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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 1/2/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 6, and 17 were canceled, claims 1 and 7-8 were amended, and claims 19-20 were added. Thus, claims 1-5 and 7-16 and 18-20 are pending for this application.
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.
Claim 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), Lev (20030028134), Wang (US 20220183926), and Frey (US 2013/0079196).
Regarding claim 1, Yetukuri discloses (Fig. 1-2) a massage device for a legrest of a vehicle seat, the massage device comprising:
a case (leg support 38) mounted on a legrest frame (leg support base 50) of the seat (seat base 28), and a massager (massager 62) mounted inside the case and configured to massage a calf portion of a passenger (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020]).
Yetukuri does not disclose the massager is in the form of a motor provided in a type comprising a bidirectional rotary shaft and mounted inside the case; eccentric shafts respectively eccentrically connected to the bidirectional rotary shafts of the motor; a motion conversion device connected to each of the eccentric shafts to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion; a linear motion device connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion; and a striking body connected to the linear motion device.
However, Lee teaches (Fig. 1-4) massager in the form of a motor (motor 70) provided in a type comprising a rotary shaft (see shaft in Fig. 4) and mounted inside a case (housing 10); an eccentric shaft (shaft P of rotation disk 71) eccentrically connected to the rotary shaft of the motor; a motion conversion device (comprising rotation disk 71 and connecting rod 90) connected to the eccentric shaft to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion (paragraph [0040]); a linear motion device (connecting rod 45) connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion (paragraph [0044]); and a striking body (massage plate 40 having massage protrusions 50) connected to the linear motion device to strike a portion of a user.
Lee’s motor is single shaft rotary type and not bidirectional shaft rotary type, however Calvert teaches (Fig. 4-5) a massager with bidirectional motor (motor 30 having bidirectional shaft 34, divided into left and right shafts) for alternately driving a pair of striking members (studs 46) having eccentric shafts (shafts extending from wheels 36) respectively eccentrically connected to the bidirectional rotary shafts of the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massager of Yetukuri to include motor provided in a type comprising a rotary shaft and mounted inside the case; eccentric shaft respectively eccentrically connected to the rotary shaft of the motor; a motion conversion device connected to each of the eccentric shafts to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion; a linear motion device connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion; and a striking body connected to the linear motion device, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing reciprocating massaging motion of a user to increase bloodflow and thus improve massaging effects to a user, and to further modify the motor type to be bidriectionaly, as taught by Calvert, for the purpose of providing for alternate massage function so that left and right sides of a user can be massaged alternately thereby improving patient outcome.
Modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the motion conversion device comprises: a connecting rod (connecting rod 90) provided in a ring-shaped structure (see ring-shaped structure in Fig. 2-3), but does not disclose the motion conversion device comprises: a bearing comprising the eccentric shaft rotatably inserted thereinto; the ring-shaped structure comprising the bearing inserted thereinto and coupled thereto.
However, Lev teaches (Fig. 5) a motion conversion device comprises: a bearing (rotary bearing 62) comprising the eccentric shaft (shaft of crank arm 56) rotatably inserted thereinto (paragraph [0031]); the ring-shaped structure comprising the bearing inserted thereinto and coupled thereto (see Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion conversion device of modified Yetukuri to include a bearing comprising the eccentric shaft rotatably inserted thereinto; the ring-shaped structure comprising the bearing inserted thereinto and coupled thereto, as taught by Lev, for the purpose of reducing friction between components and thus provide smooth repetitive linear motion transmission.
Modified Yetukuri does not disclose the connecting rod comprising a hinge end formed at an upper portion thereof and hingedly coupled to the linear motion device.
However, Wang teaches (Fig. 1-2) a connecting rod (connecting rod 50) comprising a hinge end (end having connecting portion 54) formed at an upper portion thereof and hingedly coupled to the linear motion device (rotatably and thus hingedly connected to linear motion device 42, paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting rod of modified Yetukuri to include a hinge end formed at an upper portion thereof and hingedly coupled to the linear motion device, as taught by Wang, for the purpose of providing tilting/rocking massage motion in addition to linear massage motion.
Modified Yetukuri discloses the bearing includes an inner ring inserted into and to which the eccentric shaft is inserted and coupled (see Fig. 4 Lev), but does not disclose the bearing is in the form of a ball bearing that further includes an outer ring inserted into and coupled to an inner diameter of the connecting rod, and a ball positioned between the inner and outer rings.
However, Frey teaches (Fig. 1-4) a bearing (152) in the form of a ball bearing (“ball bearing”, paragraph [0030]) that includes an outer ring inserted into and coupled to an inner diameter of the connecting rod (support plate 153), and a ball positioned between the inner and outer rings (see ball, inner ring, and outer ring in Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing of modified Yetukuri to be in the form of a ball bearing that further includes an outer ring inserted into and coupled to an inner diameter of the connecting rod, and a ball positioned between the inner and outer ring, as taught by Frey, for the purpose of further improving the non-friction rotatable connection between the components (paragraph [0030] Frey), thereby improving lifetime use. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known bearing structure (bearing of Lev) with another well-known bearing structure (ball bearing of Frey) would provide the expected result of providing rotatable and non-slip connection between two components (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yetukuri does not disclose wherein the case comprises: an upper case assembled to the legrest frame while surrounding an upper surface portion of the motor; and a lower case assembled to the upper case while surrounding a lower surface portion of the motor.
However, Calvert further teaches (Fig. 5) a case comprising: an upper case (comprising top housing part 18 and bracket 32) assembled to the legrest frame (while a legrest frame is not disclosed by Calvert, a legrest frame is already disclosed by Yetukuri and the case of Yetukuri, which includes the upper case, is already assembled to the legrest frame, and thus this feature is comprehended by the combined Yetukuri/Cavlert references) while surrounding an upper surface portion of the motor (see Fig. 5); and a lower case (bottom housing part 20) assembled to the upper case while surrounding a lower surface portion of the motor (see Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the case of modified Yetukuri to include an upper case assembled to the legrest frame while surrounding an upper surface portion of the motor; and a lower case assembled to the upper case while surrounding a lower surface portion of the motor, as further taught by Calvert, for the purpose of improving securing of the motor to the legrest assembly so that massage can be safely administered.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein two or more ring-shaped rubber dampers (elastic body 200 of Lee, and two of these due to the motor of modified Yetukuri being bidirectional) are in close contact with an inner surface of the case and an outer surface of the motor while being disposed therebetween (see Fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yetukuri discloses the upper case has a groove part (grooves of bracket 32, see Fig. 5 Calvert) formed at opposite side portions thereof (see Fig. 5 Calvert), the groove part securing a reciprocating motion space of the linear motion device (see Fig. 5 Calvert).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the eccentric shaft comprises: a body part (body portion of shaft P of disc 71 of Lee); a coupling groove (internal chamber of shaft P of Lee) formed on an inner surface of the body part so that the rotary shaft of the motor is inserted thereinto and coupled thereto (see Fig. 4 Lee); and an eccentric protrusion (screw shown in Fig. 2-3 Lee) formed to protrude from an outer surface of the body part while being eccentric with the rotary shaft of the motor and inserted into an inner ring of the bearing (see Fig. 2-3 Lee).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the linear motion device comprises: a slide shaft (connecting rod 45 of Yetukuri) having a lower end portion hingedly coupled to the hinge end of the connecting rod (rotatably and thus hingedly connected to linear motion device 42, paragraph [0036] and Fig. 2 Wang), and an upper end portion connected to the striking body (portion of connecting rod 45 connected to striking body 40, see Fig. 5 Yetukuri); a linear guide (guide 30 of Lee) having a hollow structure (portion 35) comprising the slide shaft inserted thereinto to be linearly movable (paragraph [0029] Lee); but does not disclose a guide-fixing block provided in a structure comprising a press-fitting hole comprising the linear guide fixedly press-fitted thereinto, and mounted on opposite side portions of the motor.
However, Calvert further teaches (Fig. 5) a guide-fixing block (drive unit 50) provided in a structure comprising a press-fitting hole (holes which studs 46 are press fitted into) comprising the linear guide fixedly press-fitted thereinto (guides 46 press fitted as shown in Fig. 5), and mounted on opposite side portions of the motor (on opposite left and right sides as shown in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Yetukuri to include a guide-fixing block provided in a structure comprising a press-fitting hole comprising the linear guide fixedly press-fitted thereinto, and mounted on opposite side portions of the motor, as taught by Calvert, for the purpose of allowing for asynchronous and independent movement of the slide rods toward and away from massage head to provide a percussive massage effect (paragraph [0029] Calvert).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the upper end portion of the slide shaft and the striking body are connected to each other by a link (the guide fixing block 50 of Calvert. Applicant has not claimed this is a further component due to lack of “further comprising”) configured to adjust a distance between the striking bodies (paragraph [0029] and Fig. 5 Calvert).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yetukuri discloses the striking body having a square plate shape, and thus does not disclose the striking body is provided in an elliptical plate shape or a spherical shape. However, outside evidence of criticality, it has been held changes in shape are a mere design consideration and would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the striking body is surrounded by a covering of the legrest (outer layer of leg support 38 of Yeukuri, see Fig. 1), but does not disclose wherein the striking body is disposed in a pad.
However, Calvert further teaches (Fig. 4-5) striking body (stud 46) disposed in a pad (rubber sleeve 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the striking body of modified Yetukuri to be disposed in a pad, as taught by Calvert, for the purpose of reducing wear on the striking body so that prolonged use can be achieved.
Regarding claim 18, modified Yetukuri discloses a vehicle (paragraph [0001] Yetukuri) comprising the massage device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), Lev (20030028134), Wang (US 20220183926), and Frey (US 2013/0079196), and further in view of Park (US 2003/0060741).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yetukuri discloses the upper case is assembled to the legrest frame (see rejection of claim 2 above), but does not disclose the upper case is assembled to a pair of cross plates mounted on the legrest frame.
However, Park teaches (Fig. 1-4) an upper case (bracket 32, which receives massage motor 20) that is assembled to a pair of cross plates (fixing plates 35) mounted on the massage chair frame (bracket 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Yetukuri such that the upper case is assembled to a pair of cross plates mounted on the legrest frame, as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving securing of the motor to the legrest assembly so that massage can be safely administered.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), Lev (20030028134), Wang (US 20220183926), and Frey (US 2013/0079196), and further in view of Huang (US 2002/0183668).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yetukuri does not disclose the device further comprising a controller configured to control a speed of the motor.
However, Huang teaches (Fig. 1-5) a massage device comprising power device configured to supply power to the driving device (Huang discloses a power switch 101 to turn power on or off, paragraph [0019], and therefore while Huang does not explicitly state there is a power device, a power device to supply power to the driving device is inherent to the disclosure of Huang); and a controller (PCB 15) configured to control power supply of the power device (via power switch 101, paragraph [0019]) and a rotation speed of the driving device (button 102 to control motor speed, paragraph [0019]) on the basis of an input from a user (user’s pressing of button interpreted as user input, paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage device of modified Yetukuri to a controller configured to control a speed of the motor, as taught and by Huang, for the purpose allowing for control of device according to user preferences and to allow for the device to be powered by electricity, which is a reliable and easily controller power source.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yetukuri discloses wherein the controller performs a control operation to drive the motor when a user turns on a switch (power switch 101 of Huang, paragraph [0019]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), Lev (20030028134), Wang (US 20220183926), and Frey (US 2013/0079196), and Huang (US 2002/0183668), and further in view of Kim (US 2023/0191954).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yetukuri discloses a controller that controls operation of the device, but does not disclose the controller performs a control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor.
However, Kim teaches (Fig. 1-10) a vehicle massage system comprising a striking device (haptic device that provides massage effect, paragraph [0064]) and a controller (processor 270) to perform control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor (haptic device is not activated when vehicle is determined to be stopped, and thus on the basis of vehicle speed information (speed is zero when stopped), determined by vehicle speed sensor 200, and activated when vehicle is in driving state and seat posture is a low speed or accelerated posture, paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of modified Yetukuri to be configured to perform a control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of allowing the motor to be activated only when necessary (i.e. when vehicle is not moving, driver is not in need of a massage and therefore only on when user would need it) (paragraph [0064] Kim).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yetukuri does not disclose wherein the controller performs a control operation to adjust the speed of the motor to a specific RPM for a driver warning in response to a warning signal received from a lane departure warning system or a warning signal received from a collision avoidance system. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller and sensor arrangement of Kim would be capable of performing this function and thus this limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for improving safety of a user.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yetukuri does not disclose wherein the controller performs a control operation to adjust the speed of the motor to a specific RPM depending on a magnitude of body pressure in response to a body pressure detection signal received from a pressure sensor mounted on the legrest. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the controller and sensor arrangement of Kim would be capable of performing this function and thus this limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for improving safety of a user.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), and Kim (US 2023/0191954).
Regarding claim 19, Yetukuri discloses (Figs. 1-2) a massage device for a legrest of a vehicle seat, the massage device comprising:.
a case (leg support 38) mounted on a legrest frame (leg support base 50) of the seat (seat base 28); and a massager (massager 62) mounted inside the case and configured to massage a calf portion of a passenger (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020]).
Yetukuri does not disclose the massager is in the form of a motor provided in a type comprising a bidirectional rotary shaft and mounted inside the case; eccentric shafts respectively eccentrically connected to the bidirectional rotary shafts of the motor; a motion conversion device connected to each of the eccentric shafts to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion; a linear motion device connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion; and a striking body connected to the linear motion device.
However, Lee teaches (Fig. 1-4) massager in the form of a motor (motor 70) provided in a type comprising a rotary shaft (see shaft in Fig. 4) and mounted inside a case (housing 10); an eccentric shaft (shaft P of rotation disk 71) eccentrically connected to the rotary shaft of the motor; a motion conversion device (comprising rotation disk 71 and connecting rod 90) connected to the eccentric shaft to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion (paragraph [0040]); a linear motion device (connecting rod 45) connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion (paragraph [0044]); and a striking body (massage plate 40 having massage protrusions 50) connected to the linear motion device to strike a portion of a user.
Lee’s motor is single shaft rotary type and not bidirectional shaft rotary type, however Calvert teaches (Fig. 4-5) a massager with bidirectional motor (motor 30 having bidirectional shaft 34, divided into left and right shafts) for alternately driving a pair of striking members (studs 46) having eccentric shafts (shafts extending from wheels 36) respectively eccentrically connected to the bidirectional rotary shafts of the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massager of Yetukuri to include motor provided in a type comprising a rotary shaft and mounted inside the case; eccentric shaft respectively eccentrically connected to the rotary shaft of the motor; a motion conversion device connected to each of the eccentric shafts to convert a rotational motion of the eccentric shaft into a linear reciprocating motion; a linear motion device connected to the motion conversion device to perform the linear reciprocating motion; and a striking body connected to the linear motion device, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing reciprocating massaging motion of a user to increase bloodflow and thus improve massaging effects to a user, and to further modify the motor type to be bidriectionaly, as taught by Calvert, for the purpose of providing for alternate massage function so that left and right sides of a user can be massaged alternately thereby improving patient outcome.
Modified Yetukuri discloses a controller (control unit 40), but does not disclose wherein the controller performs a control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor; wherein the controller performs a control operation to adjust the speed of the motor to a specific RPM for a driver warning in response to a warning signal received from a lane departure warning system or a warning signal received from a collision avoidance system; or wherein the controller performs a control operation to adjust the speed of the motor to a specific RPM depending on a magnitude of body pressure in response to a body pressure detection signal received from a pressure sensor mounted on the legrest.
However, Kim teaches (Fig. 1-10) a vehicle massage system comprising a striking device (haptic device that provides massage effect, paragraph [0064]) and a controller (processor 270) to perform control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor (haptic device is not activated when vehicle is determined to be stopped, and thus on the basis of vehicle speed information (speed is zero when stopped), determined by vehicle speed sensor 200, and activated when vehicle is in driving state and seat posture is a low speed or accelerated posture, paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of modified Yetukuri to be configured to perform a control operation to increase the speed of the motor as a vehicle speed increases, and to decrease the speed of the motor as the vehicle speed decreases, based on a signal of a vehicle speed sensor, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of allowing the motor to be activated only when necessary (i.e. when vehicle is not moving, driver is not in need of a massage and therefore only on when user would need it) (paragraph [0064] Kim).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetukuri (US 2021/0016686) in view of Lee (KR 200323777), Calvert (US 2003/0158505), Lev (20030028134), Wang (US 20220183926), Frey (US 2013/0079196), and further in view of Bousfield (US 2005/0015030) and Pardo (US 2015/0305487).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yetukuri discloses a motor and a case, but does not disclose a rubber damper mounted between the case and motor.
However, Bousfield teaches (Fig. 9-10) a massage device comprising a motor (500) and a casing (12) and a damper (520, made of “resilient foam material”, paragraph [0078]) situated between the case and motor. While the damper of Bousfield does not appear to be made of rubber, Pardo further teaches a damper (damper 40) made of rubber (paragraph [0032]) and situated between a motor (motor 42) and casing (handle 4) for dampening vibrations to the casing (paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Yetukuri to include a damper mounted between the case and motor, as taught by Bousfield, for the purpose of dampening vibrations to the casing (paragraph [0066] Bousfield) and to further modify the material of the damper to be rubber, as taught by Pardo, for the purpose of providing further vibrational dampening by selecting a material that is able to withstand more force compared to resilient foam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the Yetukuri and Lev reference combination, applicant argued (page 12 paragraph 3-5 Remarks) that the asserted reason for the combination of the references is an alleged finding and Office Action provides no evidences to establish that this combination demonstrates reduced friction as compared to Lev alone, and thus this finding represents an unacknowledged taking of Office Notice without documentary evidence. MPEP 2144.03(A) states that Office Notice unsupported by documentary evidence may be taken only where the facts asserted are well-known are common in the art, but applicant submits that the relative improvement in friction behavior of the two complex mechanical systems cannot be considered to be well-known.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that the features being modified are that of the combined Yetukuri reference, not Yetukuri alone. The combined Yetukuri reference includes teachings of Lee, which teach a similar linear reciprocating mechanism design as Lev, the difference being a lack of a bearing that the eccentric shaft is rotatably inserted into. In Lee, the eccentric shaft is inserted into connecting rod 90 which appears to show a bearing based on its depictions in the art, but is not explicitly disclosed. Lee teaches providing a bearing as an interface between the eccentric shaft and the motion conversion device to provide for reduction in friction, as is well understood in the art (as evidenced by new reference Frey applied to newly amended claim 1, i.e. see paragraph [0030] Frey).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Examiner implicitly took Office Notice, examiner respectfully disagrees. Office Notice is taken when no documentary evidence is provided but the feature is understood to be common knowledge in the art, see MPEP 2114.03. However in this case, examiner provided a teaching reference (Lev) for teaching this feature, and thus documentary evidence has been provided by the examiner. Thus, applicant’s arguments regarding Office Notice are moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding allowability of dependent claims have been considered but are moto due to rejection of all independent claims.
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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights