DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant’s claim is explicitly defining an ADDITIONAL piece of structure in claim 10 by reciting “an output crank arm” in addition to all the structure of claim 1 (e.g. in order to anticipate this claim a device would need to comprise both A) a lever of claim 1, and B) an output crank arm). Claim 11 makes it unclear as to what’s required since the applicant changes the scope of the claim from which it depends by making the output crank arm and the lever one in the same. The metes and bounds of this claim are indiscernible given the hierarchy from which the claim depends.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US Pat No 6,739,210).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an active throttle quadrant assembly comprising:
a lever (6) mounted via a first pivot (2, about A) at a proximal end of the lever;
a grip (e.g. top of lever) on a distal end of the lever;
an actuator assembly (9) coupled to the lever; and
a sensor (13) positioned close to the grip and arranged to detect force applied to the grip to rotate the lever about the first pivot.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Smith discloses the sensor is directly coupled to the lever (see column 2, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the sensor is positioned between the grip and the actuator.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as best understood, Smith discloses the lever acts as a crank arm and includes the force sensor.
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses a force sensor.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses an active throttle quadrant assembly comprising:
an actuator assembly (9) including an output crank arm (6), the output crank arm extending from, and rotatable about, an axis of the actuator assembly, the output crank arm acting as a lever of the active throttle quadrant assembly;
a grip (e.g. top of crank arm) on a distal end of the lever; and
a sensor (13) configured to detect force applied to the grip to rotate the lever about the axis, the sensor positioned between the grip and the actuator assembly, such that there are no bearings or links between the grip and the sensor.
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses the sensor is part of the output crank arm.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al (US Pub No 2016/0004270).
Regarding claims 1, Taylor discloses an active throttle quadrant assembly comprising:
a lever (12 or 14) mounted via a first pivot (22) at a proximal end of the lever;
a grip (16) on a distal end of the lever;
an actuator assembly (26) coupled to the lever; and
a sensor (40) positioned close to the grip and arranged to detect force applied to the grip to rotate the lever about the first pivot.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Taylor discloses the sensor is directly coupled to the lever (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses the sensor is positioned between the grip and the actuator.
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses a link arm (30a) connecting the actuator assembly to the lever via a second pivot and wherein the sensor (414) is positioned between the grip and the second pivot (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses a force sensor.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Taylor discloses a plurality of active throttle quadrant assemblies.
Regarding claim 15, Taylor discloses an active throttle quadrant assembly comprising:
a lever (12 or 14) mounted via a first pivot (22) at a proximal end of the lever;
a grip (16) on a distal end of the lever;
an actuator assembly (26) including an output crank arm;
a link arm (30a) connecting the output crank arm of the actuator assembly to the lever via a second pivot, the second pivot between the grip and the first pivot; and
a sensor (40) configured to detect force applied to the grip when the lever is rotated about the first pivot, the sensor being part of the first pivot or part of the output crank arm, or located between the grip and the output crank arm.
Regarding claim 16, Trevor discloses the sensor is a force sensor that is located on the lever between the grip and the second pivot, or on the link arm between the output crank arm and the second pivot.
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(s) 4, 5, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al in view of Eck et al (US Pub No 11,048,330).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13 and 17, it is noted that Taylor fails to disclose the force sensor as being a torque sensor. However, Eck discloses a similar device wherein between a lever (4) and actuator (6 or 8), the sensor used is a torque sensor (11 or 13) in lieu of a force sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Taylor with a torque sensor since, if you know the dimensions of the device provided, torque and force are directly related and one measurement can be directly found from the other and a mere change in type of sensor would merely be routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it is noted that Taylor doesn’t explicitly teach each and every variation of the claimed invention (e.g. position of the sensor in relation to the overall assembly). However, the position of a sensor within an assembly can be changed and merely requires knowledge about the differences in forces acting at the position, hence a mere rearrangement of the position of the disclosed sensor would be require routine skill and be obvious based on a design choice for the intended application of the assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally discloses features believed to be pertinent to the applicant’s claimed invention, specifically relating to an actuator assembly including a lever arm and force sensor positioned therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights