DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art (FIG 1-2 and paragraph 42-43) and in view of Jurgen EP 3932803
Claim 1: Applicant admitted prior art provides a teaching of an apparatus for use in a training simulator for a hoist operator (see applicant’s specification paragraph 42 item 10 training simulator)
A cabin (see paragraph 42 item 16 cabin);
A boom mounted to an upper portion of the cabin for supporting an upper portion of the hoist rope (see FIG. 1 prior art boom attached to the top cabin 16);
Applicant’s admitted prior is silent on the teaching of an actuator arm mounted at a first end thereof to a lower portion of the cabin for supporting a lower portion of the hoist rope, the actuator arm being operative to adjust a position of a second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area, thereby to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope.
However, the Juergen reference provide a teaching of an actuator arm mounted at a first end thereof to a lower portion of the cabin for supporting a lower portion of the hoist rope (see FIG. 2 item 194 swivel attached to the bottom portion of the structure), the actuator arm being operative to adjust a position of a second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area, thereby to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope (see FIG. 3 showing the coverage of the arm 160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant proposed prior art with the feature of an actuator arm mounted at a first end thereof to a lower portion of the cabin for supporting a lower portion of the hoist rope, the actuator arm being operative to adjust a position of a second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area, thereby to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
With respect to applicant’s amendment of “training simulator for a hoist operator”. The examiner takes the position that the claim limitation in the preamble is not sufficient to breathe life and meaning to the preamble’s statement of purpose. In this particular case, the preamble only provide a teaching of the intended use of the limitation and does not require a structural limitation for the limitation “training simulator for a hoist operator”. In this particular case the combination of applicant’s admitted prior art and the Juergen reference without being modified can perform the limitation “training simulator for a hoist operator”.
Claim 2: Applicant’s admitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein adjusting the position of the second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area comprises: causing the actuator arm to rotate about an axis; and varying a length of the actuator arm.
However, the Jurgen reference provides a teaching of wherein adjusting the position of the second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area comprises: causing the actuator arm to rotate about an axis (see FIG 2 and FIG 3 swivel 194 and paragraph 94, 104 ); and varying a length of the actuator arm (see paragraph 75 varying the length of the boom 150, 152 and 153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Masanari reference with the feature of adjusting the position of the second end of the actuator arm within an arm coverage area comprises: causing the actuator arm to rotate about an axis and varying a length of the actuator arm, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 3: Applicant admitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein the actuator arm is configured to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope in response to a force exerted on the hoist rope.
However, the Jurgen reference provides a teaching of wherein the actuator arm is configured to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope in response to a force exerted on the hoist rope (see paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant admitted prior art with the feature of wherein the actuator arm is configured to adjust a bottom position of the hoist rope in response to a force exerted on the hoist rope, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 5: Applicant’s admitted prior art provides a teaching of wherein the cabin is movable to simulate a movement of a vehicle (see applicant’s specification paragraph 42 cabin 16 capable of moving, to simulate the movement of a helicopter).
Claim 6: Applicant admitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein each of the boom and the actuator arm is configured such that the hoist rope has a fixed point of exit therefrom.
However, the Jurgen reference wherein each of the boom and the actuator arm is configured such that the hoist rope has a fixed point of exit therefrom (see FIG. 4 fixed point of exit near load stopper 145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant admitted prior art with the feature of wherein each of the boom and the actuator arm is configured such that the hoist rope has a fixed point of exit therefrom, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 7: Applicant permitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through an aperture, the aperture permitting the hoist rope to exit in a plurality of directions.
However, the Juergen reference provides a teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through an aperture, the aperture permitting the hoist rope to exit in a plurality of directions (FIG. 4 fixed point of exit near load stopper 145 that allows the hoist rope to exit in a plurality of directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applicant’s admitted prior art with the feature of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through an aperture, the aperture permitting the hoist rope to exit in a plurality of directions, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 9: Applicant’s admitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope between a plurality of pulleys.
However, the Jurgen reference provides a teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope between a plurality of pulleys (see FIG. 4 item 142, 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant’s admitted prior art with the feature of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope between a plurality of pulleys, as taught by the Jurgen reference , in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 10: The Masanari reference is silent on the teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through a plurality of bearings.
However, the Jurgen reference provides a teaching of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through a plurality of bearings (see FIG. 4 bearing 142 and 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant admitted prior art the feature of wherein each fixed point of exit is provided by passing the hoist rope through a plurality of bearing, as taught by the Jurgen reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario with an equivalent rescue equipment that user may experience in their career.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art (FIG 1-2 and paragraph 42-43) and in view of Jurgen EP 3932803 and in view of Lin US 20140264209
Claim 4: The applicant admitted prior art is silent on the teaching of wherein each of the boom and the actuator arm includes a cable angle detector for determining an angle of the hoist rope.
However, the Lin reference provides a teaching of wherein each of the boom and the actuator arm includes a cable angle detector for determining an angle of the hoist rope (see paragraph 28-29 angel sensor 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicant admitted prior art with the feature of boom and the actuator arm includes a cable angle detector for determining an angle of the hoist rope, as taught by the Lin reference, in order to provide a realistic training scenario (see paragraph 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 allowed.
Claim 8 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the combination of the applicant’s admitted prior art and the Juergen reference is not valid since the (1) the Juergen reference would destroy the intended function of the applicant admitted prior art and (2) the Juergen reference teaches away from a boom mounted to an upper portion of the cabin.
The applicant argued that one of ordinary skilled in the art would not combine of the Juergen reference and the applicant admitted prior art. The applicant argued that the Juergen reference provide a teaching away since the Juergen reference provides limitation directed to the elimination of the dedicated “hoist operator”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limitation of “for a hoist operator” has been interpreted to be an intended use limitation that fails to breathe life and meaning to the preamble limitation. The current limitation of claim 1 does not provide a structural requirement that interacts with the preamble limitation of “…. Training simulator for hoist operator”. Furthermore, even if the examiner were to take applicant’s argument as true that the Juergen reference does not require a dedicated hoist operator; the Juergen reference does not provide a teaching of an automated hoist operation and still requires a person to operate the hoist. Hence, the combination of applicant’s admitted prior art and the Juergen reference still meet the limitation of “… a training simulator for a hoist operator”.
The applicant argued that the combination of the Jurgen and the applicant admitted prior art would destroy the functionality of the primary reference and render the invention inoperative. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence how the prior art would be inoperative or how the introduction of Juergen would render the primary reference undesirable for its intended function. As both the Juergen reference and applicant’s admitted prior art shows different method of controlling a payload. The introduction of the Juergen reference merely shows a different method of controlling such payload.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights