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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 14-20, drawn to apparatus meant to simulate helicopter rescue using a hoist rope, classified in G09B9/00.
II. Claims 11-13, drawn to method of simulating load on a hoist rope based on the angle of deflection, classified in G09B19/00.
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the simulator of group I does not require the use of the load simulation as described in invention II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Search of group I require search strategies directed to simulator and equipment for helicopter rescue. While group II does not require such search strategies.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complet must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Johann Gest on 8/28/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-10, and 14-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 (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.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the limitation of claim 8, the Juergen, Masanari JP 2000305446 and Holger WO 2017157830 references show different hoist and hoist simulator; it fails to provide the teaching of “… passing the hoist rope through a sleeve, and the sleeve being pivotable about the fixed point of exit”. Accordingly, no rejection on claim 8 was proffered.
With respect to the limitation of claim 14, a controller for controlling according to the detected angle of the hoist rope: a length of the actuator arm between the first end and the second end; and a pivot of the actuator arm about the first end. While the Juergen reference provides a teaching of a controller that control the length of the actuator arm and a pivot of the actuator arm (see rejection above); it fails to provide evidence that control is performed on the basis of the detected angle of the hoist rope. Accordingly, the limitation of claims 14-18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 or 103.
Conclusion
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