DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, FIG. 4-5, claims 1-3, 17-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 12/3/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-16, 19, 21 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (per dependency on claim 4), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2020/0001711 A1; “Burke”).
Regarding claim 1:
Burke discloses
A pedal device (20) comprising:
a pedal (¶ 43, “pedal”), a first elastic member (34; FIG. 2) configured to be deformed by a pedaling force from the pedal as the pedal moves (¶ 44, see in FIG. 2-3), and to generate a reaction force against the pedaling force of the operator (A in FIG. 6; ¶ 44);
a second elastic member (42) configured to be deformed by a pedaling force from the pedal as the pedal moves (¶ 44; see in FIG. 3-5), and to generate a reaction force against the pedaling force of the operator (¶ 44);
a first holder (28, 30) including a first support (rightward portion thereof as seen in FIG. 2) that is arranged adjacent to the pedal (via portion 24 in FIG.2 ) and supports one end of the first elastic member (FIG. 2 depicts the rightward portion abutting/supporting the spring 34), and
a first guide (radially innermost portion of holder portion 28 that slides with element 32 during movement displayed in FIG. 2-3) that extends from the first support in a deformation direction (axial direction corresponding to movement as seen in FIG. 2-3) of the first elastic member;
a second holder (32) including a second support (leftward portion thereof) that supports an another end of the first elastic member (FIG. 2 depicts the leftward portion of holder 32 supporting the end of spring 34), a second guide (radially innermost portion that slides with element 30 during movement displayed in FIG. 2-3) that extends in the deformation direction of the first elastic member (axial direction corresponding to movement as seen in FIG. 2-3), and
a third support (leftward portion of element 32 on the axially outer side) that supports one end of the second elastic member (right end of spring 42 abuts the left end surface of element 32); a fourth support (52) supporting an another end of the second elastic member (depicted in FIG. 3); and
a third guide (46) extending from the fourth support in a deformation direction of the second elastic member (depicted in FIG. 3), wherein the first guide moves in the deformation direction of the first elastic member relative to the second guide and slides with the second guide in the deformation direction of the first elastic member to deform the first elastic member (depicted in movement displayed between FIG. 2-3), in accordance with the pedaling force from the pedal as the pedal moves, the second holder moves in the deformation direction of the second elastic member relative to the third guide, and slides with the third guide in the deformation direction of the second elastic member to deform the second elastic member (depicted in movement displayed between FIG. 3-4), in accordance with the pedaling force from the pedal as the pedal moves (¶ 44), the first guide and the second guide are disposed to be restricted with each other in a movement on a direction perpendicular to the deformation direction of the first elastic member (the telescopic-like connection as depicted in FIG. 2-3 results in limited relative radial movement therebetween), and the second holder and the third guide are disposed to be restricted with each other in a movement on a direction perpendicular to the deformation direction of the second elastic member (the telescopic-like connection as depicted in FIG. 3-4 results in limited relative radial movement therebetween).
However, Burke does not expressly disclose that the pedal is configured to rotate about a rotation axis in accordance with a pedaling operation of an operator.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that a pedal being configured to rotate about a rotation axis in accordance with a pedaling operation of an operator, e.g. the pedal having a pedal arm that is hinged on the upper portion thereof about an axis perpendicular to that of portion 26 (FIG. 2), pivots upon depression of the pedal by a driver’s foot to actuate portion 26 (FIG. 2), is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the pedal is configured to rotate about a rotation axis in accordance with a pedaling operation of an operator as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Burke as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2:
The pedal device according to claim 1, wherein the first guide and the second guide slide in the deformation direction of the first elastic member when the second holder and the third guide are fixed (depicted via motion seen in FIG. 2-3; see MPEP § 2125), and the second holder and the third guide slide in the deformation direction of the second elastic member when the first guide and the second guide are fixed (depicted via motion seen in FIG. 3-4; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 3:
The pedal device according to claim 1, wherein the first guide is formed in a cylindrical shape (FIG. 1 reasonably depicts/discloses the first guide 28, 30 having at least a cylindrical portion; see MPEP § 2125), the second guide is formed in a cylindrical shape (FIG. 1 reasonably depicts/discloses the first guide 28, 30 having at least a cylindrical portion; see MPEP § 2125), and the third guide is formed in a columnar shape (FIG. 1 depicts element 46 having an axially longitudinally extending and cylindrical portion i.e. columnar shape; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 18:
The pedal device according to claim 1, wherein the deformation direction of the first elastic member and the deformation direction of the second elastic member are linear directions perpendicular to the rotation axis (deformation directions depicted in FIG. 2-4 are in the axial direction which would be perpendicular to the hinge axis of the pedal arm as described supra regarding official notice of the pedal being configured to rotate).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2020/0001711 A1; “Burke”) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 7,750,258 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Burke does not expressly disclose that each elastic member is made to be deformed when the pedal is not stepped on by the operator.
teaches that each elastic member is made to be deformed when the pedal is not stepped on by the operator (abstract, “a pre-compression force setting unit that sets a fixed position of the pedal effort adjusting unit with respect to the housing and keeps a pre-compression force applied to the elastic member at a predetermined level”) as a means to provide adjustability to the reaction force applied to the driver upon depression “thereby improving the operability and reducing the fatigue of the driver’s ankle” (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Burke such that each elastic member is made to be deformed when the pedal is not stepped on by the operator, as taught by Lee, as a means to provide4 adjustability to the reaction force applied to the driver upon depression “thereby improving the operability and reducing the fatigue of the driver’s ankle” (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656