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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application (foreign priority application GB2213910.9 filed September 23, 2022) and 371 application (PCT/GB2023/052474 filed September 25, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 11, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are replete with errors. The following errors are provided by way of example but may not be inclusive of all the errors present. Applicant is requested to review the drawings for additional and similar errors present in the figures not specifically mentioned.
Regarding FIGS. 1-8, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features comprising “a vehicle body, monitor support structure, cantilevered arm, and monitor support column” (per claim 10); “a gap” (per claims 13 and 14), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Claim 10 recites the following: “an elongate base.” The misspelling of “elongate” is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation of claim 10 as follows: “an elongated base.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11-15 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 10.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang, et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Chang,” US 2009/0286602).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses a vehicle simulator (see FIG. 2, driving simulator 100) comprising a vehicle body (see FIG. 2, outer shell 11; see para. [0023]: The outer shell 11 may have a profile of the motorcycle or any other structure depending on the purpose of the simulation device) including a seat (see FIG. 2, seating portion 112; see para. [0023]: The seating portion 112 is provided to permit seating of the rider (not shown)) and a monitor display stand (see annotated Figure 2, “A”), said monitor display stand comprising an elongate base (see annotated Figure 2, “B”) for location below said main body, a monitor support structure (see annotated Figure 2, “C”; see FIG. 3, a display device 300; see para. [0026]: … is displayed in a display screen 301 of the display device 300) mounted on said base and comprising a cantilevered arm (see annotated Figure 2, “D” FIG. 2, a carrier frame 12) extending within said main body and connected to a monitor support column (see annotated Figure 2, “E”) which extends to a position above said main body, said support structure being adapted to support at least one monitor (see annotated Figure 2, “F”; see FIG. 3, a display screen 301; see para. [0026]: … is displayed in a display screen 301 of the display device 300) above said main body, so that said main body can move independently of the monitor display stand (see FIG. 2 swinging mechanism 20; see FIGS. 6-7; see para. [0033] Referring to FIGS. 6 and 7, wherein FIG. 6 illustrates the seat body 10 of the driving simulation device of the present invention at its initial position P and FIG. 7 illustrates the driving simulation device of the present invention in action. Once a rider is seated on the seating portion 112 and swings the seat body 10 so as to simulate a driving action, the seating portion 112 and the coupling portion 121 swing respectively in two directions opposite to each other;
see para. [0034] As shown in FIG. 6, the seat body 10 is at its initial position P, where the spring member 24 interconnecting the coupling portion 121 and the mounting base 211 provides a push force for retaining the seat body 10 (hence the coupling portion 121) at the initial position P such that the stop member 123 of the coupling portion 121 is spaced apart from the stop member 213 of the mounting base 211. When the rider (not shown) seated on the seating portion 112 swings the seat body 10 to one side of the mounting frame 21, the coupling portion 121 is swung to another side of the mounting frame 21 opposite to the seating portion 112 due to the structuring of the first and second connecting rods 22, 23. Namely, the swinging axis "C" of the seat body 10 is located at the center of the seat body 10 so as to minimize the force for swinging the seat body 10 reciprocally. In case the seat body 10 is swung to its largest swinging angle, the stop member 213 of the mounting base 211 will collide against the stop member 123 of the coupling portion 121 so as to limit a swinging range of the seat body 10. Namely, the rider can be thereby prevented from falling from the seating portion 112. When the seat body 10 is swung to the largest swinging angle, the spring member 24 provides a push force for pushing the seat body 10 back to its initial position P upon removal of the applied swinging force therefrom;
see para. [0035] To summarize the above paragraphs, since two connecting rods 22, 23 are used in the driving simulation device of the present invention, there needs two rotating axes (axes A1 and A2) such that, so far as the gravity center of the rider during the swinging action does not go beyond the boundary defined by the rotating axes, the driving simulator 100 will not overturn (hence the seat body 10), and thereby a more stable sate of the seat body 10 can be provided (by compared to the conventional driving simulator including only a single rotating axis). Moreover, since the weight of the rider as well as the seat body 10 are distributed uniformly on the first and second connecting rods 22, 23, the driving simulation device of the present invention possesses a relatively large support force to support the driving simulator 100 (Noted that the conventional one has a single connecting rod unit);
see para. [0036] The stop member 123 of the seat body 10 can prevent overturning of the seat body 10 and is further connected the spring member 24 in such a manner that, when the seat body 10 is swung to an inclined position, the spring member 34 exerts a push force for pushing the seat body 10 back to its initial position P. Therefore, the rider can minimize the applied swinging force for swinging the seat body 10 relative to the mounting frame 21).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses wherein the monitor display stand remains static while said main body has movement (see FIG. 2; see para. [0024] The swinging mechanism 20 is associated with the carrier frame 12 for swinging the seat body 10).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Chang,” (US 2009/0286602).
Regarding claim 12, Chang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the movement of said main body relative to said monitor display stand is from 3.5 to 15 cm. However, the Applicant’s use of movement of said main body relative to said monitor display stand is from 3.5 to 15 cm is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the movement of said main body relative to said monitor display stand is from 3.5 to 15 cm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any movement using the device of Chang or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Chang to obtain the device as specified in claim 12, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Chang.
Regarding claim 13, Chang fails to explicitly disclose wherein there is a gap between said main body and said monitor display stand at a lower edge of said main body, and a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap. However, the Applicant’s use of a gap between said main body and said monitor display stand at a lower edge of said main body, and a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that a gap between said main body and said monitor display stand at a lower edge of said main body, and a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any gap or barrier using the device of Chang or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Chang to obtain the device as specified in claim 13, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Chang.
Regarding claim 14, Chang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor support column extends through a hole in said main body providing a gap therebetween. However, the Applicant’s use of extending through a hole in said main body providing a gap therebetween is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that extending through a hole in said main body providing a gap therebetween solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any monitor support column using the device of Chang or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Chang to obtain the device as specified in claim 14, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Chang.
Regarding claim 15, Chang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap between the hole and said main body. However, the Applicant’s use of a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap between the hole and said main body is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that a flexible barrier is mounted in the gap between the hole and said main body solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any barrier mounted using the device of Chang or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Chang to obtain the device as specified in claim 15, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Chang.
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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10-15 recite the limitation “said main body,” repeatedly. The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 11-15 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said base.” The limitation “an elongate base,” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said elongated base”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 11-15 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said support structure.” The limitation “a monitor support structure,” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said monitor support structure”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 11-15 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 10
Claim 13 recites the limitations “a lower edge” and “a flexible barrier.” When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation “ a lower edge” and “a flexible barrier” fail to specify a degree of height and a degree of flexibility/rigidity such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of height and flexibility/rigidity is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. As such, claim 13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation “a gap.” When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation “a gap” fails to specify a degree of space such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of space is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. As such, claims 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a hole.” When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation “a hole” fails to specify a degree of space such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of space is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. As such, claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a flexible barrier.” When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation “a flexible barrier” fails to specify a degree of flexibility/rigidity such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what amount of flexibility/rigidity is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. As such, claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights