DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/233,261 filed June 10, 2025. Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 10, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 3 “direction..” should be -- direction. --; and in claim 20, line 10 “project” should be – projects --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “urging structure” in claims 1-4 and 8-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is the leaf spring 140 described in paragraph [0090] of the specification, the elastic body 240 described in paragraph [0090] of the specification, or the elastic body 440 described in paragraph [0126] of the specification. Equivalents are considered to be other types of elastically deformable members configured to apply an axial force to the weight.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that claim 5 recites sufficient structure for performing the function of urging he weight in the axial direction, i.e., the elastically deformable urging portion. Accordingly, claim 5 and claims 6 and 7 which are dependent on claim 5 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-22 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.
Lines 4-6 of both of the independent claims 1 and 22 are unclear as to whether the input-side rotating plates are held by the clutch center or the clutch housing. As described for example in paragraph [0052] the input-side rotating plates 20 are held on the clutch housing, but this is not particularly pointed out by the current claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the output-side rotating plates" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, line 2 the limitation “plate-shaped” is vague since a plate can have a variety of different shapes, e.g. circular, square or triangular.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the output-side rotating plates" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-21 are also indefinite since they are dependent on indefinite claims 1 and/or 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or render obvious a clutch device including a centrifugal clutch mechanism having “an urging structure located between the holder and the pressure-contact structure in the axial direction of the output shaft, the urging structure urging the weight held by the holder in the axial direction of the output shaft and permitting the weight to move in a radial direction” in combination with the other limitations required by independent claim 1.
Similarly, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a clutch device including a centrifugal clutch mechanism having “an urging structure urging the weight toward the contact structure in the axial direction of the output shaft and permitting the weight to move in the radial direction” in combination with the other limitations required by independent claim 22.
US 2023/0102112 A1 (hereinafter, Ozawa) cited by Applicant is the closest prior art and discloses a clutch device which as best seen in Fig. 3 includes a clutch housing 2 holding a plurality of input-side rotating plates 6 and rotationally drivable by rotational driving of an engine crankshaft via the input gear 1; a clutch center 4a, 4b being rotationally drivable together with an output shaft 3 and holding a plurality of output-side rotating plates 7 alternately arranged with the input-side rotating plates; a pressure structure 5 movable toward, or away from, the clutch center to press the input-side rotating plates and the output-side rotating plates; and a centrifugal clutch mechanism 9 including weights 10 movable from radially inward positions to radially outward positions by a centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the clutch housing; the centrifugal clutch mechanism is configured to put the input-side rotating plates and the output-side rotating plates into pressure contact with each other to provide a state where the transfer of the rotation driving force of the input shaft to the output shaft is allowed when the weights are at the radially outward positions; the centrifugal clutch mechanism is configured to release the input-side rotating plates and the output-side rotating plates from a contact pressure force to provide a state where the transfer of the rotation driving force of the input shaft to the output shaft is blocked when the weights are at the radially inward positions; and the centrifugal clutch mechanism includes: a holder 11 to hold the weights such that the weights are movable between the radially inward positions and the radially outward positions; an elastic structure 16 urging the weights in a radially inward direction; a pressure-contact structure 12 movable in an axial direction of the output shaft, by the movement of the weights from the radially inward positions to the radially output positions, to put the input-side rotating plates and the output-side rotating plates into pressure contact with each other.
However, the clutch device of Ozawa does not include an urging structure urging the weight in the axial direction of the output shaft. None of the prior art taken alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a clutch device including an urging structure urging the weight in the axial direction of the output shaft in combination with the other limitations required by presently pending independent claims 1 and 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,645,049 A discloses a clutch device in Fig. 4 including a centrifugal clutch C1.
US 6,533,056 B1 discloses a clutch device in Fig. 4 including engagement balls 14 that move radially outward at or above a predetermined rotational speed.
US 7,014,026 B2 discloses a clutch device 10 having balls 42, 44 that roll outwardly in response to centrifugal force.
US 9,033,127 B2 discloses a motorcycle having a centrifugal clutch 2 with weights 41 that move radially outward due to centrifugal force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 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 R. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights