Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following: ‘Calder does not disclose or suggest the locking arrangement recited by amended claim 1. Indeed, the Office instead characterizes the latch (20) of Sampaio as the locking arrangement, recited in claim 1 of the present application. As discussed below, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's characterization of this component as a locking arrangement because the latch of Sampaio is structurally and functionally distinct… By contrast, amended claim 1 requires a locking arrangement defined between the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame. The latch (20) of Sampaio is associated with an upper portion of the controller column (16) and is not defined between the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame, as recited by amended claim 1. The claimed arrangement provides a direct structural locking relationship between the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame” (Remarks, pg. 8-13). It is respectfully submitted that there is no language in the claim which suggests that the locking mechanism is specialized as argued. As such, the latch of Sampaio satisfies the limitation, as broadly claimed.
Applicant states the following: “Because the latch (20) of Sampaio connects an upper portion of the controller column (16) front top crossbar (19) of the collapsible seating frame (10), the latch (20) is not a locking arrangement within the meaning of amended claim 1. Furthermore, no structure capable of locking is disclosed or suggested by Sampaio that is defined between the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame” (Remarks, pg. 8-13). It is respectfully submitted that, as currently written, amended claim 1 only requires that the lock exists between the lower end of the yoke frame and the base frame. It does not require that the locking arrangement is connected or joined to the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame. While the locking arrangement is directly connected to the seat and the lower end of the yoke support frame, the locking arrangement is located between the base frame and the lower end of the yoke support frame. If claim 1 is amended to properly reflect the direct coupling of the locking arrangement with the yoke support frame and the base frame, it is likely that the prior art will not apply.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, pg. 8-13). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, altering the chair of Sampaio with the stick of Calder would allow for an additional control method, making the simulation more robust and multifaceted.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as independent claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 the rear end (0048, Figure 3);
a pedal set support frame mountable to the base frame (element 28) at the forward end for supporting a pedal set (element 202) thereon (0059, Figure 3);
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 extends vertically upwards relative to the base frame (Sampaio - 0051-0054, Figure 3, Figure 6);
at least one locking arrangement (element 20) defined between the lower end of the yoke support frame and the base frame 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 elongate member 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 member 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 member 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 planar surface for mounting of the yoke thereon (0053, Figure 10).
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 the 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 the 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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