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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sekine (US 9,517,784).
In re claim 1, Sekine discloses an operation device for receiving an operation input regarding translation and/or turning about a vertical axis of a moving body from a user operating the moving body (10), the operation device comprising: at least three leg parts (as shown in annotated Figure 5 below) extending upward from a vehicle body; an operation part (20) joined to each of the leg parts and configured to receive an operation input from the user; and at least one displacement sensor (torque sensors 21 include torsion bars which inherently require a displacement to sense said torque) configured to detect a horizontal displacement amount of the operation part, wherein, as seen in top view, each of the leg parts is in a position spaced from a straight line connecting selected two of other leg parts (as shown in annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 5
In re claim 2, Sekine further discloses wherein the at least three leg parts include four leg parts disposed at vertices of a rectangle as seen in top view (as shown in annotated Figures 5 above).
In re claim 4, Sekine further discloses wherein the at least three leg parts include three leg parts disposed at vertices of a triangle as seen in top view. The Examiner notes that the claim is not limited to “only” three parts and that any three of the leg parts of Sekine form a triangle with each other.
In re claim 5, Sekine further discloses wherein the three leg parts consist of two leg parts disposed to be laterally spaced from each other and one leg part disposed in front of the two leg parts. The Examiner notes that the two rear leg parts, as shown in annotated Figure 5 above, are laterally spaced and either of the front leg parts can be considered to be the “one leg part disposed in front of the two leg parts”.
In re claim 8, Sekine further discloses wherein the at least one displacement sensor includes two displacement sensors (left and right torque sensors 21 as shown in Figure 6), each of the two displacement sensors being configured to detect a horizontal displacement amount of a corresponding one of laterally spaced positions of the operation part (column 5, lines 1-12).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine.
In re claim 3, Sekine discloses the operation device according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein each of the leg parts has a round rod shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flat plates of Sekine such that they comprised a round rod shape as an obvious design choice as the shape of the these leg parts does not affect the functionality of the device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the one leg part disposed in front of the two leg parts is disposed between the two leg parts as seen in a front-rear direction” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a force sensor comprising an operation part attached to three legs forming a triangle in which the front leg is between the two rear parts.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “comprising two restricting members supported on the vehicle body and provided with respective through holes for allowing left and right end portions of the operation part to pass therethrough in a left-right direction” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach two restricting members having holes to receive left and right end portions of the handle as shown in Figure 8 of the current invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach operation devices/force sensors of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights