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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891), as evidenced by Enfold: Discover The Inside of Electric Cylinders (hereinafter Enfold).
Regarding claim 1 and substantially similar limitations in claim 10, Matsuda discloses “a gaming pedal, comprising: a base (the base 101), a pedal arm having a first end rotatably coupled to the base (“The rotating shaft 115 is a shaft that rotatably supports the pedal such as the brake pedal 12”), a pedal surface coupled to the pedal arm (“The brake pedal 12, the accelerator pedal 42, and the clutch pedal 72 of the present embodiment are all made of a square pipe […] a pad as used in an actual vehicle may be attached to the front surface of this square pipe”), an electric actuator configured to move the pedal arm (the electric cylinder 31), a load cell configured to measure force applied to the pedal surface (the pressure sensor 30), characterized in that: the electric actuator comprises a slide block (the slider 21), a screw shaft and an electric motor configured to rotate the screw shaft (the electric cylinder 31); the gaming pedal comprises a push arm (the connecting arm 25), a first end of the push arm is rotatably coupled to the pedal arm to a position between the first end and the second end of the pedal arm (“the tip end portion is rotatably connected to the brake pedal 12 via the connecting pin 26”), a second end of the push arm is rotatably coupled to the slide block (“The slider 21 includes a main body 22 […] The base end of the connecting arm 25 is rotatably attached to the front portion of the main body 22 via the connecting pin 27”); and between the push arm and the screw shaft is an acute angle (see Fig. 1); wherein the push arm is configured to transfer the force of the electric actuator to the pedal arm (“[…] the brake pedal unit 11 directly applies the reaction force of the electric cylinder 31 to the brake pedal 12 via the linear acting slider 21”).”
Examiner notes that the “screw shaft” and “an electric motor configured to rotate the screw shaft” recited in claims 1 and 10 is implied through Matsuda’s use of a “known electric cylinder” (“Here, as the electric cylinder 31, a known electric cylinder provided with means for detecting the advancing / retreating amount (cylinder position) of the rod 32 can be used”). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand than an “electric cylinder” refers to a linear actuator which converts the rotary motion of an electric motor into a linear motion via a screw linked to the motor, as evidenced by Enfold (“The electric Cylinders are mainly composed of several parts: 1.Motor: various kinds of motors are applicable (such as DC or AC servo motor, stepper motor, DC brushless or brushed motor). 2.Ball screw or trapezoidal screw. It’s rotated by the motor and converted the the spiral motion into the linear motion of piston rod. And then the robust piston rod force the load to make the reciprocating linear motion”). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Matsuda’s teaching of an “known electric cylinder” capable of “advancing and retreating” an attached rod (the rod 32) would necessarily also teach not only “an electric motor” but also a “screw shaft” for converting the rotary motion of the electric motor into the linear motion of the rod. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Matsuda’s “electric cylinder” (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2) strongly resembles the inline-type electric cylinder depicted in Enfold, which Enfold notes is one of the “most commonly used” types.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891), in view of Boulton (GB Patent No. 2159111).
Regarding claim 2 and substantially similar limitations in claim 11, Matsuda discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 1, characterized in that the first end of the push arm is coupled to the pedal arm via a first revolute joint (“the tip end portion is rotatably connected to the brake pedal 12 via the connecting pin 26”); the second end of the push arm is coupled to the slide block via a second revolute joint (“The slider 21 includes a main body 22 […] The base end of the connecting arm 25 is rotatably attached to the front portion of the main body 22 via the connecting pin 27”); […] and the load cell is configured to measure force applied to the push arm (“a pressure sensor 30 that detects the pedaling force applied to the brake pedal 12”).”
However, Matsuda does not disclose “the load cell is coupled to the push arm between the first end and the second end of the push arm.”
Boulton teaches a driver assessment system which includes a brake pedal force sensor for measuring forces applied to the pedal by a user. Similarly to the pedal of the claimed invention and the one taught by Matsuda, Boulton’s brake pedal force-sensing system includes a push arm rotatably coupled to both the pedal and to a second surface (see Fig. 3), and thus reads on the same limitations in claim 2 that Matsuda does. However, Boulton also teaches that the load cell used for measuring the brake pedal force is coupled to the push arm between its first and second ends (“The sensor 14 includes a main body 70, in which is housed a load cell, comprising a flexure member (not visible) incorporating a strain gauge coupled between the body 70 and one end of a support arrangement 71 telescopically received within the body 70”). Thus, Boulton teaches all the limitations of claim 2 not incorporated by reference from claim 1, which are instead disclosed by Matsuda. Examiner notes that Matsuda also discloses a load cell, and differs from the invention of the instant application with regards to claim 2 only in the positioning of the load cell with respect to the brake pedal and the push arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pedal simulator system taught by Matsuda so that the load cell used to measure the force applied to the pedal was coupled to the push arm between the first and second ends of the push arm, as taught by Boulton, instead of being coupled between the second end of the push arm and the output rod of the electric cylinder, and they would have been motivated to do so as this connection would allow for a larger angle between the push arm and the output rod of the electric cylinder, with reasonable expectation of success.
8. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Boulton (GB Patent No. 2159111) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang (CN Patent No. 112053603).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda (in view of Boulton) discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 2.”
However, Matsuda (in view of Boulton) does not disclose “a connection member coupled to the pedal arm; the first revolute joint is coupled to a reversible connection member having two operation positions; wherein in the first operating position the first revolute joint is connected to the connection member at a first distance from the first end of the push arm; and in the second operating position the first revolute joint is connected to the connection member at a second distance from the first end of the push arm.”
Wang teaches a pedal simulating device similar in its basic structure to the systems discussed so far, in that it comprises a pedal with a push arm rotatably attached to the pedal arm at one end and rotatably attached to a second surface at the other, with some means of providing resistance to the depression of the pedal attached in between (in Wang’s case, a piston rod) and a “stress sensor” for measuring the “treading force” applied to the pedal. Notably, Wang teaches a “connection member coupled to the pedal arm” (the “fish head connecting piece” 545), which is “coupled to a first revolute joint” (“the other end of the fish head connecting piece 545 is provided with a rotating mounting part hinged with the middle part of the pedal assembly 1”; see Fig. 4), wherein the “connection member” may be attached at a plurality of “operating positions” on the pedal arm so that the “first revolute joint” may be connected at a plurality of distances from the rotating end of the pedal (see Figs. 2-3). Finally, Wang provides a motivation for adding this feature to the pedal simulator, claiming that it allows the user to adjust the amount of force required to depress the pedal (“As can be seen from the above description, more than two groups of first adjusting hole are located on the other end of the damping buffer and the other end of the base assembly is the circle of the circle centre, according to different needs, selecting the first adjusting hole to connect, so as to adjust the treading force, the closer to the first adjusting hole of the circle centre; The softer the stepping feeling”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator system taught by Matsuda (in view of Boulton) to add multiple attachment points between the pedal and the push arm, as taught by Wang, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow the user to reconfigure the device to adjust the distance between the joint connecting the pedal to the push arm and the rotating end of the pedal, thereby adjusting the amount of force required to depress the pedal, as taught by Wang, with reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claim(s) 4, 6, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Rosenberg et al (WIPO Patent No. 9837484).
Regarding claim 4 and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Matsuda discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 1, characterized by comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the electric actuator to provide a first force simulating automotive pedal resistance according to a resistance profile (“The simulation means is equipped with a brake pedal pedaling force program corresponding to the vehicle type, and the user selects a vehicle type such as a race car (formilla), a race car (box type), or a general passenger car to obtain the brake pedal pedaling force corresponding to the vehicle type […] The pedal controller 273 controls the electric cylinder 31 based on the pedal controller 273 to apply a reaction force to the brake pedal 12”).”
However, Matsuda is silent on whether the “at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the electric actuator to provide […] at least one second force providing a haptic effect on the pedal.”
Rosenberg et al, henceforth Rosenberg, teaches a “haptic accelerator” designed for use with force-feedback computer peripherals using an electric actuator, such as Matsuda’s pedal simulator. Notably, Rosenberg teaches that, in an “advanced embodiment” of the haptic accelerator, the haptic processing unit can determine both “condition force magnitudes, such as for stiffness, damping, and inertia conditions”, in addition to “time-varying effect forces, such as jolts and vibrations”, and that both types of force magnitudes may be summed by the haptic processor and output to the electric force-feedback actuator simultaneously (“In some embodiments, the force feedback processor outputs effect forces to the haptic processing unit, and the haptic processing unit sums the effect forces with the condition forces and outputs the summed forces to the actuator”). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “condition forces” simulated by the combination of Rosenberg’s haptic processor and electric actuator (e.g., “damping”) would include the damping effect provided by a hydraulic system, such as that found in the braking system of a car; thus, Rosenberg’s system would be capable of simulating the “resistance profile” of a car’s pedals, and would be suitable for adaptation to Matsuda’s pedal simulator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator taught by Matsuda to include a haptic accelerator to govern the electric actuator, as taught by Rosenberg, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow the electric actuator to simultaneously simulate both the resistance profile of a particular type of vehicle, as taught by Matsuda, alongside haptic effects such as jolts and vibrations, as taught by Rosenberg, with reasonable expectation of success.
10. Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Rosenberg et al (WIPO Patent No. 9837484) as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Joo et al (KR Patent No. 20180068123).
Regarding claim 5 and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 4.”
However, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) is silent on whether “the haptic effect is an engine vibration wherein the second force is a variable force component proportional to the simulated engine revolutions, added to the first force.”
Joo et al, henceforth Joo, teaches a racing simulator which uses electric actuators to simulate haptic effects (“In general, a racing simulator is a device that realizes realistic feeling like running of an automobile. It implements the motion to maximize the haptic effect on the seat, thereby delivering the same sense of realism to the user sitting on the seat.”). Notably, Joo teaches that the vibrations of a car’s engines can be generated using electric actuators (“The vibration of the vehicle is mainly caused by the knocking phenomenon which has a certain waveform but the fuel does not blow off at the time. Therefore, the vibration pattern corresponding to the basic engine rotation speed is created and the vibration of the engine is virtualized by adding Gaussian noise”).
Finally, Examiner notes that the system taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) would be capable of simulating virtually any haptic effect that could be produced by a linear electric actuator, including “vibrations”, which are explicitly mentioned by Rosenberg as one of the “time-varying forces” implemented by their haptic accelerator. Thus, the system taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) would be capable of generating the haptic effect of engine vibrations that can be felt through the car’s pedals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) to simulate not only the resistance profile of the pedal but also to simulate additional haptic effects, such as the vibrations of a car’s engine, as taught by Joo, and they would have been motivated to do so to increase the realism of the simulation, with reasonable expectation of success.
11. Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Rosenberg et al (WIPO Patent No. 9837484) as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Baumgartner et al (US Patent No. 20210197083).
Regarding claim 6 and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 4.”
However, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) is silent on whether “the haptic effect is a clutch operation selected from a group of: clutch engaging to the biting point, clutch fully engaging, clutch disengaging from the biting point, clutch fully disengaging, clutch slipping and double-clutching.”
Baumgartner et al, henceforth Baumgartner, teaches a gaming pedal assembly similar in structure to the pedal simulators of Matsuda and the claimed invention, in that the pedal is rotatably attached to a base at one end and rotatably connected to a push arm, which in turn is connected to some means of providing resistance to the depression of the pedal (in Baumgartner’s case, a piston). Notably, Baumgartner teaches simulating the “resistance profiles” of the clutch, brake, and accelerator pedals (“The gaming pedal system (e.g., see FIG. 3A) may include multiple pedals (e.g., accelerator, brake, clutch) that can each provide a realistic resistance profile that simulates how a real corresponding pedal feels when depressed by a user”), which is accomplished using piston assemblies specially designed to simulate the desired resistance profile. Baumgartner further describes simulating the feeling of the user depressing a clutch pedal to the point of disconnecting the engine from the wheels (the biting point): “As a UX feature, this may be perceived by a user as “play” that occurs in real vehicles, where a pedal (e.g., brake, accelerator, clutch) is initially easy to push for a short distance, followed by a significant increase in resistance as the user continues depressing the pedal”.
Finally, Examiner notes that Matsuda discloses that in alternative embodiments, the simulated clutch pedal may be connected to an electric cylinder to provide force feedback in a similar manner to the simulated brake pedal: “In the pedal simulator 1 of the present embodiment, in the accelerator pedal unit 41 and the clutch pedal unit 71, the springs 61 and 91 are used for the unit bodies 50 and 80, but the same configuration and structure as the brake pedal unit 11 may be used. As a result, the accelerator pedal 42 and the clutch pedal 72 can easily create an arbitrary pedal operation feeling.” Thus, Matsuda’s system would be capable of simulating the haptic effect of operating the clutch pedal of a car, including engaging and/or disengaging the clutch to/from the biting point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) to simulate the resistance profile of a clutch pedal, as taught by Baumgartner, including particular haptic effects such as engaging and/or disengaging the clutch to/from the biting point, and they would have been motivated to do so to increase the realism of the simulation, with reasonable expectation of success.
12. Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Rosenberg et al (WIPO Patent No. 9837484) as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Kuhlman et al (US Patent No. 20190193700).
Regarding claim 7 and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 4.”
However, Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) is silent on whether “the haptic effect is an ABS brake valve pulse or a vibration indicating a locking brake.”
Kuhlman et al, henceforth Kuhlman, teaches a brake-by-wire braking system which emulates anti-lock braking in non-brake-by-wire braking systems by providing a pulsing sensation that can be felt in the brake pedal, indicating to the driver that anti-lock braking is being provided, as would be expected in a non-brake-by-wire braking system (see paragraph 3, “In another aspect, a method of providing anti-lock braking in a vehicle braking system includes […] electrically actuating a secondary braking unit, separate from the brake-by-wire braking unit, to generate a feedback force at a brake pedal”). Although they differ in their operating principles, Kuhlman’s and Matsuda’s inventions are both fundamentally directed to the simulation, by brake-by-wire braking systems, of haptic sensations that would be experienced through the pedal by the driver in non-brake-by-wire braking systems (Matsuda’s system, being a purely electromechanical pedal simulator, is directly analogous to a “brake-by-wire” braking system, sans the connection to an actual vehicle): thus, they are considered as belonging to analogous fields of art.
Finally, Examiner notes that the system taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) would be capable of simulating virtually any haptic effect that can be produced by a linear electric actuator, including “vibrations”, which are explicitly mentioned by Rosenberg as one of the “time-varying forces” implemented by their haptic accelerator. Thus, the system taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) would be capable of generating the haptic effect of the “pulsations” that can be felt through a car’s pedals when the anti-lock braking system is engaged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator taught by Matsuda (in view of Rosenberg) to simulate not only the resistance profile of a brake pedal but also to simulate additional haptic effects, such as the pulsations felt through the brake pedal when the anti-lock braking system is engaged, as taught by Kuhlman, and they would have been motivated to do so to increase the realism of the simulation, with reasonable expectation of success.
13. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Kong et al (CN Patent No. 113689755).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 1, characterized in that the maximum torque provided by the electric motor is 5 Nm (“[the electric cylinder] can handle a wide range of torque up to a torque of about 100 kgfm”).”
However, Matsuda is silent on whether the “thread pitch of the screw shaft is between 5 mm and 20 mm.”
Kong et al, henceforth Kong, teaches a driving simulator which, similarly to Matsuda’s simulator, employs linear actuators to simulate the motion of a vehicle (Examiner notes that Matsuda’s system is directed to simulating driving a vehicle as an entire unit, and not only to simulating pedals; see Fig. 5); thus, they are considered as belonging to the same field of art. Notably, Kong teaches using electric cylinders with a 10 mm screw pitch (“Further, the driving simulation platform is a 6-degree-of-freedom platform, has 6 electric cylinders, each electric cylinder with 250 electric cylinder travel and 10 pitch, by setting the travel of each electric cylinder to control the posture of the driving simulation platform […] 10 screw pitch is that the motor rotates for one circle, the electric cylinder is 10 mm”). Thus, it would have been known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a 10 mm screw pitch would have been suitable for controlling the position of electric actuators used in driving simulators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driving simulator of Matsuda to use electric cylinders with a 10 mm screw pitch, as taught by Kong, and they would have been motivated to do so to control the position of the electric actuators used in the driving simulator to within a precision of less than 10 mm, creating a “smooth” and realistic simulation, with reasonable expectation of success.
14. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP Patent No. 2020134891) in view of Suzuki (JP Patent No. 2006151220).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuda discloses “a gaming pedal according to claim 1.”
However, Matsuda does not disclose “the first end of the pedal arm comprises an inverted Y-shaped structure, having two rotatable couplings at opposite sides of the base and an imaginary rotational axle of the screw shaft extends between the pedal arm.”
Examiner notes that the “inverted Y-shaped structure, having two rotatable couplings” corresponds to a clevis, which is a routine and conventional method of creating a revolute joint between two components widely known in the art. By way of example, Suzuki teaches a brake-by-wire braking system including a brake pedal rotatably attached at one end to a revolute joint and to a push arm (the “push rod 3”) further down the pedal arm, once again by a revolute joint. This fundamental structure is common to many pedal systems, both simulated and actual, as seen in both the claimed invention of the instant application and Matsuda’s. Notably, in Suzuki’s system, the revolute joint at which the “pivot point” of the pedal arm is attached, at the opposite end to the pedal proper, is a clevis joint (“With the above configuration, when a pedal depression force is input to the brake pad 1a, the brake pedal 1 first rotates around the clevis 4”). Matsuda’s system, being a purely electromechanical pedal simulator, is directly analogous to a “brake-by-wire” braking system, sans the connection to an actual vehicle; thus, Suzuki’s invention is considered as belonging to an analogous field of art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal simulator taught by Matsuda to use a clevis joint to rotatably couple the first end of the pedal arm to the base, as taught by Suzuki, as this modification merely amounts to a simple substitution of one element known in the art (a pin joint) for another element known in the art (a clevis joint), and the results of this substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, as both joints are classified as revolute joints and serve the same purpose of rotatably coupling one component to another.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights