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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 18, 2026 for the patent application 18/690,525 originally filed on March 8, 2024. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 1-19 remain pending. The first office action of February 18, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 3/16/2026 and 5/18/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
An amendment was made to claim 16 to correct a spelling error. Therefore, the outstanding objection to claim 16 is withdrawn.
No other amendments were made. Examiner’s response to 35 USC 103 arguments are provided in the Response to Arguments below.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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:
“adjustment elements” in claims 1-3, 9-12, and 15, defined in paragraph [0052]
“belt guide elements” in claim 15, defined in paragraph [0093]
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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) because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is:
“manual adjustment means” in claim 18, because the claim further defines them as being “sliding buckles”.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minen et al. (hereinafter “Minen,” US 2019/0236970) in view of Marino (Italy patent document PA20060023, published November 4, 2007).
Regarding claim 1, Minen discloses an active belt system for transmitting loads onto a passenger or a driver during a simulation of a vehicle in a simulator (Minen [0108], “During the simulation it is therefore possible to induce on the driver C three different stresses, that is, the dynamic stresses due to the movement devices, the pressure stresses due to the inflatable pads 15 and 18, and the tension stresses due to the seatbelts 26. By suitably coordinating these stresses it is possible to optimize the drive of the movement devices 31 and increase the exposure time of the driver C to the simulation stresses.”; see also Fig. 4, seatbelts 26), comprising
a first upper belt and a second upper belt, suitable for embracing the driver, passing from shoulders down onto a chest, up to an abdomen of the driver, each of said first and second upper belts comprising, at a respective lower end, a first closing terminal and a second closing terminal, respectively (see Minen Fig. 2, showing upper belts 26 connecting to a closing terminal substantially positioned at the abdomen of the driver);
a closing mechanism, comprising a first closing seat and a second closing seat engageable with said first and second closing terminals (see Minen Fig. 2, showing a circular closing mechanism where two portions of the seatbelt connect to two separate terminals on the closing mechanism);
a connection system (see Minen Fig. 2, showing several interconnecting belts),
…
wherein said active belt system further comprises an actuation system suitable for applying a controllable load to each of said first and second upper belts and to said connection system, and wherein the actuation system comprises adjustment elements and active means, suitable for actuating said adjustment elements, so as to actively modify a length of the first upper belt and/or the second upper belt and of the connection system, thus modifying the loads transmitted to the driver (Minen [0105-0107], “According to a possible solution, the apparatus comprises seatbelts 26 associated with the seat 11 and configured to secure the driver C… The seatbelts 26 are connected to a tightening device 33 configured to selectively vary the tension of the seatbelts 26 on the driver C… The tightening device 33 is, in turn, connected to the control and command unit 20 which, in relation to the simulation conditions, releases or tightens the seatbelts 26, for example to simulate a forward or backward movement of the driver C.”).
Minen does not teach a rear belt element comprising a right end engageable with the first upper belt, and a left end engageable with the second upper belt, so that said rear belt element is suitable for embracing the driver passing from a back of the driver; side belts, joined to the rear belt element in any point between said left and right ends.
However, Marino discloses a rear belt element comprising a right end engageable with the first upper belt, and a left end engageable with the second upper belt, so that said rear belt element is suitable for embracing the driver passing from a back of the driver; side belts, joined to the rear belt element in any point between said left and right ends (see Marino Figs. 1 and 2, showing a belt system with a strap that goes behind the wearer, connects to the upper belts, and embraces the wearer).
Marino is analogous to Minen, as both are drawn to the art of belt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen, to include a rear belt element comprising a right end engageable with the first upper belt, and a left end engageable with the second upper belt, so that said rear belt element is suitable for embracing the driver passing from a back of the driver; side belts, joined to the rear belt element in any point between said left and right ends, as taught by Marino, since it combines the prior art elements of the back belts with front belts according to know methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Minen in view of Marino discloses wherein each of said first and second upper belts comprises, at a respective upper end a first coupling terminal and a second coupling terminal, respectively, said first and second coupling terminals being suitable for being fastened to a frame of the simulator or to one of the adjustment elements (see Minen Fig. 3, showing the upper ends of the upper belts coupled to a horizontal terminal, which is attached to the tightening device 33, which is one of the adjustment elements).
Regarding claim 3, Minen in view of Marino discloses wherein each of the side belts is suitable for being constrained, at a respective free end, to one of the adjustment elements, and wherein the active means are suitable for actuating said adjustment elements, so as to actively modify a length of each of the side belts (see Minen Fig. 3, showing lower belts extending from the sides of the closing mechanism to the back of the seat and attached to the tightening device 33).
Regarding claim 4, Minen does not teach wherein the rear belt element is a single belt element extending along a preferential extension direction between said left and right ends.
However, Marino discloses wherein the rear belt element is a single belt element extending along a preferential extension direction between said left and right ends (see Marino Figs. 1 and 2, showing a rear belt element going behind the driver that is a single belt element extending to the left and right sides).
Marino is analogous to Minen, as both are drawn to the art of belt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen, to include wherein the rear belt element is a single belt element extending along a preferential extension direction between said left and right ends, as taught by Marino, since it combines the prior art elements of the back belts with front belts according to know methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Minen in view of Marino discloses wherein the rear belt element comprises multiple belts extending on mutually parallel preferential extension directions and between said left and right ends, so that with said first and second upper belts, said multiple belts identify a rear surface suitable for coming into contact with the driver's back and hips.
However, Marino discloses wherein the rear belt element comprises multiple belts extending on mutually parallel preferential extension directions and between said left and right ends, so that with said first and second upper belts, said multiple belts identify a rear surface suitable for coming into contact with the driver's back and hips (see Marino Figs. 1 and 2, showing multiple belts extending to the rear of the driver in parallel).
Marino is analogous to Minen, as both are drawn to the art of belt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen, to include wherein the rear belt element comprises multiple belts extending on mutually parallel preferential extension directions and between said left and right ends, so that with said first and second upper belts, said multiple belts identify a rear surface suitable for coming into contact with the driver's back and hips, as taught by Marino, since it combines the prior art elements of the back belts with front belts according to know methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Minen in view of Marino discloses mechanical locking devices suitable for establishing a maximum length of each of said first and second upper belts, and of the connection system, so as to limit an action of the adjustment elements (see Minen Figs. 1 and 2, showing the circular closing mechanism connecting the belts in front, as in Fig. 2, and the belts connected to the tightening device 33 in the back, as in Fig. 1, acting to establish a maximum length of the upper belts and limit action of the adjustment elements).
Regarding claim 10, Minen in view of Marino discloses wherein the actuation system is suitable for operating in a unilateral configuration, in which the adjustment elements are suitable for reducing the length of each of said first and second upper belts, and of the connection system, increasing the loads transmitted to the driver or the passenger with respect to a predetermined preload situation on the driver or the passenger (Minen [0106-0107], “The seatbelts 26 are connected to a tightening device 33 configured to selectively vary the tension of the seatbelts 26 on the driver C… The tightening device 33 is, in turn, connected to the control and command unit 20 which, in relation to the simulation conditions, releases or tightens the seatbelts 26, for example to simulate a forward or backward movement of the driver C,” the seatbelts can be tightened, thus reducing the length of the belts).
Regarding claim 11, Minen in view of Marino discloses wherein the actuation system is suitable for operating in a bilateral configuration, in which the adjustment elements are suitable both for reducing the length of each of said first and second upper belts, and of the connection system, and for increasing the length of each of said first and second upper belts and of the connection system, so as to increase or reduce, respectively, the loads transmitted to the driver or the passenger with respect to a predetermined preload situation on the driver or the passenger (Minen [0106-0107], “The seatbelts 26 are connected to a tightening device 33 configured to selectively vary the tension of the seatbelts 26 on the driver C… The tightening device 33 is, in turn, connected to the control and command unit 20 which, in relation to the simulation conditions, releases or tightens the seatbelts 26, for example to simulate a forward or backward movement of the driver C,” the seatbelts can be tightened, thus reducing the length of the belts. The seatbelts can also be released, thus increasing the length of the belts).
Regarding claim 12, Minen in view of Marino discloses a first central belt and a second central belt, suitable for embracing the driver passing above a pelvis of the driver, wherein the first central belt and the second central belt comprise, at a respective distal end, a first central coupling terminal and a second central coupling terminal, respectively, said first and second central coupling terminals being suitable for being fastened to a frame of the simulator, or to one of the adjustment elements, and wherein the active means are suitable for actuating said adjustment elements, so as to actively modify a length of the first central belt and/or the second central belt (see Minen Figs. 2 and 3, showing belts attached to the circular closing mechanism going around the pelvis of the driver).
Regarding claim 13, Minen in view of Marino discloses a first lower belt and a second lower belt, suitable for embracing the driver passing between legs of the driver, each of said first and second lower belts comprising, at a respective lower end, a first lower coupling terminal and a second lower coupling terminal, respectively, said first and second lower coupling terminals being suitable for being fastened to a frame or to a seat of the simulator, and wherein each of said first and second lower belts is constrained to the closing mechanism (see Minen Figs. 2 and 3, showing lower belts attached to the circular closing mechanism going between the legs of the driver).
Regarding claim 15, Minen in view of Marino discloses belt guide elements suitable for being fastened to a seat or a frame of the simulator, and for stabilizing sliding of each of said first and second upper belts, and of said connection system, so as to keep a direction in which the adjustment elements act constant (see Minen Figs. 2 and 3, showing the upper belts going through openings at the top of the seat frame, guiding the belts to each respective side of the driver).
Regarding claim 16, Minen in view of Marino discloses a simulator, comprising a frame, a seat, and the active belt system of claim 1, wherein the active belt system is suitable for cooperating with the frame and/or the seat (see Minen Figs. 2 and 3, showing a frame, a seat, and the belt system).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minen in view of Marino, and in further view of Norman (US 3,633,965).
Regarding claim 14, Minen in view of Marino does not teach manual adjustment means for each of said first and second upper belts, and for the rear belt element, said manual adjustment means being suitable for being manipulated to manually modify the length of each of said first and second upper belts and of the rear belt element.
However, Norman discloses manual adjustment means for each of said first and second upper belts, and for the rear belt element, said manual adjustment means being suitable for being manipulated to manually modify the length of each of said first and second upper belts and of the rear belt element (see Norman Fig. 1, showing adjustable sliding buckle 19 on each of the upper belts; also Norman col. 3 lines 5-13, “the shoulder portion of each strap is adjusted to the correct length for the clasp ring 21 to be at approximately the wearer's waist level with the shoulder portion extending over the wearer's shoulder by adjustment of the sliding buckle 19, the back part 15 is adjusted to bear against the seat backrest by adjusting the end 17 in the buckle 18 and the lap portion 22 is adjusted for length by adjusting the end 23 in the buckle 18.”).
Norman is analogous to Minen in view of Marino, as both are drawn to the art of seatbelt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen in view of Marino, to include manual adjustment means for each of said first and second upper belts, and for the rear belt element, said manual adjustment means being suitable for being manipulated to manually modify the length of each of said first and second upper belts and of the rear belt element, as taught by Norman, in order to make the belts adjustable to suit wearers of different size (Norman col. 3 lines 13-15). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Minen in view of Marino does not teach wherein the manual adjustment means are sliding buckles.
However, Norman discloses wherein the manual adjustment means are sliding buckles (see Norman Fig. 1, showing adjustable sliding buckle 19 on each of the upper belts; also Norman col. 3 lines 5-13, “the shoulder portion of each strap is adjusted to the correct length for the clasp ring 21 to be at approximately the wearer's waist level with the shoulder portion extending over the wearer's shoulder by adjustment of the sliding buckle 19, the back part 15 is adjusted to bear against the seat backrest by adjusting the end 17 in the buckle 18 and the lap portion 22 is adjusted for length by adjusting the end 23 in the buckle 18.”).
Norman is analogous to Minen in view of Marino, as both are drawn to the art of seatbelt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen in view of Marino, to include wherein the manual adjustment means are sliding buckles, as taught by Norman, in order to make the belts adjustable to suit wearers of different size (Norman col. 3 lines 13-15). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minen in view of Marino, and in further view of Johnson et al. (hereinafter “Johnson,” US 5,390,982).
Regarding claim 19, Minen in view of Marino does not teach wherein the belt guide elements are brackets with belt guides with a single or a double roller.
However, Johnson discloses wherein the belt guide elements are brackets with belt guides with a single or a double roller (see Johnson Fig. 1; also Johnson col. 5 lines 4-20, “Secured to the uppermost end portions 80 of the C-shaped track member 74 is the shoulder belt guide assembly 20. The guide assembly 20 includes a roller housing box 82 within which is disposed the roller 41, and which is fixedly secured by any suitable means to the spacer 76a and/or the uppermost end portions 80 of the C-shaped tracks 74. The roller 41 is mounted for rotational movement by a roller pin 86 which extends through a central hub portion 41a of the roller 41 and apertures 82a in the roller housing box 82. A cover plate 88 having an elongated opening 90 is positioned over the roller housing box 82. The seatbelt 22 is guided over the roller 41, through the roller housing box 82 and through the opening 90 in the cover plate 88. The cover plate 88 serves to "twist" slightly the shoulder belt 22 (not shown) so that the belt 22 lays generally flat over a shoulder portion of the seat occupant.”).
Johnson is analogous to Minen in view of Marino, as both are drawn to the art of seatbelt systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Minen in view of Marino, to include wherein the belt guide elements are brackets with belt guides with a single or a double roller, as taught by Johnson, in order to satisfy the structural requirements necessary to withstand severe belt loads (Johnson col. 2 lines 3-10). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 17 are 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:
Claim 5 recites the rear belt element comprising divergent belt elements extending in a radial pattern from crossing ends. At least this feature is not found in the cited prior art of record. Claims 6 and 17 depend on claim 5, and thus also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 8 recites filling portions arranged between the multiple belts of the rear surface of the belt system. At least this feature is not found in the cited prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered and addressed below.
Applicant respectfully argues that “Minen does not disclose a connection system comprising a rear belt element having a right end engageable with the first upper belt and a left end engageable with the second upper belt so that the rear belt element is suitable for embracing the driver from the back, together with side belts joined to the rear belt element between the left and right ends, where the actuation system applies a controllable load not only to the first and second upper belts but also to the connection system.” Marino is relied upon for disclosing the deficiencies of Minen. Regarding Marino, Applicant respectfully argues, “Marino's belt includes a first portion intended to surround a passenger's torso and a second portion intended to surround a driver's torso. Marino is therefore concerned with road-safety restraint between two people on a vehicle, not with active tactile rendering of inertial loads in a vehicle simulator.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner first notes that Minen does disclose the limitations of “a connection system” and that “the actuation system applies a controllable load not only to the first and second upper belts but also to the connection system.” These features are found in Minen Figure 2 and Minen paragraphs [0105-0107], respectively.
Marino is only relied upon for its disclosure of “a rear belt element having a right end engageable with the first upper belt and a left end engageable with the second upper belt so that the rear belt element is suitable for embracing the driver from the back, together with side belts joined to the rear belt element between the left and right ends,” shown in Marino Figs. 1 and 2. Although Marino provides the belt structure with a different intended use, the Marino reference shows that the belt structure of the claimed invention is known in the prior art.
Applicant further respectfully argues that “although Marino may disclose belts or flexible elements that pass around a user's torso, Marino does not disclose or suggest an actuation system suitable for applying controllable simulation loads to a claimed connection system, nor does Marino disclose actively modifying the length of upper and rear or side belt elements to generate simulated inertial loads.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Marino is not relied upon for its disclosure of “an actuation system suitable for applying controllable simulation loads to a claimed connection system” and “actively modifying the length of upper and rear or side belt elements to generate simulated inertial loads.” As discussed in the previous argument, Minen discloses these features. Marino is only relied upon for showing that the particular configuration of belts recited in the instant claims were known at the time of filing of the instant invention, and that Minen might have integrated a similar belt structure in their invention.
Applicant also respectfully argues that “the proposed combination is based on the impermissible use of hindsight. Minen already addresses driving simulation by coordinating movement devices, inflatable pads, and optional seatbelt tensioning. Marino addresses a different problem: safely securing a motorcycle passenger to a driver and automatically releasing that connection in the event of a fall. Nothing in Marino would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art, starting from Minen and seeking to improve emulation of dynamic and inertial loads on a simulation driver, to modify Minen's simulator seatbelt system to include the claimed rear belt element and side belts as an actively controlled connection system for transmitting lateral simulation loads.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that a proper combination of references does not require that the references disclose the same intended use. Both Minen and Marino disclose belt systems. The primary reference Minen discloses a belt system with the same intended use as the instant claimed invention. Marino is provided as a secondary reference to show that belt systems for vehicle drivers with belts going behind the driver and to the sides of the driver were known in the art at the time of filing.
Applicant further respectfully argues that “the teachings of Marino would, at most, suggest adding a belt arrangement that forms a loop around or between two persons, namely a passenger and a driver. That is materially different from the presently claimed arrangement, in which the rear belt element and side belts form part of a connection system of an active belt system worn by a simulator user, and in which the actuation system applies controllable loads to the connection system to actively modify belt lengths and thereby modify the loads transmitted to the driver. Marino therefore would not guide a skilled person toward the claimed solution. Instead, Marino would lead the skilled person toward a different safety-restraint architecture intended for coupling two people together, not toward a simulator load- rendering system.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Marino is not relied upon for its disclosure of the connection system, or its disclosure of an actuation system suitable for applying a controllable load to each of the upper belts and to the connection system. These features, as elaborated above, are disclosed by the primary reference Minen. Instead, Marino is merely relied upon for showing that a rear belt arrangement described by the instant claims was known in the art at the time of filing, and such a rear belt arrangement could be integrated into the belt arrangement of Minen.
The Applicant also respectfully argues that “The claimed invention solves a different technical problem from Marino. The present invention addresses how to improve emulation of dynamic and inertial loads on a simulation driver, including especially lateral loads. Marino addresses how to secure a motorcycle passenger to a driver while permitting release in the event of a fall. Because Marino neither addresses the simulation problem nor teaches the claimed active connection system, the Office Action has not established a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill would have combined Minen and Marino in the manner required by claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference Minen solves the same technical problem as the instant claimed invention. Minen discloses a belt system having a similar structure to that of the instant claimed invention, but does not disclose integrating rear belts to the system. Marino is merely provided to show that such a rear belt arrangement was known in the art at the time of filing. Given that Minen describes a belt system solving the same technical problem as the instant claimed invention, just with a different arrangement of belts, it would have been merely a design consideration to include or not include rear belts as known in the prior art at the time of filing.
As such, the arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC rejections of the claims are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights