DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 9/27/2023, clams 1-22 have been cancelled, and new claims 23-42 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 29, 33-34, and 39-42, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoglund (US 2005/0233289).
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 41-42, Hoglund discloses a mobile training simulator with means to transport the system (i.e. a semi-trailer). See paragraph 0004. Hoglund discloses wherein the system is a disaster simulation, and comprises a structure with multiple rooms, including training rooms and a control room (for simulation control as per claim 42). See paragraphs 0014, 0022, and 0026. Hoglund discloses an emergency simulation mechanism in paragraph 0025 (smoke generation, consistent with claim 29). Note that a fire can be natural or manmade.
Regarding claim 33, Hoglund discloses a window for training in paragraph 0023.
Regarding claim 34, Hoglund discloses a tunnel for escape training. See paragraphs 0019 and 0021 (either of those spaces could be reasonably interpreted as a tunnel).
Regarding claims 39-40, Hoglund discloses wherein the simulator is transported by a motorized vehicle (i.e. a semi-truck) via an attachment mechanism. See fig. 1 and note that the system is configured as a semi-trailer so as to be pulled by a semi-truck (although unlabeled, note the forward attachment point).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 24, 26, 28, and 31-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Quinn et al. (US 2008/0127579).
Regarding claims 24, 26, and 28, Hoglund discloses navigation training, including collapsible elements, as described in paragraph 0021. Hoglund does not disclose wherein aspects of the room are tiltable. However, Quinn discloses a mobile simulation system for structure training (earthquakes, etc. see paragraph 0003), that comprises such tiltable elements, as described in paragraph 0025. Note that the fulcrum structure described in the citation raises and lowers the floor (claim 26), and is a see-saw structure (claim 28). The use of such mechanisms with the Hoglund system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claims 31, Hoglund does not disclose a force applying mechanism for simulation of a trapped subject. However, this is disclosed by Quinn in paragraphs 0036 and 0032. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claim 32, Hoglund discloses navigation training with obstacles in paragraph 0019, but there is no explicit mention of removal of obstacles such as beams. However, this concept is established by Quinn, as disclosed in paragraphs 0033-0034. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Quinn et al. (US 2008/0127579) and Fromyer et al. (WO 2005/009790).
Regarding claim 25, Hoglund discloses structural simulations such as collapsing walls and ceilings (paragraph 0021) but does not disclose the use of motors and rails for motion. However, the use of such items for structural motion simulation is well-established, as is disclosed by the motion system of Fromyer in paragraph 0038. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such mechanisms with the Hoglund system, in order to provide a variety of training scenarios.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Quinn et al. (US 2008/0127579) and Ross et al. (US 2021/0225191).
Regarding claim 27, Hoglund discloses structural simulations such as collapsing walls and ceilings (paragraph 0021) but does not disclose the use of stanchions for motion. However, the use of such mechanisms for structural motion simulation is well-established, as is disclosed by the simulation system of Ross in paragraph 0030 and fig 1 (note the stanchions of actuation system 170). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such mechanisms with the Hoglund system, in order to provide a variety of training scenarios.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Ricigliano (US 6,916,250).
Regarding claim 30, Hoglund does not disclose a storm wind simulation. However, this is established with regard to simulation systems, as is disclosed by the system of Ricigliano in col. 9: 63-65. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Rowland (US 2018/0311558).
Regarding claim 35, Hoglund does not disclose a pool for water simulation. However, this is established with regard to training systems, as is disclosed by the swim training system of Rowland in paragraphs 0006 and 0036. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide water training scenarios.
Claim 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Rivet (US 2009/0188188).
Regarding claims 36-37, Hoglund does not disclose speakers or adjustable lighting. However, such is established with regard to training simulation systems, as is disclosed by the emergency training system of Rivet in paragraph 0025. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund (US 2005/0233289) in view of Patrickson et al. (US 2013/0280685).
Regarding claim 38, Hoglund does not disclose a dummy to be treated. However, this is established with regard to emergency training systems, as is disclosed by the system of Patrickson in paragraph 0035. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Hoglund system, in order to provide various training scenarios (e.g.medical).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715