rotor (column 2, lines 32-33). As such, these components are considered to be “integrally formed”. See Section 2 above.
With respect to claim 30, Hodgetts teaches a controller 50 configured to control operation of the plurality of positioning actuator assemblies (column 3). Denne teaches a controller configured to control operation of the weight bearing actuator (column 3, lines 27-29). As such, the combined teachings meet the claim limitations. The rationale to combine Denne is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 31, Denne, cited above for the weight actuator assembly, teaches wherein the controller is configured to pressurize the volume of the pneumatic cylinder 20 to a pressure (column 3, lines 27-43). This will reduce the weight or load applied to the positioning actuators, which will have the effect of reducing the forces applied to the positioning actuators. Since less force is applied to the positioning actuators, less power, and ultimately, less current will be required. As such, the structure provided by Hodgetts and Denne is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations - See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber. The rationale to combine Denne is the same as stated above.
5. Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgetts et al. (US Pat. No. 6,634,885) in view of Denne (US Pat. No. 5,605,462) and further in view of Cavanaugh (US Pat. No. 2,965,372).
With respect to claims 7 and 24, secondary reference Denne teaches wherein a range of motion of the first end of the piston rod relative to the cavity of the pneumatic cylinder defines a swept volume (inherent). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above. Denne does not expressly disclose the numeric values for the dead volume or swept volume, and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the dead volume is between approximately 100% to approximately 500% of the swept volume. However, analogous art reference Cavanaugh teaches that it is known in the art to size a dead volume of a buffer tank 26, 27 and a swept volume such that the dead volume is between approximately 100% to approximately 500% of the swept volume (Fig. 1; column 10, lines 30-38). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a large buffer tank volume as taught by Cavanaugh. The rationale to combine is to provide improved damping and control resonance frequencies.
6. Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgetts et al. (US Pat. No. 6,634,885) in view of Denne (US Pat. No. 5,605,462) and further in view of Menard et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0197095).
With respect to claims 15 and 32, Hodgetts inherently teaches wherein the controller is configured to control operation of each respective positioning actuator of the plurality of positioning actuator assemblies at a frequency of up to a value, but fails to disclose this numeric value. Analogous art reference Menard et al. teaches that itis known to control operation of a positioning actuator at a frequency of up to 1000 Hz (paragraphs [0032], [0060]; See also claim 18; Per MPEP 2131.03, prior art that teaches a range with sufficient specificity overlapping the claimed rang anticipates the claim). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to operate the position actuators at frequency up to 1000 Hz, as taught by Menard et al. The rationale to combine is to provide sensory feedback to a user positioned on the payload, allowing the user to be fully immersed into the experience.
7. Claims 16 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgetts et al. (US Pat. No. 6,634,885) in view of Denne (US Pat. No. 5,605,462) and further in view of Surnilla (US Pub. No. 2009/0325756).
With respect to claims 16 and 33, Hodgetts does not expressly teach an electrical storage device as claimed. However, Sunilla, directed to the analogous art of electrical actuators, teaches the following to be known in the art: an electrical storage device (i.e. capacitor) configured to receive energy generated by a actuator (paragraph [0014]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a capacitor to the system of Hodgetts. The rationale to combine is to make the system more energy efficient. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation as the position actuator of Hodgetts is an electric motor, which is suitable to work with a capacitor.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4, 11-12, 19-20, 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711