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
Claim 4 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 12-20 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 12 and the recitation “the first bottom surface is in direct contact with the second top surface”, it is unclear how the first bottom surface which is recited as having the indentations and extended portions (such as interlocking teeth, see figures) can be in direct contact with the second top surface, when it appears the first bottom surface is fact in direct contact with the second bottom surface also provided with indentations and extended portions. The phrase “direct contact” implies no other intervening elements or structure. The only surfaces in direct contact with each other in the instant invention are the first bottom surface of the first portion and the second bottom surface of the second portion, since only each of these surfaces are provided with the interlocking indentations and extended portions that interlock as required by the claim language. The claims will be interpreted as best possible in light of the issues raised above.
Claims 13-20 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 754,043 to Bradley.
Re-claim 1, Bradley discloses a method, comprising: providing an interlocking bellcrank (overall structure of elements 3-6, which substantially resemble the instant invention, see instant figure 10) in a first configuration; receiving a transverse motion requirement; determining a second configuration of the bellcrank based on the transverse motion requirement; configuring the bellcrank according to the second configuration; and providing the interlocking bellcrank in the second configuration. Bradley discloses the orientation of crank-arms 3 and 4 are variable, see page 1 lines 66-78. As such the configuration and orientation of arm 3 relative to arm 4 can be changed as desired.
Re-claims 2-7, the recited features of the bellcrank and variable orientations can be carried out by the device of Bradley, by simply rotating element 5 and 6 with respect to each other and then interlocking the elements.
Re-claims 8-10, configuring the bellcrank according to a second configuration comprises: removing a pin 2 that extends from a first portion 5 of the bellcrank to a second portion 6 of the bellcrank, the second portion is disposed directly beneath the first portion (such as when turned up, or the interlocking teeth of 5 and 6), pulling the first portion from the second portion, rotating the portions relative to one another (including 180 degrees) and re-inserting the first portion into the second portion.
Re-claim 12, Bradley discloses a bellcrank system, comprising: a bellcrank comprising: a first portion 5 comprising a first top surface (outer end surface) and a first bottom surface (distal end surface); the first bottom surface opposes the first top surface; the first bottom surface comprises a first set of indentations 8 and a first set of extended portions 7; the first set of indentations and the first set of extended portions are disposed along a circumference of the first bottom surface (see figure 2); and a second portion 6 comprising a second top surface and a second bottom surface; the second bottom surface opposes the second top surface; the second bottom surface comprises a second set of indentations 8 and a second set of extended portions 7; the second portion is disposed directly below the first portion such that: the first set of indentations 8 interlocks with the second set of extended portions 7; the second set of indentations 8 interlocks with the first set of extended portions 7 (see figure 1); the first bottom surface is in direct contact with the second top surface (as the first portion is directly connected to the second portion, and any surfaces thereof are directly connected, as consistent with the instant invention); the bellcrank comprises at least a first configuration and a second configuration.
Re-claim 13, the first portion 5 further comprises a first wing 3; the second portion 6 further comprises a second wing 4; the first wing 3 is disposed between the first top surface and the first bottom surface; the first wing 3 extends laterally past the first top surface and the first bottom surface; the second wing 4 is disposed between the second top surface and the second bottom surface; and the second wing extends laterally past the second top surface and the second bottom surface. Figures 1 and 2 show the wing and its attachment to the portion in question. It is noted the wind is slightly offset from the end of the portion, see figure 2.
Re-claim 16, the first set of indentations comprises at least a first indentation and a second indentation (see figure 2); the first set of extended portions comprises at least a first extended portion and a second extended portion; the second set of indentations comprises at least a third indentation and a fourth indentation; and the second set of extended portions comprises at least a third extended portion and a fourth extended portion. The indentations and extended portions of each portion form teeth that interlock with teeth of the other portion, in the same manner as the instant invention.
Re-claim 17, when in the first configuration, the first extended portion is disposed within the third indentation; wherein, in the first configuration, the second extended portion is disposed within the fourth indentation; wherein, in the first configuration, the third extended portion is disposed within the first indentation; and wherein, in the first configuration, the fourth extended portion is disposed within the second indentation. Each of the configurations are clearly achieved by simply connecting the portions together in the illustrated fashion.
Re-claim 18, wherein, in the second configuration, the first extended portion is disposed within the fourth indentation; wherein, in the second configuration, the second extended portion is disposed within the third indentation; wherein, in the second configuration, the third extended portion is disposed within the second indentation; and wherein, in the second configuration, the fourth extended portion is disposed within the first indentation. The second orientation is simply a different orientation than the first and is easily achieved by simply disassembling the portions from one another and rotating the portions to a different orientation then reassembling the portions together, as disclosed by Bradley.
Re-claim 19, in the first configuration, the bellcrank is configured to actuate a left-hand push, as the device is capable of being arranged for this operation.
Re-claim 20, in the second configuration, the bellcrank is configured to actuate a right-hand push, as the device is capable of being arranged for this operation.
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) 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley in view of U S4,441,596 to Nakahara et al.
Re-claims 11 and 14, Bradley fails to teach or show a first arm or second arm connected to the bellcrank wing elements, even though connections at a distal end of the wings is common in the art (generally to support a pedal or other feature), and as such the bellcrank according to a second configuration further comprises: de-coupling a first arm coupled to the first portion of the bellcrank; and de-coupling a second arm coupled to the second portion of the bellcrank, for simultaneous movement of the first and second arm when initiated.
Nakahara et al. teach a bellcrank and interlocking feature having a first arm (such as arm 38) and a second arm 68 connected to first and second wings 34/64 and subsequently first and second portions 18/28. The arms provide connection between the bellcrank and an activation unit (i.e. pedal 16/26) and activated unit (i.e. cylinder 30/48). This essentially transmits motion from an input to an output. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bellcrank of Bradley with a first and second arm units connected to the wings as taught by Nakahara et al., thus allowing for the transmission of an input motion to an output motion.
Re-claim 15, when modified, the first arm is configured to rotate the first wing 3 from the second position to the first position; and wherein, in the second configuration, the second wing 4 is configured to simultaneously move the second arm transversely from the fourth position to the third position.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/339,380 (2024/0426373). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of copending application claim 7 and instant claim 13 substantially cover the same invention. The subject matter of instant claim 13 includes the subject matter of instant claim 12, which covers the recited features of combined copending claim 7 which includes the subject matter of copending claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Porter, Dodge and Felton each teach an interlocking crank or force transmission device.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
November 4, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616