DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 1-7 are objected to for the following: the term “An flight simulation”, in the first line of claim 1, appears to be a typographical error for --A flight simulation--. Thus, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee 2018/0136687.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches the following claimed limitations: a flight simulation control apparatus comprising: an operator that rotates about a first axis in both directions ([0003]; [0004; [0116]: e.g., a motion simulator for flight simulation; wherein the motion simulator comprises a control stick that implements at least one handle. Thus, the handle corresponds to the operator that rotates above a first axis in both directions); and a reaction force generator including an elastic structure that is deformed by rotation of the operator and generates an operating reaction force of the operator (see FIG 12, labels “213”, “214” and FIG 14, labels “232-1” and “232-2”: e.g., part of the assembly that includes the rotating road [“213”], the spring holding member [“214”] and the two springs [“232-1”,“232-2”] corresponds to the reaction force generator, which includes an elastic structure—i.e., the two springs above. Note that, per the current generic claim language, neither the term “reaction force generator” nor the term “an elastic structure” necessarily corresponds to a specific structural feature(s). Instead, each of the above terms—alone or in combination—broadly encompasses any feature—or any combination of features—that attains the desired function; such as, an elastic structure—springs “232-1” and “232-2”—that deforms by rotation of the operator and generates an operating reaction force of the operator), wherein the reaction force generator further includes a transferer that is connected to the operator and rotates together with the operator (FIG 12, label “213”: e.g., the rotating rod, which is ne of the parts of the reaction force generator, corresponds to the transferer that is connected to the operator [label “211b” of FIG 12]. Thus, as the operator rotates, the transferer also rotates together with the operator), a first arm that rotates about a second axis and deforms the elastic structure when rotation of the operator in one direction is transferred to the first arm through the transferer (see the front section of label “214” in FIG 12: e.g., the unlabeled front section of the spring holding member, such as the part that extends from the center of the member towards the front narrowest center part that reaches spring “232-1”, corresponds to the first arm; and this first arm rotates about a second axis; such as, an axis that is in the same line—but away from—the axis of the operator. Accordingly, this first arm deforms the elastic structure when the rotation of the operator in one direction is transferred to the first arm through the transferer), and a second arm that rotates about a third axis extending in an identical direction to the second axis and deforms the elastic structure when rotation of the operator in another direction is transferred to the second arm through the transferer (see the back section of label “214” in FIG 12: e.g., the unlabeled back section of the spring holding member, such as the section that extends from the center of the member towards the back wider end that reaches spring “232-2”, corresponds to the second arm; and this second arm rotates about a third axis, which extends in the same direction as that of the second axis. Accordingly, this second arm deforms the elastic structure when rotation of the operator in another direction is transferred to the second arm through the transferer).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
The limitation, “wherein the second axis and the third axis are a common axis”, is already addressed per the discussion presented with respect to claim 1, which already indicates that the third axis is identical to the second axis.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 3.
Here also the limitation, “the first axis and the common axis are coaxial”, is already addressed per the discussion presented with respect to claim 1. In particular, the discussion above already indicates that the second axis is in the same line with the first axis; and thus, the first axis and the common axis are indeed coaxial.
● Considering each of the claims as a whole, the prior art does not teach or suggest claims 2 and 5-7 as currently presented. Thus, each of the above claims contains allowable subject matter.
Related reference:
Edelberg (US 5,158,459) is also a reference relevant to the current claimed apparatus. Edelberg is directed to an apparatus for flight simulation (col.3, lines 10-18); wherein the apparatus comprises various simulated flight controls, including a control stick (FIG 8, label “16”). Of course, the control stick above may correspond to the claimed operator, which rotates about a first axis in both directions. The lower section (FIG 8, label “146”) of the control stick above is attached to a spring assembly; namely, centering springs (FIG 8, labels “150 to “153”), which provide resistive forces to the control stick. Accordingly, at least part of the spring assembly above may be considered to be the reaction force generator with an elastic structure, which generates a reaction force when it is deformed during the rotation of the operator (i.e., the control stick, labeled “16”).
However, besides failing to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 directed to the transferer and the two arms, Edelberg also fails to teach or suggest the specific limitations that claim 2 is reciting, which includes the specific limitations of the neutral position changer that includes a restrictor located between the first arm and the second arm. Thus, Edelberg alone or in combination with Lee, does not render claim 2 (and thus claims 5-7) obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights