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 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1, line 2, has two instances of “a pedal” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is trying to claim two pedals or if the second instance should be changed to --the pedal--.
Claim 1, lines 5-6, recites “a driving force” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the driving force from lines 5-6 and the driving force from line 4. Should lines 5-6 be changed to --the driving force--?
Claim 1, lines 8-9, recites “a driving force” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the driving force from lines 8-9, the driving force from lines 5-6, and the driving force from line 4. Should lines 8-9 be changed to --the driving force--?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouzuma et al. (US 2016/0250924 A1) in view of Sugiura et al. (WO 2010/073347 A1; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kouzuma et al. discloses a reaction force imparting device for imparting a reaction force against a driver's depression force to a pedal (4, 5) of an accelerator device (1) having a pedal that is depressed by a driver, the reaction force imparting device, comprising:
an actuator (12) configured to generate a driving force when energized;
a power transmission unit (14) having a reduction gear (21) for reducing a speed of a driving force from the actuator and a shaft member (13) connected to the reduction gear; and
a lever (15) having one end connected to the shaft member, which rotates by a driving force from the actuator reduced in speed by the reduction gear, and imparts the reaction force to the pedal or an arm which rotates together with the pedal,
wherein the reduction gear and the lever are fastened to both ends of the shaft member, and
the reduction gear has external teeth (the teeth on 21 as shown in Figure 3) formed on a portion of its outer edge.
Kouzuma et al. does not disclose that the reduction gear and the lever are fastened to both ends of the shaft member by crimping.
Sugiura et al. teaches a shaft member (44) that is connected to a lever (20a) by crimping (see Figures 2 and 3).
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 shaft member of Kouzuma et al. to be connected to the lever by crimping, as taught by Sugiura et al., for the purpose of providing a connection structure that prevents the shaft member and the lever from be disconnected from each other during use, and which does not require additional fastening structures such as nuts.
Kouzuma et al. in view of Sugiura et al. does not disclose that the shaft member is fastened to the reduction gear by crimping.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the shaft member be fastened to the reduction gear by a crimp, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Sugiura et al. teaches crimping a shaft member to another element, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to crimp both ends of the shaft member of Kouzuma et al. Furthermore, both ends of Sugiura et al. are larger in diameter than the body of the shaft thus Sugiura et al. supports having two ends of a shaft that are larger than the openings that the body of the shaft pass through.
Regarding claim 2, Kouzuma et al. discloses that the reduction gear has a gear fitting hole (the hole in the bottom of 21 as shown in Figure 3) into which one end of the shaft member fits, and
the gear fitting hole is formed on an opposite side of the reduction gear from the external teeth with respect to a center of the reduction gear when viewed in an axial direction of the shaft member (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kouzuma et al. discloses that the reduction gear has a gear fitting hole (the hole in the bottom of 21 as shown in Figure 3) into which one end of the shaft member fits,
the lever has a lever fitting hole (the hole in 15 as shown in Figure 3) into which the other end of the shaft member fits, and
in a cross section perpendicular to an axial direction of the shaft member, a shape of one end of the shaft member and the gear fitting hole, or a shape of the other end of the shaft member and the lever fitting hole is non-circular (the hole in 15 is non-circular and the part of 13 that enters into the lever fitting hole is also non-circular as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kouzuma et al. discloses that one end of the shaft member and the gear fitting hole, or the other end of the shaft member and the lever fitting hole, have at least one flat surface at a position facing each other (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kouzuma et al. discloses that the shaft member has a seat surface (the surface of 13 that abuts the right side surface of 21 in Figure 3) that abuts against the reduction gear or the lever in an axial direction (along the axial centerline of 13), and
the reduction gear or the lever has a first flat surface (the right side surface of 21 in Figure 3) that abuts against the seat surface, and a second flat surface (the left side surface of 21 in Figure 3) that is parallel to the first flat surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inagaki (US 2025/0153566 A1) discloses a pedal structure that includes an actuator, a lever, a pedal, a speed reducer mechanism, and a shaft that connects the lever to the speed reducer mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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 at (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 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617