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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 43-44, and 48-50 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 43 recites the limitation "the first track" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 50 recites the limitation “second motor assembly” and “second pulley assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A first motor and pulley assembly are never defined in the base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 18, which was previously cancelled. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain the scope of the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190161099 (hereinafter “Burger”).
Regarding claim 1, Burger discloses a device that has a first track (Fig. 1, 20 and 21); a second track (Fig. 1, 16); a first cart having a compartment configured to receive a passenger (Fig. 1, 22), the first cart movable linearly along the first track; and a second cart (Fig. 1, 18), the second cart movable along the second track, the second cart providing a counter to the first cart (Fig. 1, 40).
Regarding claim 3, Burger further discloses a device that the second cart provides a counterforce and a counterbalance to a mass of the first cart and the second cart moves linearly in conjunction with linear movement of the first cart. The counterweight is only able to make rotation more controllable, as stated in para. 0028, by inherently acting with an equal and opposite force as movement from the first cart. For example, if a force displaced the first cart to the left in Fig. 3, the counterweight would be displaced to the right and the gravitational force on the mass of the counterweight would act on the device towards the left to eventually bring any rotational movement to rest (i.e. balance of force). Further, using BRI, as the second cart travels along the second rail, the first car is carried in the same linear direction (para. 0006).
Regarding claim 4, Burger further discloses a device that the first cart (Fig. 2, 22) is pivotable about an axis (Fig. 2, D2) transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first track (Fig. 2, 21).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130130817 (hereinafter “Barber”).
Regarding claim 14, Burger discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but does not disclose that the first and second tracks are foldable to provide compactness for transport. However, Barber, in the analogous art of moving amusement devices discloses a ride that simulates freefall with a foldable track, shown in Figs. 11A-11E, which enables an arrangement for storage or transportation (para. 0007). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the tracks of Burger foldable for better storage and transportation capabilities.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130012328 (hereinafter “Stoker”) in view of US 20050239563 (hereinafter “Pondorfer”).
Regarding claim 23, Stoker discloses a motion simulator that has a platform (Fig. 1, 101); a passenger cart supported by the platform (Fig. 1, 107), the passenger cart having a compartment configured to receive a passenger (Fig. 1, 109), the passenger cart movable linearly along a first track (Fig. 1, 103), the platform spinnable about a central axis (Fig. 1, 105) to move the passenger cart along an arc in a full circular rotational movement; and at least a first motor actuable to move the passenger cart linearly (para. 0032).
Stoker is silent regarding a base supporting the platform, nor that the motion simulator is self-supporting such that it is operational to spin the platform and move the passenger cart linearly without being mounted to a supporting surface. Pondorfer, in the analogous art of rotating passenger rides, discloses an amusement ride that has a self-supporting base that supports the rotational structure (Fig. 13, 163 and 165). Using a base of this type facilitates ready disassembly into a condition for road transport (Para, 0101). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the platform of Stoker supported by a movable base to facilitate ready disassembly and transportation. Under BRI, the examiner is interpreting “self-supporting” to mean freely movable and not permanently fixed to the ground. Further, the examiner notes the limitation of “operational to spin the platform and move the passenger cart” is intended use. If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoker and Pondorfer as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 20200111381 (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 24, while modified Stoker further discloses that the passenger is exposed to acceleration forces (Stoker, para. 0013), but is silent regarding the forces being omni-directional G-forces and a direction of force is changed without a gyroscope. However, Tang discloses a motion simulator device whose vehicle is spherical and capable of rotating 360 degrees (omnidirectional) to provide a dynamically equivalent model to simulate vehicle rotational dynamics (Abstract). Further, the rotational movement is active and controlled by the driving system and nonlinear dynamics of the sphere itself (nowhere does Tang reference using a gyroscope) (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the cart of Stoker able to undergo omni-directional g-forces to provide a dynamically equivalent simulator model to for vehicle rotational dynamics.
Regarding claim 30, modified Stoker discloses all the limitations of claim 23 but does not disclose that the passenger cart includes a frame and a pod containing the compartment, and further comprising a plurality of omnidirectional wheels engageable with the pod to effect angular movement of the pod in one or more of left, right, upward and downward directions. However, Tang discloses a motion simulator device whose vehicle has a frame (Fig. 13a, 121), pod (Fig. 10, 119), and omni-directional wheels (Fig. 16, 117c-2/3). These omni wheels are operable to drive the spherical vehicle in roll, pitch, and yaw directions. Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the vehicle design of Tang (including pod, frame, wheels) to enable roll, pitch, and yaw directions for a more realistic simulator experience.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoker and X as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 20080020902 (hereinafter “Arnold”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Stoker discloses all the limitations of claim 23 but does not disclose that the base includes a flywheel to cancel rotational forces to the base to provide stability to the motion simulator. However, Arnold, in the same field of endeavor of rotational mechanical motion discloses a device with a flywheel (Fig. 2, 72) that smooths the motion of the exercise device. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to introduce a flywheel into Stoker’s design in order to create smoother mechanical movement.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoker in view of Pondorfer and Arnold.
Regarding claim 43, Stoker discloses a motion simulator that has a platform (Fig. 1, 101); a passenger cart supported by the platform (Fig. 1, 107), the passenger cart having a compartment, the compartment configured to receive a passenger (Fig. 1, 109), the passenger cart movable linearly along the first track (Fig. 1, 103), the platform spinnable about a central axis (Fig. 1, 105) to move the passenger cart along an arc in a full circular rotational movement; and at least a first motor actuable to move the passenger cart linearly (para. 0032).
Stoker is silent regarding the motion simulator has a base that supports the platform. Pondorfer, in the analogous art of rotating passenger rides, discloses an amusement ride that has a self-supporting base that supports the rotational structure (Fig. 13, 163 and 165). Using a base of this type facilitates ready disassembly into a condition for road transport (Para, 0101). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the platform of Stoker supported by a movable base to facilitate ready disassembly and transportation
Neither Stoker nor Pondorfer disclose the base includes a flywheel to cancel rotational forces to the base to provide stability to the motion simulator. Arnold, in the same field of endeavor of rotational mechanical motion discloses a device with a flywheel (Fig. 2, 72) that smooths the motion of the exercise device. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to introduce a flywheel into Stoker’s design in order to create smoother mechanical movement. Further, flywheels are well-known in the mechanical art as a rotational energy storage means.
Regarding claim 48, modified Stoker does not explicitly state wherein the platform spins relative to the base which is stationary, wherein the flywheel forces are applied directly to the base which is in contact with a ground or supporting surface. However, the examiner notes that the claim limitations are intended use. If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, the combined teachings of modified Stoker as stated in claim 43 would be capable of performing the said limitations.
Regarding claim 49, modified Stoker further does not explicitly state wherein in use the flywheel starts spinning prior to the platform starting to spin, the flywheel spinning slowing when the platform starts spinning. If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, the combined teachings of modified Stoker as stated in claim 43 would be capable of performing the said limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 12-13, 27, 44, and 50 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 and all 112(b) rejections were corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing carts with frames that are dimensioned to receive one within the other. Carts in prior art such as Tang or Stoker usually only provide one cart for motion simulators; and when they do, such as in Burger, the specificity of nesting frames is not considered. Thus, this feature is considered to be unique in the art. Claims 7-8 would be allowable because they are dependent on claim 5.
Claim 12 would be allowable for disclosing a spinnable platform supporting the tracks and carts. As stated above, having two carts with linear tracks is rare in the art, and in addition to both being on a spinning platform. It would destroy the structure of the primary reference (Burger) to add a spinning platform structure. Claim 13 would be allowable because of its dependence on claim 12.
Claim 27 would be allowable for disclosing a second cart with a track that counters the first. This feature of counter carts on a spinning platform is considered to be novel in the motion simulator art.
Claim 44 would be allowable for disclosing specifics of a two-motor system that powers the spinning platform and flywheel.
Claim 50 would be allowable for disclosing a second cart assembly that acts as a counterbalance that is movably independent from the first cart.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights