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 Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 4, “bracket that is” should be changed to bracket is.
Regarding claim 1, line 6, “portion that is” should be changed to portion is.
Regarding claim 1, line 9, “frame that is” should be changed to frame is.
Regarding claim 6, line 7, “body that is” should be changed to body is.
Regarding claim 6, line 8, “shaft that is” should be changed to shaft is.
Regarding claim 10, line 3, “portions respectively” should be changed to portions are respectively.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, “portions respectively” should be changed to portions are respectively.
Regarding claim 13, line 7, “platform that is” should be changed to platform is.
Regarding claim 13, line 8, “platform that is” should be changed to platform is.
Regarding claim 13, line 10, “portion that is” should be changed to portion is.
Regarding claim 13, line 13, “frame that is” should be changed to frame is.
Regarding claim 18, line 7, “body that is” should be changed to body is.
Regarding claim 18, line 8, “shaft that is” should be changed to shaft is.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 10-12, “the loading frame is able to rotate about a second axial direction intersecting the second axial direction” is indefinite. An axial direction cannot intersect itself. It is suggested to change “the second axial direction” in lines 11-12 of the claim to the first axial direction to remedy this rejection.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is indefinite for claiming both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. For example, in lines 9-14 of claim 18, “wherein when a specific condition of a simulation program of the processing host is established, the processing host instructs the first motive power device to synchronously unclamp the clamping assembly to release the extension portion, and instructs the second motive power device to rotate the bracket so that the vehicle body is allowed to present with a tilting and skidding posture” amounts to the method steps of using the apparatus and does not further structurally limit the claim. It is unclear whether infringement would occur when one creates a machine that allows a processing host to instruct the first and second motive power devices to perform as recited or whether infringement would occur when the first and second motive power devices actually perform as recited. See MPEP 2173.05 (p) II. It is suggested to change “the processing host instructs” in line 10 of the claim and “instructs” in line 12 of the claim to the processing host is configured to instruct and instruct, respectively, to remedy this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are allowed.
Claims 1-12 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended, as suggested by the examiner above, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 13, the combination including a clamping assembly movably located on the base for clamping the extension portion and a first motive power device connected to the base and the clamping assembly for driving the clamping assembly to clamp and unclamp the extension portion in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. The closest prior art is Letovsky et al. (US 4,887,967). Regarding claim 1, Letovsky discloses a somatosensory simulation device (Figure 1), comprising: a base [10]; a first steering portion comprising a bracket [102], a first pivot portion (shaft of rotary drive unit [104]) and an extension portion [12], the bracket [102] that is pivotally connected to the base [10] through the first pivot portion (shaft/bearing of rotary drive unit [104]) so that the bracket [102] is able to rotate (see arrow [106]) about a first axial direction (a vertical axis through rotary drive unit [104] in Figure 5) parallel to a gravity direction, and the extension portion [12] that is connected to the bracket [102] and extending towards the base [10]; a second steering portion comprising a loading frame [110] and a second pivot portion [108], the loading frame [110] that is pivotally connected to one side of the bracket [102] opposite to the base [10] through the second pivot portion [108] so that the loading frame [110] is able to rotate (see arrow [114]) about a second axial direction (an axis “into the page” through pivot joint of actuator assembly [108] in Figure 5) intersecting the first axial direction (a vertical axis through rotary drive unit [104] in Figure 5); and a second motive power device [104] connected to the base [10] and the bracket [102] for rotating the bracket [102] (col. 3 lines 42-48, col. 4 line 65 – col. 5 line 28, and Figures 1-6). However, Letovsky neither discloses nor renders obvious a clamping assembly movably located on the base for clamping the extension portion or a first motive power device connected to the base and the clamping assembly for driving the clamping assembly to clamp and unclamp the extension portion. Similar reasoning applies to claim 13. As such, if the claims are amended to remedy the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues as suggested by the examiner above, the claims will be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Chang et al. (US 2009/0282941 A1), Koyama et al. (US 6,234,800 B1), and Yamasaki et al. (US 5,547,382) which all discloses similar simulation devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights