Test Apparatus for a Vehicle
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Test Apparatus for Simulating Off-Road Conditions for a Motor Vehicle”.
Drawings
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 brake assemblies associated with each of the first and second roller devices must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,935 in view of Kirkpatrick (US 20100251832).
Claim 1 of USPN 11,898,935 contains all the limitations of instant claim 1 except the at least one resistance assembly coupled to at least one roller to vary resistance of the roller. Kirkpatrick teaches using eddy current brakes adjusted by a unit controller to manipulate loads on the dynamometer drums. It would have been obvious to incorporate Kirkpatrick’s eddy current brakes into the test apparatus of the patent since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of simulating varying road conditions.
Claims 6-7 of the patent contain all the limitations of instant claims 4 and 7, except the aforementioned resistance assembly. Please see the examiner’s previous statement regarding the obviousness of incorporating Kirkpatrick’s eddy current brakes.
Claim 14 of USPN 11,898,935, including claim 11 from which it depends, contains all the limitations of instant claim 11 except the at least one resistance assembly coupled to at least one roller to vary resistance of the roller by a connected controller. Kirkpatrick teaches using eddy current brakes adjusted by a unit controller to manipulate loads on the dynamometer drums. It would have been obvious to incorporate Kirkpatrick’s eddy current brakes into the test apparatus of the patent since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of simulating varying road conditions.
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 11-19 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.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “front and rear roller assemblies coupled to the platform, each of the front modular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assembly is adjustable along a length of the platform and being configured to receive a pair of wheels of the motor vehicle” is unclear if the front and rear roller assemblies are modular roller assemblies, is unclear if the front modular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assembly each receives a pair of wheels. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a front modular roller assembly and a rear modular roller assemblyeach of the front modular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assembly is configured to receive a pair of wheels of the motor vehicle”. Further, the limitation “a plurality of resistance assemblies coupled to the front and rear roller assemblies and configured to vary a resistance of the front and rear roller assemblies” is unclear if the front and rear roller assemblies are modular roller assemblies and is unclear if the resistance assemblies independently vary the resistances. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a plurality of resistance assemblies coupled to the front modular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assemblymodular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assembly
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the front roller assembly and the rear roller assembly” are unclear if they refer to a front modular roller assembly and a rear modular roller assembly of claim 11 or something else. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the front modular roller assembly and the rear modular roller assembly”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected and interpreted.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian (CN 112683549; “Tian”).
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, a test apparatus for simulating off-road conditions for a motor vehicle (ABSTRACT, “automatic vehicle road condition simulation test table”), the test apparatus comprising: a platform (5, 24); front and rear roller assemblies (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 below) coupled to the platform (5, 24), each of the front roller assembly (13) and the rear roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 below) being configured to receive (see fig. 1, Tian depicts 2 front roller devices and 2 rear roller device, the examiner construes Tian’s configuration as accommodating a vehicle with a pair of wheels in the front and a pair of wheels in the rear) a pair of wheels (28) of the motor vehicle (not enumerated, the examiner asserts the tires are vehicle tires); a driveshaft (6) secured between (see fig. 1) the front roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 below) and the rear roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 below) and configured to transmit rotary power (see Tian’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 2, examiner notes the synchronous adjusting device drives the roller groups) from one of the front roller assembly (not enumerated see figs. 1 and 3) and the rear roller assembly (not enumerated see figs. 1 and 3) to the other of the front roller assembly (not enumerated see figs. 1 and 3) and the rear roller assembly (not enumerated see figs. 1 and 3); and at least one resistance assembly (18) coupled to at least one of the front and rear roller assemblies (see Tian’s translation and figs. 1-2, p. 5, ¶ 1, examiner notes Tian’s alternating current power dynamometer couplies inertia to the rotating roller, this inertia is coupled to the other rollers through differentials, the driveshaft and transmission mechanisms) and configured to vary a resistance (see Tian’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, examiner asserts the alternating current power dynamometer’s ability to match “the inertia of the actual road” by applying driving/braking as evidence of resistance variability) of the at least one of the front and rear roller assemblies, wherein an orientation of the platform is adjustable (see Tian’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 9 – p. 5, ¶ 1, examiner notes Tian’s frames are adjustable to at least simulate different road gradient states such as vehicle downhill and uphill states).
Regarding claim 2, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, the at least one resistance assembly (18) is secured to the platform (9).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibayama (US 5483823; “Shibayama”).
Regarding claim 20, Shibayama discloses, in figures 1-7, a method (TITLE, “Method… for Inspecting Various Running Control Functions of a Motorcar”) for simulating road conditions for a motor vehicle (the examiner believes this preamble recitation does not further limit the recited structure in the body of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02), the method comprising: disposing a pair of wheels (examiner notes, a pair of wheels may be interpreted as a front right wheel and a rear right wheel or any other combination) of the motor vehicle (col. 4, lines 16-18, “apparatus is provided with a pair of right and left rolls 11, 11 for the front wheels of the motorcar and a pair of right and left rolls 12, 12 for the rear wheels of the motorcar”) on a roller assembly (11, 12) of a test apparatus (not enumerated, see fig. 1); operating the motor vehicle such that the pair of wheels of the motor vehicle drive on the roller assembly (col. 4, lines 25-27, “when the motorcar is caused to run with its wheels mounted on the above-described respective rolls”); varying a resistance (8, 111, 112) of the roller assembly (11, 12) such that a first wheel of the pair of wheels comprises a first load and a second wheel of the pair of wheels comprises a second load, the first load being different than the second load (see fig. 2,col. 5, lines 10-13, examiner notes Shibayama’s braking means 112 may apply brakes to decelerate the rollers of the rear wheels to produce a difference in rotational speed between front and rear wheels).
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.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 112683549; “Tian”).
Regarding claim 3, Tian fails to disclose the at least one resistance assembly is located outside of the platform.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that locating the resistance assembly outside of the platform is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the apparatus with the resistance assembly outside of the platform as a matter of design choice to provide access to the assembly. Do so increases the serviceability of the assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, each of the front roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) and the rear roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) includes: first and second roller devices (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above), each of the first and second roller devices configured to receive a respective wheel of the pair of wheels (see fig. 1, Tian depicts 2 front roller devices and 2 rear roller device, the examiner construes Tian’s configuration as accommodating a vehicle with a pair of wheels in the front and a pair of wheels in the rear); and an axle secured to and between the first and second roller devices (see fig. 1, the examiner notes Tian depicts at differential box between right and left rotating rollers (19) the examiner construes the connection between the rotating rollers (19) to be via axle).
Tian does not explicitly state an axle is secured to and between the first and second roller devices.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that using an axle to connect and transmit power between two rotating elements is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known axle secured to and between element to rotate to transmit power between Tian’s left and right rotating rollers. Doing so provides a reliable way to power rollers.
Regarding claim 5, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, each of the first and second roller devices (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) includes: a first drum fixed for rotation with the axle (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above); a second drum configured to be fixed for rotation with a drum axle (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above); and a transmission element ((20) see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) meshingly engaged with the axle (see fig. 1, examiner construes Tian’s AC current power dynamometer connection to the first drum to be via axle) and configured to be meshingly engaged with the drum axle (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above), the transmission element ((20) see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) configured to transmit rotatory power from the first drum to the second drum (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above).
Tian does not explicitly state the transmission element is meshingly engaged to the drum axle..
However, the Examiner takes official notice that meshingly engaging an axle to connect the axle to another element is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known scheme of meshingly engaging an axle to an element to connect Tian’s roller’s. Doing so provides an efficient scheme for connecting rotating elements.
Regarding claim 6, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, the at least one resistance assembly (18) is engaged with the transmission element ((20) see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Tian discloses, in figures 1-3, a brake assembly ((16, 18, 20) see Tian’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 1, examiner notes Tian’s AC power dynamometer applies braking torque to each rotating roller in each rotating assembly) associated with each of the first and second roller devices (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1).
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2017219524; “Goto”), in view of Tian (CN 112683549; “Tian”).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses, in figures 1-4, a test apparatus (10) for simulating off-road conditions (the examiner believes this preamble recitation does not further limit the recited structure in the body of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02) for a motor vehicle (C), the test apparatus (10) comprising: a platform (12); front and rear roller assemblies (13) coupled to the platform (12), each of the front roller assembly (13) and the rear roller assembly (13) being configured to receive a pair of wheels (see figure 4, examiner notes Goto’s front pair of wheels are mounted to a front roller group and Goto’s rear pair of wheels are mounted to a rear roller group) of the motor vehicle (C); and at least one resistance assembly (14) coupled to at least one of the front and rear roller assemblies (13) and configured to vary a resistance (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 8, examiner notes Goto’s motors connected to the front and rear roller groups are capable of applying a load to the rotation of the rollers) of the at least one of the front and rear roller assemblies (13), wherein an orientation of the platform (12) is adjustable (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 3, examiner notes the test stand can be tilted in a 3D inclined attitude).
Goto fails to disclose a driveshaft secured between the front and rear roller assemblies.
Tina teaches, in figure 1, a driveshaft (6) secured between the front roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) and the rear roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) and configured to transmit rotary power (see Tian’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 2, examiner notes the synchronous adjusting device drives the roller groups) from one of the front roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above) to the other of the rear roller assembly (see Tian’s annotated fig. 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tian’s scheme of powering front and rear pairs of test table roller’s with a single motor using a drive shaft in place of Goto’s roller motor combination to reduce the required number of dynamo motors. Doing so would provide for driving a synchronous transmission to effectively simulate the inertia of different driving modes utilizing one motor and thus reducing cost.
Regarding claim 8, Goto and Tian, as combined in claim 1, disclose, in Goto’s figures 1-4, the orientation (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 3, examiner notes the test stand can be tilted in a 3D inclined attitude) includes roll, pitch, yaw, and combinations thereof (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 6, Goto sets yaw, pitch and rolling angle).
Regarding claim 9, Goto and Tian, as combined in claim 1, disclose, in Goto’s figures 1-4, a crane (Goto (21,22,23,24)); and a plurality of suspension devices (25), see Goto’s translation, p. 4, examiner notes Goto’s suspension means includes a universal joint and hanging tolls, such as wire rope and a chain), each suspension device (Goto (25)) secured at a first end to a respective corner (see fig. 4, examiner notes Goto’s universal joints are located at the corners of the test table) of the platform (Goto (12)) and at a second end (see Goto’s fig. 1) to the crane (Goto (21, 22, 23, 24)), wherein the crane (Goto (21, 22, 23, 24)) is configured to adjust the orientation (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 3, examiner notes the test stand can be tilted in a 3D inclined attitude) of the platform (Goto (12)).
Regarding claim 10, Goto and Tian disclose, in Goto’s figures 1-4, the at least one resistance assembly (Goto (14)) includes a plurality of resistance assemblies (see Goto’s fig. 4), and wherein the plurality of resistance assemblies (Goto (14)) are operable independent of each other (see fig. 4, examiner construes Goto’s front and rear roller groups connected to separate dynamo motor to be evidence the motors operate at least on independent roller groups).
Claim 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama (US 5483823; “Shibayama”), in view of Goto (JP 2017219524; “Goto”).
Regarding claim 11, Shibayama discloses, in figures 1-7, a test apparatus (ABSTRACT, “inspecting apparatus” for simulating off-road conditions for a motor vehicle (the examiner believes this preamble recitation does not further limit the recited structure in the body of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02), the test apparatus comprising: a platform (not enumerated, see fig. 7); front (11) and rear (12) roller assemblies coupled to the platform (see previous comment), each of the front modular roller assembly (11) and the rear modular roller assembly (12) is adjustable along a length of the platform (col. 4, lines 39-42, “the distance between the rolls 1.sub.1 for the front wheels and the rolls 1.sub.2 for the rear wheels is arranged to be adjustable depending on the wheel base”) and being configured to receive a pair of wheels of the motor vehicle (col. 4, lines 16-18, “apparatus is provided with a pair of right and left rolls 11, 11 for the front wheels of the motorcar and a pair of right and left rolls 12, 12 for the rear wheels of the motorcar”); a driveshaft (4) secured between (see figure 1) the front roller assembly (11) and the rear roller assembly (12) and configured to transmit rotary power from one of the front roller assembly and the rear roller assembly to the other of the front roller assembly and the rear roller assembly (col. 4, lines 25-33, examiner notes Shibayama’s connecting shaft supplies power to the front wheels in the case of a rear wheel drive vehicle and supplies power to the rear wheels in the case of a front wheel drive vehicle); a plurality of resistance assemblies (8, 111, 112) coupled (col. 4, lines 46-48, “A flywheel 8 is connected to the rear-side split roll 1b of the respective rolls 11, 12”) to the front (11) and rear (12) roller assemblies and configured to vary a resistance (col. 5, lines 10-13, examiner notes Shibayama’s braking means independently act of their respective flywheels to slow the rotation of the connected rolls) of the front and rear roller assemblies (11, 12).
Shibayama fails to explicitly disclose a controller in communication with the plurality of resistance assemblies and configured to operate the plurality of resistance assemblies to vary the resistance of the front and rear roller assemblies.
The Examiner takes official notice that connecting a brakes to a controller to automate the operation of varying the brakes is well-known in the art as taught by evidentiary reference Kirkpatrick (US 20100251832).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known scheme of controlling Shibayama’s brakes with a controller to automate the varying of braking. Doing so increases operator efficiency.
Shibayama fails to disclose an orientation of the platform is adjustable.
Goto teaches, in figures 1-4, an orientation of the platform (12) is adjustable (see Goto’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 3, examiner notes the test stand can be tilted in a 3D inclined attitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Goto’s scheme of supporting a vehicle test platform as a test table configured to be tilted in a 3D inclined attitude into Shibayama’s scheme of inspecting vehicle running control with a roller test bench since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of simulating real world road conditions.
Regarding claim 12, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, the plurality of resistance assembles (Shibayama (8, 111, 112)) are secured to the platform (not enumerated, see Shibayama’s fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Shibayama and Goto fail to disclose the plurality of resistance assemblies are located outside of the platform.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that locating the resistance assembly outside of the platform is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the apparatus with the resistance assembly outside of the platform as a matter of design choice to provide access to the assembly. Do so increases the serviceability of the assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s 1-7, each of the front roller assembly (Shibayama (11)) and the rear roller assembly (Shibayama (12)) includes: first and second roller devices (see fig. 1, examiner construes Shibayama’s right and left split roll pairs to be first and second roller devices), each of the first and second roller devices (see previous comment) configured to receive a respective wheel of the pair of wheels (Shibayama, col. 4, lines 34-43, examiner notes rolls 11 and 11 are for front wheels and rolls 12 and 12 are for rear wheels); and an axle (Shibayama (21, 22, 31, 32)) secured to and between the first and second roller devices (see previous comment).
Regarding claim 15, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, each of the first and second roller devices (see fig. 1, examiner construes Shibayama’s right and left split roll pairs to be first and second roller devices) includes: a first drum (Shibayama (1a)) fixed for rotation with the axle (see fig. 1, (21, 22, 31, 32) the examiner construes Shibayama’s clutches and gear box assemblies to be connected via axle); a second drum (Shibayama (1b)) configured to be fixed for rotation (Shibayama (7)) with a drum axle (not enumerated, see fig. 1, examiner notes Shibayama’s rear split roll is connected to the front split roll axle via a belt); and a transmission element (Shibayama (21, 22, 31, 32)) meshingly engaged with the axle (see previous comment) and configured to be meshingly engaged with the drum axle (see previous comment), the transmission element (Shibayama (21, 22, 31, 32)) configured to transmit rotatory power (col. 4, lines 12- 33, Shibayama’s clutches and gear box assemblies connect roller to transmit or receive power) from the first drum (Shibayama (1a)) to the second drum (Shibayama (1b)).
Regarding claim 16, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, each resistance assembly (Shibayama (8, 111), (8, 112)) of the plurality of resistance assemblies is engaged (see Shibayama’s fig. 1, examiner notes the flywheels and brakes are connected to the clutches and gearbox through the roller assembly) with the transmission element (Shibayama (21, 22, 31, 32)).
Regarding claim 17, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, a brake assembly (Shibayama (111, 112) associated with each (see fig. 1, examiner notes Shibayama’s front brake is associated with right and left front split roll pairs and the rear brake is associated with right and left rear split roll pairs) of the first and second roller devices (see fig. 1, examiner construes Shibayama’s right and left split roll pairs to be first and second roller devices).
Regarding claim 18, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, controller (see examiner’s official notice asserted in response to claim 11) is configured to operate a first resistance assembly (Shibayama (8, 111)) of the plurality of resistance assemblies (Shibayama (8, 111), (8, 112)) at a first power output and a second resistance assembly (Shibayama (8, 112) of the plurality of resistance assemblies (Shibayama (8, 111), (8, 112)) at a second power output, and wherein the first power output and the second power output are different (see fig. 2,col. 5, lines 10-13, examiner notes Shibayama’s braking means 112 may apply brakes to decelerate the rollers of the rear wheels to produce a difference in rotational speed between front and rear wheels).
Regarding claim 19, Shibayama and Goto disclose, in Shibayama’s figures 1-7, the controller (see examiner’s official notice asserted in response to claim 11) is configured to operate a first resistance assembly (Shibayama (8, 111)) of the plurality of resistance assemblies (Shibayama (8, 111), (8, 112)) at a first power output (examiner notes Shibayama’s front brake inherently operates at a power output) and a second resistance assembly (Shibayama (8, 112)) of the plurality of resistance assemblies (Shibayama (8, 111), (8, 112)) at a second power output (examiner notes Shibayama’s rear brake inherently operates at a power output), and (examiner notes that the limitation, “wherein the first power output and the second power output are the same” is a functional language type limitation. Applicant is reminded that functionality must be distinguished from the prior art structure's inherent functionality. In the instant case, Shibayama’s brakes are capable of operating at the same power output, See MPEP 2114.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855