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.
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, “a variable decreasing leverage ratio”/”decreasing leverage” is recited however these terms are not defined. The specification refers to them as a “pull” on a cable ([0038]). But it is not understood what two quantities are being compared/divided to arrive at the ratio. While it is understood that the radius increases, how does it contribute to the ratio/leverage? With an increasing radius/moment arm it is expected that less input force would be required and therefore an increasing ratio/leverage, versus decreasing.
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acenbrak (US Pub No. 2007/0261508 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Acenbrak discloses
a base (i.e. lower housing 21, Fig. 3);
a cam body (70);
a bearing (74) mounted in the cam body and supported by the base (via 33, see [0071], Fig. 4A); and
an actuation lever (50) pivotally coupled with the base via the cam body and the bearing for rotation relative to the base (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Acenbrak discloses
the base including a standoff (32/33) and the cam body including a seat (i.e. its inner circumferential surface of bore 72, Fig. 6A), the bearing mounted within the seat of the cam body ([0071]), and the standoff of the base extended through the bearing ([0071]).
Regarding Claim 3, Acenbrak discloses
a bolt (36) to secure the cam body to the base (via threaded free end 35, [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Acenbrak discloses
the cam body having a cam surface (i.e. comprising 77, 78, [0072]) along which a control cable is to be routed.
Regarding Claim 5, Acenbrak discloses
the cam surface having a first wrap radius, a second wrap radius greater than the first wrap radius, and a third wrap radius greater than the second wrap radius (i.e. [0072] discloses “the bearing surface 77 can have a non-circular cross-sectional shape…an eccentric cross-sectional shape”, wherein three successive sections of an ascending part of the eccentric curve may be taken, each section having a radius greater than the one before it. It is noted these sections may even be infinitesimal).
Regarding Claim 6, Acenbrak discloses
the first wrap radius, the second wrap radius, and the third wrap radius each being greater than an outer diameter of the bearing (i.e. since these radii pertain to bearing surface 77 as per the Claim 5 rejection above, they form the outer circumferential surface of 70, whereas bearing 74 at most, forms the inner circumferential surface of 70).
Regarding Claim 8, Acenbrak discloses
the actuation lever secured to the cam body (i.e. via 130 that is coupled to 50 and engages with teeth 75 of 70, [0079]).
Regarding Claim 9, Acenbrak discloses
the actuation lever rotatable relative to the cam body (i.e. via 130 being forced away from teeth 75, [0083]).
Regarding Claim 11, Acenbrak discloses
a cam body (70);
an actuation lever (50) extended from the cam body (i.e. at least makes contact via 130 and has a larger radius, extending farther out from the rotation center);
a bearing (74) mounted in the cam body (via 33, see [0071], Fig. 4A); and
a base (i.e. lower housing 21, Fig. 3) having a standoff (32/33) extended through the bearing ([0071]);
the actuation lever pivotally coupled with the base via the cam body and the bearing for rotation relative to the base (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Acenbrak discloses
a bolt (36) extended through a hole (72) of the cam body to secure the cam body to the base (via threaded free end 35, [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding Claim 18, Acenbrak discloses
the cam body having a cable guide feature (78) formed thereon along which the control cable is to be routed.
Regarding Claim 19, Acenbrak discloses
the actuation lever including a collar portion (i.e. comprising the circumferential flange portion of 50 and the portion extending inwards toward the rotation center) and a blade portion (i.e. the lever arm portion of 50) extended from the collar portion, the collar portion of the actuation lever adjustably secured to the cam body (i.e. via 130, that can couple to and be forced away from teeth 75 of 70, [0079], [0083]).
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) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acenbrak (US Pub No. 2007/0261508 A1) in view of Staples (US Pub No. 2023/0182853 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Acenbrak discloses the cable to be connected to the gear/cam body (see Abstract) but does not disclose doing so with a cable fixing bolt.
Staples discloses a cable fixing bolt (186) to secure a control cable (112) to a rotating body (146), for the purpose of ensuring the cable moves with the rotating body ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the cable fixing bolt as
disclosed by Staples, for the purpose of ensuring the cable moves with the rotating body ([0076]).
Regarding Claim 17, Acenbrak discloses
the base having a cable passage (190) through which the control cable is to be fed and the cable to be connected to the gear/cam body (see Abstract) but does not disclose a cable fixing bolt.
Staples discloses a cable fixing bolt (186) to secure a control cable (112) to a rotating body (146), for the purpose of ensuring the cable moves with the rotating body ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the cable fixing bolt as
disclosed by Staples, for the purpose of ensuring the cable moves with the rotating body ([0076]).
Claim(s) 10, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acenbrak (US Pub No. 2007/0261508 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US Patent No. 5,632,226).
Regarding Claim 10, Acenbrak discloses the gear/cam body to have an eccentric shape ([0072]) but not explicitly with the constant and decreasing ratios as claimed.
Huang et al. discloses an initial leverage ratio over an initial amount of rotation of the actuation lever being substantially constant (i.e. a first region of 5, just counterclockwise from A/L in Fig. 8), a subsequent leverage ratio over a further amount of rotation of the actuation lever being a variable decreasing leverage ratio (i.e. a second region of 5, counterclockwise of the ‘10’ position and extending approximately 90 degrees), and a final leverage ratio over a final amount of rotation of the actuation lever being substantially constant (i.e. a third region of 5, adjacent to and just counterclockwise of the first region described above), for the purpose of varying the force required to turn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the constant and decreasing
ratios as disclosed by Huang et al., for the purpose of varying the force required to turn. Also see the 112 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 16, Acenbrak discloses the cam surface establishing a first wrap angle, a second wrap angle, a third wrap angle, and a fourth wrap angle (i.e. the cam surface is disclosed as eccentric in [0072], wherein four circumferential sections, each having a corresponding wrap angle may be selected) of the control device, but does not disclose them to explicitly be of constant, increasing and constant wrap radius.
Huang et al. discloses a first wrap angle having a substantially constant wrap radius (i.e. a first region of 5, just counterclockwise from A/L in Fig. 8), the second wrap angle having an increasing wrap radius (i.e. a second region of 5, at B/M in Fig. 8), the third wrap angle having another increasing wrap radius (i.e. a third region of 5, at C/N in Fig. 8), and the fourth wrap angle having another substantially constant wrap radius (i.e. a third region of 5, adjacent to and just counterclockwise of the first region described above), for the purpose of varying the force required to turn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the wrap angles/radii as
disclosed by Huang et al., for the purpose of varying the force required to turn.
Regarding Claim 20, Acenbrak discloses the gear/cam body to have an eccentric shape ([0072]) but not explicitly with the leverages as claimed.
Huang et al. discloses a greater leverage at a beginning of actuation of the actuation lever (i.e. a first region of 5, at the ‘10’ position in Fig. 8), decreasing leverage thereafter (i.e. a second region of 5, counterclockwise of the ‘10’ position and extending approximately 90 degrees), and a substantially constant leverage further thereafter (i.e. a third region of 5, at the very top in Fig. 8), for the purpose of varying the force required to turn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the leverages as disclosed
by Huang et al., for the purpose of varying the force required to turn. Also see the 112
rejection above.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acenbrak (US Pub No. 2007/0261508 A1) in view of Erdmann (US Pub No. 2020/0255084 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Acenbrak discloses the standoff to extend through the bearing such that it contacts the inner part of the bearing ([0071]) but does not explicitly disclose inner and outer races.
Erdmann discloses a bearing having an inner race (i.e. the smaller diameter ring of 150, inside the ball arrangement in Fig. 8) and an outer race (i.e. the larger diameter ring of 150, outside the ball arrangement in Fig. 8), for the purpose of reducing friction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Acenbrak by including the inner and outer races as
disclosed by Erdmann, for the purpose of reducing friction. It is noted that since the
standoff contacts the inner part of the bearing, it would contact the inner race by the
modification.
Regarding Claim 13, Acenbrak discloses the cam body including a seat (i.e. its
inner circumferential surface of bore 72, Fig. 6A), the bearing mounted within the seat
([0071]) and since it is the outer part of the bearing that contacts the seat per [0071], the
outer race in the modification of parent Claim 12 above, specifically would contact the
seat.
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 PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 March 18, 2026