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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2021/0339724 to Maruo et al. in view of JP-4706291 (JP’291).
Re: claims 5 and 8. Maruo et al. shows in figure 9 a stroke simulator comprising: a cylinder 72a; a piston 71a that moves inside the cylinder in response to an operation of a brake pedal 3 as shown in figure 2: a reactive rubber 80 as disclosed in paragraph [0016] that is disposed inside the cylinder and that applies a reactive force to the piston by being compressed by a movement of the piston to one or bottom side; and a plug 81 that is disposed inside the cylinder 72a so as to surround an outer circumferential surface of the reactive rubber and that increases a sliding resistance against a movement of the reactive rubber to the one side as the reactive rubber is compressed,
an elastic member 73 that applies a reactive force to the piston 71a by being compressed by the movement of the piston to the one side, and a stopper 74b that is disposed between the piston 71a and the plug 81 through the elastic member wherein the stopper has an end surface thereof on the one side i.e. the bottom side, the reactive rubber 80 has a portion or top part that is fitted onto the end surface of the stopper as shown,
wherein a movement distance of the piston against which a reactive force is generated by the compression of the reactive rubber is equal to or greater than a movement distance of the piston against which a reactive force is generated by compression of an elastic member 73 other than the reactive rubber 80, and at least one of the reactive rubber 80 and the plug has a communication groove 80a formed therein, the communication groove allowing a first chamber shown in the area near the end of the lead line of 82 formed at the one side of the reactive rubber 80 and a second chamber 712 formed at the other side of the reactive rubber to communicate with each other inside the cylinder 72a, and a volume of the reactive rubber 80 (other than a convex portion) observed when the piston 71a bottoms out is equal to or smaller than or particularly smaller than a capacity of the plug 81 as shown, but is silent with regard to the stopper having a concave portion formed in the end surface thereof on the one side and the reactive rubber having a convex portion that is fitted into the concave portion.
JP’291 teaches in figure 7 the use of a stopper 242 having a concave portion 242a formed in an end surface thereof on a one side and a reactive rubber 240 having a convex portion 240b that is fitted into the concave portion as shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the end surface of the stopper and the corresponding side of the reactive rubber fitted to the end surface of Maruo et al. to have included a concave portion and a convex portion, respectively, in view of the teachings of JP’291, in order to provide a means of restricting the amount of misalignment between the reactive rubber 240 and the stopper end surface as taught by JP’290 in the paragraph beginning “The end surfaces of the small-diameter ends of the rubber lumps”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim(s) have been considered and are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous interpretation of the incorporated references. Examiner notes that while the amendment overcomes the 112 rejections, it raised a new issue that necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth above. Once the phrase “other than the convex portion” was added to claims 5 and 8, the Maruo et al. read on the limitation recited in original claims 5 and 8 as evident from the rightmost drawing of figure 10.
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
February 2, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights