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 1 and 9 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.
The term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Different people can reasonably consider two different items to be near at various different distances. As such, the claim does not establish clear metes and bounds.
The term “stands proud” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stands proud” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Different people can reasonably consider different behavior to be standing proud, such as different angle ranges. As such, the claim does not establish clear metes and bounds.
The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Different people can reasonably consider different planes with various different characteristics as being substantially planar. As such, the claim does not establish clear metes and bounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 4-7, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0379498 A1 to Sampaio (hereinafter Sampaio) in view of ALL NEW Monstertech Blackbird Flight Chair Review!! by Jesse Calder (hereinafter Calder).
Concerning claim 1,
Sampaio discloses a support frame assembly for an interchangeable flight simulator cockpit (0036-0037), said support frame assembly comprising
a base frame (element 10) defining a forward end and an opposed rear end (0036-0037, 0048, Figure 1);
a seat (element 40, 100) mountable to the base frame at or near the rear end (0048, Figure 3, See 112b rejection above);
a pedal set support frame mountable to the base frame (element 28) at or near the forward end for supporting a pedal set (element 202) thereon (0059, Figure 3, See 112b rejection above);
a yoke support frame extending upwardly from the base frame at a location positioned in front of the seat for supporting a yoke centrally in front of a seat occupant (0053-0054, Figure 2),
said yoke support frame comprising an elongate member having an upper end (element 18, 55) for supporting the yoke thereon and an opposed lower end (element 16, 47) pivotally mountable to the base frame so that the yoke support frame is pivotable between a folded position in which the yoke support frame pivots towards the base frame and an operable position in which the yoke support frame stands proud relative to the base frame (Sampaio - 0051-0054, Figure 3, Figure 6);
at least one locking arrangement (element 20) for releasably securing the yoke support frame in the operable position relative to the base frame (0052, Figure 8-9); and
wherein the flight simulator cockpit is interchangeable between at least two configurations, comprising a domestic or commercial aircraft configuration in which the cockpit is configured to simulate a domestic or commercial aircraft cockpit characterised by a yoke (element 201) for controlling at least altitude and a military aircraft configuration in which the cockpit is configured to simulate a military aircraft cockpit characterised by a stick (element 203) (0036, 0053, 0065).
Sampaio does not discloses a centre stick;
a centre stick support frame for supporting a centre stick thereon and wherein a forward edge of the seat comprises a cut out portion for at least partially accommodating the centre stick support frame extending upwardly from the base frame and at least partially therethrough.
Calder teaches a centre stick (5:40 - 6:10);
a centre stick support frame for supporting a centre stick thereon and wherein a forward edge of the seat comprises a cut out portion for at least partially accommodating the centre stick support frame extending upwardly from the base frame and at least partially therethrough (5:40 - 6:10).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the centre stick and cutout configuration of Calder with the video game chair of Sampaio as both deal with flight simulators. Implementing the centre stick and cutout configuration with the videogame chair would make the training apparatus more faithful in the simulation of certain models of aircraft.
PNG
media_image1.png
1066
1468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 4,
Sampaio discloses the pedal set support frame is slidably mountable to the base frame (0058, 0071, Figure 11).
Concerning claim 5,
Sampaio discloses the yoke support frame is of adjustable height (0054, Figure 10).
Concerning claim 6,
Sampaio discloses the elongate member of the yoke support frame comprises a lower member portion and an upper member portion slidable relative to the lower member portion between a retracted position and an extended position to thereby adjust a height of the elongate member and thus the yoke support frame (0054, Figure 10).
Concerning claim 7,
Sampaio discloses the elongate member further comprises a retaining mechanism (element 61A) for retaining the upper member portion relative to the lower member portion (0054, Figure 10).
Concerning claim 10,
Sampaio discloses the elongate member of the yoke support frame further includes comprises a yoke support bracket (element 58) mounted atop the elongate member for supporting the yoke thereon (0053, Figure 10).
Concerning claim 11,
Sampaio discloses the elongate member of the yoke support frame is hingedly (element 49A, 49B) connectable to the base frame by at least one hinge so as to be pivotable between the folded and operable positions (0051-0053, Figure 3, Figure 6).
Concerning claim 12,
Sampaio discloses the at least one hinge comprises a first hinge part associated with the lower end of the elongate member, a second hinge part associated with the base frame and a pivot pinning the first hinge part and the second hinge part together (0051-0053, Figure 3, Figure 6).
Concerning claim 13,
Sampaio discloses the base frame further includes comprises a pivot stop (element 71) for supporting the yoke support frame when in the folded position and preventing the yoke support frame from over pivoting (0052, Figure 8-9, As broadly stated, a pivot stop can include the element which the yoke support frame would make contact with. US Publication 2008/0276422 A1 to Beckmann et al. (hereinafter Beckmann) is an example of a hinge preventing over pivoting, more in line with applicant’s specifications).
Concerning claim 15,
Sampaio discloses the at least one locking arrangement comprises a pair of locking arrangements including comprising a first locking arrangement operatively associated with the lower end of the elongate member and a second locking arrangement connectable to the first locking arrangement and operatively associated with the base frame (0052, 0071, Figure 8-9).
Concerning claim 16,
Sampaio discloses the at least one locking arrangement comprises a latch having a latch arm associated with one of the elongate member and the base frame and a receiver associated with the other of the latch arm and the base frame and configured to engage with the latch arm and lock the elongate member relative to the base frame (0052, 0071, Figure 8-9).
Concerning claim 17,
Sampaio discloses the at least one locking arrangement comprises a toggle latch comprising a pivoting lever and drawbar associated with one of the elongate member and the base frame and configured to reach onto a catch associated with the other of the elongate member and the base frame to lock the elongate member relative to the base frame (0052, 0071, Figure 8-9).
Concerning claim 19,
Sampaio discloses the at least one locking arrangement is configured to automatically lock the elongate member relative to the base frame when pivoted to the operable position (0052, 0071, Figure 8-9).
Concerning claim 21,
Sampaio discloses providing a flight simulator cockpit having a support frame assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Sampaio does not explicitly disclose releasing the at least one locking arrangement so as to release the elongate member of the yoke support frame relative to the base frame (0052-0053); and
pivoting the yoke support frame away from the seat into the folded position so as to provide unimpeded access to and from the seat when entering or exiting the flight simulator cockpit (0052-0053).
Although the primary art does not explicitly disclose the limitations above, the method of operation would be obvious steps for the normal use of the flight simulator cockpit of Sampaio. An operator would obviously pivot the yoke support frame away to make it easier for them to have access to the chair during the normal course of operation.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0379498 A1 to Sampaio in view of ALL NEW Monstertech Blackbird Flight Chair Review!! by Jesse Calder and further in view of US Publication 2016/0281769 A1 to Kechely (hereinafter Kechely).
Concerning claim 8,
Sampaio does not disclose one or more elongate apertures extending at least partially along a height of the lower portion;
one or more threaded shanks protruding outwardly from a sidewall of the upper member portion through the elongate apertures, said one or more threaded shanks configured to be slidable along the elongate apertures;
one or more threaded fasteners configured to fasten on the one or more threaded shanks to retain or clamp the upper member portion relative to the lower member portion at a desired height.
Kechely teaches one or more elongate apertures (element 86) extending at least partially along a height of the lower portion (0008, 0061, Figure 8);
one or more threaded shanks (element 40) protruding outwardly from a sidewall of the upper member portion through the elongate apertures, said one or more threaded shanks configured to be slidable along the elongate apertures (0045, 0059-0060, Figure 7-8);
one or more threaded fasteners (element 16) configured to fasten on the one or more threaded shanks to retain or clamp the upper member portion relative to the lower member portion at a desired height (0057, 0059-0061, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate fastener of Kechely with the video game chair of Sampaio as both have latching mechanism. Implementing the latching mechanism of Kechely in the videogame chair would make the retention of the position of the upper and lower member more secure.
Concerning claim 9,
Sampaio discloses an upper end of the upper member portion includes comprises one or more angled bends (element 57) defining an angular crook facing the seat and defining a substantially planar surface for mounting of the yoke thereon (0053, Figure 10, See 112b rejection above).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0379498 A1 to Sampaio in view of ALL NEW Monstertech Blackbird Flight Chair Review!! by Jesse Calder and further in view of US Publication 2005/0077736A1 to Hagan (hereinafter Hagan).
Concerning claim 18,
Sampaio does not clearly disclose the pivoting lever and drawbar are mounted on a rearward facing side wall of a lower end of the elongate member and the catch is mounted on a rearward facing sidewall of a yoke support cross frame member of the base frame and wherein, in use, pivoting the lever away from the elongate member enables the drawbar to hook over, or engage with, the catch when the elongate member is in the operable position and pivoting the lever towards the elongate member pulls the drawbar against the catch thus drawing it in and locking the elongate member relative to the yoke support frame member (0071, element 20 of Figure 8-9 appears to be the mechanism described. However, it is not described in the specifications).
Hagan teaches the pivoting lever (element 34) and drawbar (element 42) are mounted on a rearward facing side wall of a lower end of the elongate member and the catch (element 46, 48) is mounted on a rearward facing sidewall of a yoke support cross frame member of the base frame and wherein, in use, pivoting the lever away from the elongate member enables the drawbar to hook over, or engage with, the catch when the elongate member is in the operable position and pivoting the lever towards the elongate member pulls the drawbar against the catch thus drawing it in and locking the elongate member relative to the yoke support frame member (0035, Figure 4-5).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate locking mechanism of Hagan with the video game chair of Sampaio as both have latching mechanism. Implementing the locking mechanism of Hagan in the videogame chair would make the fixation of the position of the yoke member relative to the base more secure.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0379498 A1 to Sampaio in view of ALL NEW Monstertech Blackbird Flight Chair Review!! by Jesse Calder and further in view of US Patent 7234755 B1 to Senn (hereinafter Senn).
Concerning claim 20,
Sampaio does not clearly disclose the at least one locking arrangement is a slam latch comprising a spring-loaded latch arm operatively associated with one of the elongate member and the base frame and a receiver or catch operatively associated with the other of the elongate member and the base frame and positioned to be automatically engaged by spring loaded latch arm when the elongate member is pivoted to the operable position (0071).
Senn teaches the at least one locking arrangement is a slam latch comprising a spring-loaded latch arm operatively associated with one of the elongate member and the base frame and a receiver or catch operatively associated with the other of the elongate member and the base frame and positioned to be automatically engaged by spring loaded latch arm when the elongate member is pivoted to the operable position (Col. 7; ln 37-46, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate locking mechanism of Senn with the video game chair of Sampaio as both have latching mechanism. Implementing the locking mechanism of Senn in the videogame chair would make the fixation of the position of the yoke member relative to the base more secure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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. Prior art such as US Publication 2008/0276422 A1 to Beckmann et al. do not teach the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights