DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 09/26/2023. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Element 420: “Rotation means.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0048], [0049], and [0050] of the Specification recites “sequentially engage with reach with each other” and Examiner suggests amending to recite “each” instead.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “rotation means” in claim 1, and “lever support means” in claims 13 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the Specification does not show adequate enough the structure for the claimed “rotation means.” Thus, the disclosure is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
A further view of the Specification recites that “the lever support means 31 is a means by which the upper support 30 may move freely from the lower support 20 and the upper support 30 and the lower support 20 are connected to each other (recited in ¶53)” and that “the upper support 30 is movably coupled to the lower support 20 through the support means (recited in ¶54).”
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 contains 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. The recites a “rotation means” which is not found in the drawings or described in the instant application’s detailed description. The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
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 1-16 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.
Claim limitation “rotation means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong Won Lee (KR 102014277 B1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Ji Sun Lee et al. (WO 2020091134 A1; hereinafter Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses A swing motion plate (see at least: Lee [Abstract]), comprising: a first stage including a rectangular frame formed by a plurality of first frames and arc-shaped first guide (FIG. 4 shows four stages of the swing motion plate. The first stage (element 100 in FIG. 4) includes a rectangular frame formed by a plurality of first frames and an arc-shaped first guide), respectively;
a second stage including a rectangular frame formed by a plurality of second frames and inserted into the first guide holes, and formed on a pair of the second frames arranged in the X-axis direction, the pair of the second frames arranged in a Y-axis direction being formed with arc-shaped second guide holes (FIG. 4 shows four stages of the swing motion plate. The second stage (element 200 in FIG. 4) includes a rectangular frame that is formed by a plurality of second frames that would be inserted into the first stage into the layers to form and move (FIG. 13 shows the movements) in the X or Y axis), respectively;
a third stage having a predetermined area, a pair of third frames arranged in the Y-axis direction of the first plane respectively, and second protrusions having a predetermined area stacked on an upper side of the second stage, inserted into the second guide holes, and formed on the third frames (FIG. 4 shows four stages of the swing motion plate. The third stage (element 300 in FIG. 4) includes a rectangular frame that is formed by a plurality of second frames that would be inserted into the first stage into the layers to form and move (FIG. 13 shows the movements) in the X or Y axis; and
a fourth stage including a second plane having a predetermined area and a rotation means stacked on an upper side of the third stage and rotating the second plane about a central axis (FIG. 4 shows four stages of the swing motion plate. The fourth stage (element 400 in FIG. 4) includes a second plane (the surface of the stage) and the “rotation means” shown in Fig. 5 where it is connected to the upper side of the third stage and rotating in a center gravity as shown in FIG. 2).
However, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the first stage having holes formed in a pair of the first frames arranged in an X-axis direction, first protrusions having a predetermined area stacked on an upper side of the first stage and a first plane.
Lee at al. teaches a motion system that performs a multi-degree-of-freedom operation on a plane which includes holes formed in a pair of the first frames arranged in an X-axis direction (FIG. 3 shows holes formed in a pair arranged in the x-axis direction around the “shape” of the motion system), first protrusions having a predetermined area stacked on an upper side of the first stage (first protrusions shown in the outline of FIG. 3 where the second stage has to align to properly for stacking (from the bottom layer to the top the protrusion is shown in the layers)) and a first plane (each stage has a plane (surface) from the first stage to the third stage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added limitations taught by Lee et al. to the swing motion simulator disclosed by Lee for the added benefit of having a motion simulator system that is secure and displays pitch, raw, and roll motions without coming loose.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further teaches wherein the first stage includes a first worm extending a predetermined length in the Y-axis direction, one end of the first worm being fixed to the first frame, and the other end of the first worm having a thread formed along a length, and the second stage includes a first worm wheel that is formed at a position corresponding to the first worm while having a length, a lower end of the first worm being formed in an arc shape and being a tooth engaging with the first worm (a first plate gear (112, 212a) formed in one of the first recessed portion (101) of the base portion (100) and the first protruding portion (202) of the first swing portion (200), and a first circular gear (111, 211a) formed in the other of the first recessed portion (101) and the first protruding portion (202) to mesh with the first plate gear (112, 212a) (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0047])).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further teaches wherein the first worm further includes a motor, and the first worm rotates on its axis by the motor, and engages with the first worm wheel so that the first protrusion moves within the first guide hole and the second stage performs roll rotation (The above driving motors are formed with a first driving motor (110), a second driving motor (220), and a third driving motor (320) for each section, and can control the first swing section (200), the second swing section (300), and the rotation section (400) respectively, and can also drive them simultaneously. Because each part can be controlled, the movement of the simulator (1000) can be made more realistic and real, and the user can feel the movement in the actual field by increasing the understanding of the content desired. (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0044-0045]); the motion simulator of the present invention can be seen performing roll motion and pitch motion simultaneously (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0072])).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee et al. further suggests wherein the second stage is formed to be smaller than an area of the first stage, and an outer side of the second frame is stacked in contact with an inner side of the first frame (it is important that such a motion platform be compact while providing various degrees of freedom. That is, the motion platform must be able to implement complex horizontal plane motion, lifting motion, yawing, pitching, and rolling motion, while still having a small size (recited in at least: Lee et al. paragraph [0006])). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not have only made the stages smaller as taught by Lee et al., but to also have different sizes so that they can move and fit into each other.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee et al. further suggests wherein the first worm wheel penetrates through a first shaft connecting an inner side of the pair of the second frames arranged on an X axis and is coupled to the second stage (the placement hole (3114) may be formed to penetrate the upper plate (3113), and the penetration portion (3116) and the opening portion (3118) may be formed to penetrate the lower plate (3111) as illustrated in FIG. 24 (recited in at least: Lee et al. paragraph [0210])).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further teaches wherein the second stage includes a second worm that extends a predetermined length in the X-axis direction, one end of the second worm being fixed to the first frame, and the other end of the second worm having a thread formed along a length, and the third stage includes a second worm wheel that is formed at a position corresponding to the second worm while having a length, a lower end of the second worm being formed in an arc shape and being a tooth engaging with the second worm (driving motors are formed with a first driving motor (110), a second driving motor (220), and a third driving motor (320) for each section, and can control the first swing section (200), the second swing section (300), and the rotation section (400) respectively, and can also drive them simultaneously. Because each part can be controlled, the movement of the simulator (1000) can be made more realistic and real, and the user can feel the movement in the actual field by increasing the understanding of the content desired (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0045])).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further teaches wherein the second worm further includes a motor, and the second worm rotates on its axis by the motor, and engages with the second worm wheel so that the second protrusion moves within the second guide hole and the third stage performs pitch rotation (Figure 9 (b) shows the swing motion simulator (1000) of the present invention with the second swing part (300) moving. The second swing part (300) can be seen moving in one direction and another direction for simulation. In Fig. 9 (b), the second driving motor (220) is driven, and since the second depression (201) has a curved shape, the second swing part (300) moves as if sliding along the curve (recited in at least Lee paragraph 0071])).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee et al. further suggests wherein the third stage is formed to be smaller than an area of the second stage, and an outer side of the third frame is stacked in contact with an inner side of the second frame (it is important that such a motion platform be compact while providing various degrees of freedom. That is, the motion platform must be able to implement complex horizontal plane motion, lifting motion, yawing, pitching, and rolling motion, while still having a small size (recited in at least: Lee et al. paragraph [0006])). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not have only made the stages smaller as taught by Lee et al., but to also have different sizes so that they can move and fit into each other.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee et al. further suggests wherein the second worm wheel penetrates through a second shaft connecting an inner side of the pair of the third frames and is coupled to the third stage (In this case, the placement hole (3114) can be formed to simultaneously penetrate the outer plate (3113a) and the reinforcing plate (3113b) as shown in FIGS. 25 and 26, and the receiving portion (3115) can be formed only on the reinforcing plate (3113b) side (recited in at least: Lee et al. paragraph [0215])).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further suggests wherein the fourth stage includes a third worm wheel arranged in a circular shape having a predetermined diameter on a lower surface of the second plane, and the third stage includes a third worm extending a predetermined length and arranged at any one end in a direction in which a longitudinal direction is tangent to the third worm wheel in the first plane (first plate gear (112, 212a) formed in one of the first recessed portion (101) of the base portion (100) and the first protruding portion (202) of the first swing portion (200), and a first circular gear (111, 211a) formed in the other of the first recessed portion (101) and the first protruding portion (202) to mesh with the first plate gear (112, 212a) (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0047])).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further suggests wherein the third worm further includes a motor, and the third worm rotates on its axis by the motor and engages with the third worm wheel so that the third stage performs yaw rotation (rotating by a third driving motor (310) and a driving gear (311). The rotation of the rotating part (400) will be described with reference to FIG. 7 (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0060])).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further suggests wherein a diameter of the third worm wheel is smaller than that of the first plane (And a groove is formed in one of the second recessed portion (201) of the first swing portion (200) and the second protruding portion (301) of the second swing portion (300), and a rotation control portion (10) protruding toward the groove is formed in the other of the second recessed portion (201) and the second protruding portion (301) (recited in at least: Lee paragraph [0064])). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill int the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the worm gar smaller than the first plane so that it fits.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee et al. in further view of Jae Sub Han (KR 20090104207 A; hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Lee et al. teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Lee further teaches a swing motion plate having the first stage, the second stage, the third stage, and the fourth stage stacked thereon and coupled to each other (FIG. 3 of Lee shows a swing motion plage having the four stages stacked and coupled to each other). However, Lee in view of Lee et al., do not explicitly teach a lower support that is supported on a ground and includes a lever support means freely rotating at an upper end; an upper support having a length in one direction, a center of the upper support being connected to the lever support means, and moving from the lower support by the lever support means for the swing motion plate to be connected to.
Han teaches a lower support that is supported on a ground and includes a lever support means freely rotating at an upper end (FIG. 6 shows a lower support that is supported on a ground (element 100) with a lever support means freely rotating (element 200 in FIG 6)); an upper support having a length in one direction, a center of the upper support being connected to the lever support means, and moving from the lower support by the lever support means (FIG. 6 shows an upper support having a length in one direction (element 330) they are connected to the lever support means and can move from the lower support by the lever support means as shown in FIG. 7). The swing motion plate is able to connect to the support system through element 323.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a support system as taught by Han into the motion swing system of Lee and Lee et al. for the added benefit of further simulating testing how the motions are moving in an aircraft system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee et al. and Han in further view of GoBilda “Pinion Gears” 05/18/2022 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220518194044/https://www.gobilda.com/pinion-gears/; hereinafter GoBilda).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Lee et al., in further view of Han teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Han further suggests wherein the upper support is connected to the swing motion plate through (a mounting unit 320 and its connected to the connecting shaft 320b), and moves in a longitudinal direction of the upper support (FIG.7 shows the movement in a longitudinal direction).
However, Han doesn’t explicitly teach that the mounting unit is a rack and pinion gear structure. GoBilda teaches that a pinion gears are able to mount on a shaft.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pinion gear with its associated rack
Claims not Rejected by Prior Art
Claims 15-16 do not currently have a prior art rejection applied to them; however, they have 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections applied. The closest prior art made of record for claims 15 and 15 is Han. Han does further teach where in the upper support includes “a cable and motor” required in claim 15. Han also does not further teach wherein the lever support means includes “a fourth worm wheel arranged in a circular shape” as required in claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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 Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715