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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the Drawings has been withdrawn; however, a new objection to the Specification has been presented, as discussed in detail below.
The objections to claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 03/17/26. However, the rejection of claim 6 has been maintained, as presented below. Additionally, new objections to claims 1 and 7 have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as shown in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term “computing unit” is a component of a system that incorporates a processor and memory, while an “input unit” is an interface device in a cockpit used by an operator to enter data, commands, or signals into a system of an aircraft (Remarks, filed 03/17/26, pp. 8-9). However, the term "computing unit" when read in light of the Specification does not connote sufficient, definite structure. There is no mention in the Specification of a processor and/or memory such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine the computing unit to be a hardware component of a system, as opposed to software for example. See MPEP 2181(I)(A) (citing Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 99 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the claim term "computing unit", when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, wherein the Specification explicitly defined the computing unit as a “commercially available personal computer or workstation” which includes “at least one processor and at least one data memory”)).
Moreover, the Specification does not disclose what the input unit comprises (e.g., a keyboard, a touchscreen, a mouse). Accordingly, the Specification fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitation, such as framework to perform the claimed function(s).
For these reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are maintained, as presented below.
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in part in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 03/17/26. However, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and correspondingly of the dependent claims, is maintained because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of the “computing unit”, as well as of the “input unit”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Floreano et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0258239 A1), as presented in detail below.
Applicant argues that Antraygue is directed to a simulator, which is not a system directed to flight control of a real aircraft (Remarks, filed 03/17/26, p. 12). Examiner notes that the claims recite “A system for cockpit operation by an operator for flight control of an aircraft”. The claims do not require a real aircraft (see further Specification, p. 3, ln. 5-6, “A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for cockpit operation by an operator, in particular, for the cockpit of a real or simulated aircraft […].” & p. 4, ln. 6-7, “The term cockpit also refers to the cockpit of a (flight) simulator.”). Accordingly, the cited prior art reads on this limitation, as an aircraft can be a simulated aircraft.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/17/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: p. 12, ln. 12-28.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein exoskeleton arms comprise actuators” recited in claim 1, ln. 6 should likely read “wherein the exoskeleton arms comprise actuators”;
“the exoskeleton thus” recited in claim 1, ln. 7 should likely read “the exoskeleton arms thus”;
“according to which the actuators” recited in claim 6, ln. 5 should likely read “according to which of the actuators; and
“the control elements” recited in claim 7, ln. 3 should likely read “the virtual control elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“virtualization unit” as recited in claims 1-2;
“computing unit” as recited in claims 1-8; and
“input unit” as recited in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Specification, p. 4, ln. 26-29; p. 9, ln. 33-p. 10, ln. 1; p. 11, ln. 15-18, the virtualization unit includes a helmet display, and shows the virtual control elements of the cockpit to the pilot via his/her helmet visor).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 recite a “computing unit” configured/further configured to perform function(s), however, the Specification fails to disclose what the computing unit comprises (e.g., a component, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a “full” computer (i.e., desktop computer, laptop, smartphone, or the like), something else?). It is noted that the Specification fails to describe any components/hardware of the “computing unit” (e.g., a processor, memory, the like) and/or functions of a computer (how it works) (e.g., store and/or execute a computer program product) such that the term “computing unit” would connote structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2181(I)(A) (citing Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 99 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the claim terms "modernizing device" and "computing unit" when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph))). Accordingly, the Specification fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitation, such as framework to perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 7 is similarly further rejected for the recitation of the term “input unit” configured to perform function(s), wherein the Specification does not disclose what the input unit comprises (e.g., a keyboard, a touchscreen, a mouse, something else?). Accordingly, the Specification fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitation, such as framework to perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, claim 7 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites in part “the two gloves connected to the computing unit via a data link”. However, the Specification does not disclose a data link. Therefore, there is a lack of written description for the claimed limitation.
Claims 5-6 are rejected for similar reasoning (see claim 5, ln. 2-3, “the actuators are connected to the computing unit via a data link”; claim 6, ln. ln. 2, “an input unit connected to the computing unit via a data link”).
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-8 are indefinite because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of the “computing unit”, as well as of the “input unit”. Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antraygue (U.S. Pub. 2020/0365050 A1) in view of Whittington et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0094595 A1) (hereinafter “Whittington”) and Floreano et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0258239 A1) (hereinafter “Floreano”).
Regarding claim 1, Antraygue discloses – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 – a system for cockpit operation by an operator for flight control of an aircraft (Fig. 1; [0002]; [0008]; [0019], simulating pilot controls in a cockpit simulator), the system comprising:
two exoskeleton arms with each of the exoskeleton arms comprising a plurality of kinematic degrees of freedom, wherein the exoskeleton arms are configured to accommodate respective operator arms (Figs. 1-3; [0008]; [0020]; [0024-0027], one or more arms having a plurality of ranges of motions and trajectories and positioned related to a pilot’s arms for operation by the pilot);
a virtualization unit configured to display to the operator virtual control elements of the cockpit (Fig. 1; [0008]; [0022]; [0024]; [0028]; [0030], where the simulator cockpit is displayed to the pilot via a virtual reality (VR) headset worn by the pilot, which includes positions of the arms and thus corresponding controls/grips); and
a computing unit configured to determine desired positions of the virtual control elements of the cockpit depending on current positions of the respective exoskeleton arms, and further configured to actuate the virtualization unit to display to the operator the virtual control elements in their desired positions (Fig. 1; [0008]; [0021-0024], wherein a computer (e.g., flight computer 6) receives and converts the arm positions, and thus corresponding controls/grips, to flight simulation graphics for display by the VR headset).
Antraygue may not explicitly further disclose transmitting information about the current positions of the respective exoskeleton arms and/or the desired positions of the virtual control elements to another computer for flight control of the aircraft. Rather, as noted above, the flight computer 6 (computing unit) determines the desired positions of the virtual control elements of the cockpit depending on the arm positions, and converts the positions to flight simulation graphics for display by the VR headset (Fig. 1; [0008]; [0021-0023]). However, Whittington, directed to simulation of a flight deck (cockpit) ([0002]), teaches the use of multiple computers in the simulation of the flight deck (Fig. 1; [0004]; [0028]; [0049]; [0053-0055]; [0065-0066]; [0068]; [0080-0091], wherein data used to generate panels (e.g., instrument displays) and controls is generated by one computer and transmitted to other computer(s) for the generation and control of the virtual flight deck (cockpit simulation)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize another computer (flight computer) for the purpose of flight control or control of a simulation, as taught by Whittington, based on the received and/or generated data by the computing unit in the invention of Antraygue (information about the current positions of the respective exoskeleton arms and/or the desired positions of the virtual control elements) in order to, for example, enhance performance and reliability of the system by distributing tasks across different systems to avoid slowing down the simulation process and maintaining realism.
Additionally, Antraygue may not further explicitly disclose wherein the exoskeleton arms are configured to support respective operator arms therein allowing the operator to put the operator arms down in the exoskeleton, wherein the exoskeleton arms comprise actuators supporting the operator in making desired movements against accelerations of the aircraft occurring during flight, the exoskeleton thus mitigating fatigue of the operator. However, Floreano, directed to a wearable jacket/exoskeleton for controlling a device with gestures of the wearer and which provides haptic feedback within flight simulators and exoskeletons ([0028]; [0031]; [0034]), teaches these limitations ([0033-0034]; [0042], wherein a wearable jacker (exoskeleton) includes arm support actuators, and where the importance of supporting the arms to prevent fatigue (e.g., when flying drones) is noted). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the robotic or haptic arms in Anraygue for the exoskeleton arms as taught by Floreano in order to avoid fatigue and correspondingly keep the operator immersed in the flight (Floreano, [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Antraygue discloses wherein pilot controls used in a flight deck or cockpit of an aircraft include levers, handles, joysticks, etc. for controlling the pitch and roll axes (torque dynamics), as well as thrust controlled by levers moved forwards/backwards ([0003]). Antraygue, directed to simulating pilot controls (Fig. 1; [0008]), further discloses wherein grips are mounted on the ends of exoskeleton arms to simulate the part of the control that the pilot would hold (e.g., thrust lever, etc.), and wherein the positions of the exoskeleton arms, and thus the corresponding controls/grips, are transmitted to a flight computer and converted to flight simulation graphics (Figs. 1-3; [0022]; [0024]). However, Antraygue may not further explicitly disclose wherein the exoskeleton arms include respective position sensors configured to determine and transmit to the computing unit a respective current value for each of their kinematic degrees of freedom, the computing unit being further configured to: use the current values of the degrees of freedom to determine a first position of a first predefined reference point in an area of a distal end of a first exoskeleton arm in relation to the cockpit and further to determine a second position of a second predefined reference point in an area of a distal end of a second exoskeleton arm in relation to the cockpit; actuate the virtualization unit to display the virtual control elements of the cockpit comprising a first control element to manually control torque dynamics of the aircraft associated with the cockpit and a second control element to manually set a thrust position for the operator, such that a current position of the first control element correlates with the first position of the first predefined reference point of the first exoskeleton arm, and such that a current position of the second control element correlates with the second position of the second predefined reference point of the second exoskeleton arm; and transmit to the flight computer the respective current positions of the virtual control elements or respective positions of the reference points for the flight control of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, Floreano, directed to a wearable jacket/exoskeleton for controlling a device with gestures of the wearer and which provides haptic feedback within flight simulators and exoskeletons ([0028]; [0031]; [0034]), teaches wherein inertial measurement unit sensors are mounted on arms of the exoskeleton for sensing position of a user, and gyroscopes are attached to upper arm portions for detecting additional movement information of the user (Figs. 6A-6B; [0015]; [0031-0032]; [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize position sensors mounted on the exoskeleton arms to detect values of kinematic degrees of freedom of the arms, and correspondingly, positions of the arms, as taught by Floreano, on the arms comprising the control elements (e.g., levers, handles, joysticks, etc. for controlling the pitch and roll axes (torque dynamics), as well as thrust controlled by levers moved forwards/backwards) of Antraygue in order to accurately detect positions of the arms and of the control elements (grips) mounted to the ends of the exoskeleton arms for the simulation of the cockpit/pilot controls.
Moreover, as noted above, Antraygue may not explicitly disclose the use of a flight computer for the purpose of flight control or control of the simulation. However, Whittington teaches the use of multiple computers in the simulation of the flight deck (Fig. 1; [0004]; [0028]; [0049]; [0053-0055]; [0065-0066]; [0068]; [0080-0091], wherein the data used to generate panels (e.g., instrument displays) and controls, which may change as the aircraft changes and/or based on user input, is generated by one computer and transmitted to other computer(s) for the generation and control of the virtual flight deck (cockpit simulation)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second computer (flight computer) for receiving the controls data (respective current positions of the virtual control elements) for the purpose of flight control or control of the simulation, as taught by Whittington, in order to enhance performance and reliability of the system by distributing tasks across different systems to avoid slowing down the simulation process and maintaining realism.
Regarding claim 3, Antraygue further discloses converting positions of the pilot’s arms to flight simulation graphics on a screen in front of the pilot and/or virtual reality headset worn by the pilot, wherein the pilot operates the controls observing the flight simulator graphics on the screen ([0022]; [0028]). However, Antraygue may not further explicitly disclose wherein the computing unit is further configured to monitor the respective positions of the reference points relative to the cockpit to determine whether the reference points move away from at least on predefined area around displaying virtual control elements, such that the operator is capable of moving the operator’s hand and a respective virtual exoskeleton arm so as to operate virtually displayed operating elements in order to actuate subsystems of the aircraft and that the displayed virtual control elements remain in their current positions when the operator moves the operator’s arm, which is accommodated in one of the exoskeleton arms, toward a virtually displayed operating element of the cockpit, which is virtually displayed by the virtualization unit, with predefined spatial coordinates relative to the cockpit. However, Whittington teaches where controls (i.e., virtual operating elements and/or control elements – e.g., flight column, control stick, switch, knob, and/or other controls which the user may operate) of a virtual flight deck may be manipulated through user input which is identified through gesture (i.e., hand movement) recognition, and wherein the controls are assigned a particular location during presentation of the flight deck (Figs. 4 & 8; [0065]; [0067]; [0093]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize determined hand/arm movement towards flight simulation graphics, as taught by Whittington, in the invention of Antraygue in view of Floreano, where positions of the arms are converted to flight simulation graphics and where the pilot’s arms could be accommodated in exoskeleton arms comprising position sensors, in order to simulate user input of displayed pilot controls.
Regarding claim 5, Antraygue further discloses wherein actuators (of the exoskeleton arms/controls) are connected to the computing unit via a data link, wherein the computing unit is further configured to actuate the actuators in such a way that each of the exoskeleton arms when the operator moves a respective position of a respective one of the displayed control elements, creates artificial resistance (Fig. 1; [0021]; [0026], wherein the computer 5 sends commends to the arms to command the desired trajectory, travels, position and other parameters such as force, vibration or other factors that simulate the real “feel” of pilot controls during flight).
Regarding claim 6, Artraygue further discloses wherein the system further comprises an input unit connected to the computing unit via a data link, wherein the computing unit is further configured to virtually position the virtual control elements corresponding as a whole in their virtual representation relative to the cockpit depending on input at the input unit and to specify kinematic properties according to which the actuators of the exoskeleton arms are actuated by the computing unit to generate the artificial resistance ([0021]; [0024]; [0026], wherein the controls layout (i.e., positions of the arms, representative of positions of the control elements, which are converted to flight simulation graphics) and configuration can be set (input) in a single sitting and wherein the computer 5 sends commands to the arms to command the desired trajectory, travels, position and other parameters (e.g., force, vibration or other factors that simulate the real “feel” of pilot controls during flight) based on the settings for the arms so that the pilot experiences the kinematics and ergonomics of the pilot control for those settings).
Regarding claim 8, Artraygue further discloses wherein the computing unit is further configured to actuate the actuators of a respective exoskeleton arm in such a way that the operator experiences the artificial resistance along predefined degrees of freedom of the respective virtual control element, the resistance changeable during flight within predefined limits depending on aircraft condition or in response to an input from the operator ([0021]; [0026]; [0028], wherein the pilot will experience the kinematics and ergonomics – i.e., type of movement, length of linear travel or radius of rotation etc., and wherein the settings for the parameters (e.g., force, vibration or other factors that simulate the real “feel” of pilot controls during flight) can be adjusted based on, for example, feedback (input) from the pilot).
Regarding claim 9, Antraygue further discloses an aircraft comprising a system for cockpit operation by the operator for flight control of the aircraft according to claim 1 (Fig. 1; [0008]; [0013]; [0019], wherein the system is arranged in a cockpit simulator/environment (aircraft)).
Regarding claim 10, Antraygue further discloses wherein the exoskeleton arms are mounted on a structure of the aircraft behind a set of the operator at a height associated with shoulders of the operator ([0013]; [0020], wherein the arms may be mounted and extend from behind the pilot, above or below the seat).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antraygue in view of Whittington and Floreano, as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Boggs et al. (U.S. Pub. 2016/0093230 A1) (hereinafter “Boggs”).
Regarding claim 4, Antraygue may not further explicitly disclose, however, Boggs, directed to the simulated manipulation of virtual cockpit controls ([0024]), teaches wherein the system further comprises two gloves for the operator, each of the two gloves being configured to output haptic or tactile feedback, the two gloves connected to the computing unit via a data link, wherein the computing unit is further configured such that when the operator operates one of the virtually displayed operating elements, a glove is actuated with an operator’s virtually operating hand to output the haptic or tactile feedback (Figs. 2 & 6; [0032], wherein gloves are worn by an operator and provide tactile feedback when the operator operates virtually displayed operating elements). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate gloves worn by the pilot/operator to provide tactile feedback to the pilot based on input, as taught by Boggs, in order to provide a more realistic simulation (Boggs, [0032], where the feedback simulates that which the pilot would sense in the aircraft).
Acknowledgments
No prior art is currently provided for claim 7. As presented, the combination of all the elements of the claim do not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the claim. However, the claim remains rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, as presented in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 11,760503 B2 – This reference teaches an augmented reality flight control system which includes a virtual flight control device configured to display one or more virtual elements in a pilot’s field of view.
U.S. 5,803,738 A – This reference teaches simulating the forces associated with touching objects in a virtual reality simulator system (e.g., a flight simulator).
U.S. Pub. 2023/0386357 A1 – This reference teaches a flight simulation system which includes a head-mounted display for displaying a virtual reality image of a cockpit including operational interfaces, and detecting user interaction with the operational interfaces.
U.S. Pub. 2022/0343788 A1 – This reference teaches a system for immersive avionics training by controlling a virtual or augmented reality device to display an avionics system to a user and monitoring user commands with respect to controls of the avionics system.
U.S. Pub. 2019/0027055 A1 – This reference teaches providing simulated controls for an aircraft to a user and detecting actions by the user with the simulated controls for simulating operation of the aircraft.
U.S. Pub. 2017/0263033 A1 – This reference teaches manipulating controls within a virtual reality presentation using virtual reality hand-tracking.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights