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 2, 3, 4, 12, 16 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 2 recites the “outer surface of the lever arm”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the “outer surface”. Did Applicant intend to recite the engagement surface or introduce an entirely different surface?
Claim 3 recites “the engagement surface of the housing”. The only engagement surface mentioned in claim 1 is that of the lever arm. Thus, this lacks antecedent basis. Did Applicant mix up terminology?
Claim 4 recites “contact between the engagement surface of the lever arm and the contact surface of the projection increases”. Based on Applicant’s drawings and specification and given plain meaning of the terms of the claim, it is not entirely clear what is intended scope of this recitation is. It is not clear whether Applicant is referring to a contact area of the surfaces involved or a contact force or both.
Claims 12 and 16 have the same issues as claim 4.
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) 1-5, 10-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Campbell (USP 8042430).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses a hanging pedal emulator assembly comprising:
a housing (32) including a cavity (seen in figures);
a pedal arm (22) at least partially received in the cavity (seen in figures), the pedal arm having a pivot end (interpreted as the end including 211 and pivot area 34), an opposite pad end (end with pad 27) on which a pedal pad (27) is attached, and a protrusion (surface 42, 43 reads on a protrusion) extending from an interior surface of the pedal arm;
a lever arm (44) positioned within the cavity of the housing and pivotally coupled to the housing (evident from figures), the lever arm further including an engagement surface (surface at 70 which engages the protrusion) configured to engage a contact surface of the protrusion; and
a spring carrier (carrier portions holding spring 46a) including a compressible member (46a) extending between the pivot end of the pedal arm and the lever arm (as seen in fig.7),
wherein, when a first predetermined load is applied to the pedal pad, the contact surface of the protrusion of the pedal arm slidably engages against the engagement surface of the lever arm and generates a first return force on the pedal pad (the pedal assembly is capable of providing this functionality as is evident from the figures, pushing the pedal pad leads to the frictional and sliding engagement between the surfaces).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the lever arm is a non-linear surface (the lever arm has non linear surfaces).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement surface of the housing is a non-linear surface (the engagement surface of the lever arm is non linear and/or the housing has non linear surfaces).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement surface of the lever arm and the contact surface of the protrusion are configured such that, when a second predetermined load is applied to the pedal arm, contact between the engagement surface of the lever arm and the contact surface of the projection increases (as more load is applied contact increases due increasing forces both frictionally and due to the spring load created by 46a).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 1, wherein, when a second predetermined load is applied to the pedal arm, rotation of the pedal arm compresses the compressible member to generate a second return force on the pedal pad (the structure in Campbell is capable of creating this force; note the terms first, second, etc are treated as only nomenclature).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell discloses a hanging pedal emulator assembly comprising:
a housing (32) including a cavity (seen in figures);
a pedal arm (22) at least partially received in the cavity (seen in figures), the pedal arm having a pivot end (interpreted as the end including 211 and pivot area 34), an opposite pad end (end with pad 27) on which a pedal pad (27) is attached, and a protrusion (surface 42, 43 reads on a protrusion) extending from an interior surface of the pedal arm;
a lever arm (44) positioned within the cavity of the housing and pivotally coupled to the housing (evident from figures), the lever arm further including an engagement surface (surface at 70 which engages the protrusion) configured to engage a contact surface of the protrusion; and
a spring carrier having a pedal end and an opposite lever arm end (carrier portions holding spring 46a which has both ends) and extending between the pivot end of the pedal arm and the lever arm (as seen in fig.7),
wherein, when a first predetermined load is applied to the pedal pad, the contact surface of the protrusion of the pedal arm slidably engages against the engagement surface of the lever arm and generates a first return force on the pedal pad (the pedal assembly is capable of providing this functionality as is evident from the figures, pushing the pedal pad leads to the frictional and sliding engagement between the surfaces).
Regarding claim 11, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 10, wherein the outer surface of the lever arm is a non-linear surface (seen in figures).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 10, wherein the outer surface of the lever arm and the contact surface of the protrusion are configured such that, when a second predetermined load is applied to the pedal arm, contact between the outer surface of the lever arm and the contact surface of the projection increases (as more load is applied contact increases due increasing forces both frictionally and due to the spring load created by 46a).
Regarding claim 16, Campbell discloses the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 10, wherein the interior surface of the pedal arm and the outer surface of the lever arm are configured such that contact between the outer surface of the lever arm and the interior surface of the pedal arm increases as the pedal pad is depressed from an initial position to a fully depressed position (as more load is applied contact increases due increasing forces both frictionally and due to the spring load created by 46a).
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) 6, 7, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USP 8042430) in view of Rixon (USP 6289763).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Campbell fails to disclose the hanging pedal emulator assembly of claim 1, further comprising an elastomer member positioned within a recess formed in the housing.
Rixon teaches and/or suggests the concept of utilizing a stopper formed by an elastomer member (76) positioned within a recess (see fig.8) formed in the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal disclosed in Campbell to include a stopper formed by an elastomer member positioned within a recess formed in the housing, as taught and/or suggested by Rixon, in order to provide the predictable result of providing an added feel effect to the end range of motion of the pedal assembly.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination discloses wherein an interior surface of the pedal arm at the pad end contacts and compresses the elastomer member when a third predetermined load is applied to the pedal pad (evident from the teaching of Rixon, there would be a compression of the elastomer at the end range of motion or under a third predetermined load).
Regarding claim 15, The combination discloses wherein the elastomer member is formed of rubber or plastic (it is taught as rubber in Rixon).
Claim(s) 8, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USP 8042430) in view of Soltys et al. (USP 8806976).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Campbell discloses the claimed invention and the use of a sensor assembly which could readily be any type of sensor assembly (col.3, lines 15-21 describe the use of magnetic sensors which are well known to encompass Hall effect chips or inductive sensors).
Campbell, however, fails to explicitly state the use of a hall effect or inductive sensor even though these sensors would be included in the categories mentioned in Campbell.
Saito et al. teaches the use of a sensor assembly positioned within the housing, the sensor assembly further comprising: a circuit board (board on which hall effect element is placed); at least one Hall Effect chip communicatively coupled to the circuit board and a magnet communicatively coupled to the at least one Hall Effect chip (23 this is well known and inherent structure of a hall effect sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the sensor disclosed in Campbell to be that of a hall effect sensor as taught by Saito et al. above in order to provide the same predictable result of detecting the rotation of the pedal arm. The use of Hall effect and induction sensors in pedal arts is old and well known and one could readily swap between different types with little to no difficulty.
Regarding claim 20, Campbell discloses a hanging pedal emulator assembly comprising:
a housing (32) including a cavity (seen in figures);
a pedal arm (22) at least partially received in the cavity (seen in figures), the pedal arm having a pivot end (interpreted as the end including 211 and pivot area 34), an opposite pad end (end with pad 27) on which a pedal pad (27) is attached, and an interior surface (surface 42, 43 reads on a protrusion) extending from an interior surface of the pedal arm;
a lever arm (44) positioned within the cavity of the housing and pivotally coupled to the housing (evident from figures), the lever arm further including an engagement surface (surface at 70 which engages the protrusion), a portion of the interior surface of the pedal arm configured to slidably engage portions of the engagement surface (seen in figures); and
a spring carrier having a pedal end and an opposite lever arm end (carrier portions holding spring 46a which has both ends) and extending between the pivot end of the pedal arm and the lever arm (as seen in fig.7),
wherein, when a first predetermined load is applied to the pedal pad, the interior surface portion of the pedal arm slidably engages against the engagement surface of the lever arm and generates a first return force on the pedal pad (the pedal assembly is capable of providing this functionality as is evident from the figures, pushing the pedal pad leads to the frictional and sliding engagement between the surfaces).
Campbell discloses the claimed invention and the use of a sensor assembly which could readily be any type of sensor assembly (col.3, lines 15-21 describe the use of magnetic sensors which are well known to encompass Hall effect chips or inductive sensors).
Campbell, however, fails to explicitly state the use of a hall effect or inductive sensor even though these sensors would be included in the categories mentioned in Campbell.
Saito et al. teaches the use of a sensor assembly positioned within the housing, the sensor assembly further comprising: a circuit board (board on which hall effect element is placed); at least one Hall Effect chip communicatively coupled to the circuit board and a magnet communicatively coupled to the at least one Hall Effect chip (23 this is well known and inherent structure of a hall effect sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the sensor disclosed in Campbell to be that of a hall effect sensor as taught by Saito et al. above in order to provide the same predictable result of detecting the rotation of the pedal arm. The use of Hall effect and induction sensors in pedal arts is old and well known and one could readily swap between different types with little to no difficulty.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USP 8042430) in view of Silva (USP 6289762).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Campbell is silent to the pedal arm and the housing are formed from a molded plastic. Despite it being a well-known material to use of this field, a teaching will be provided.
Silva teaches and/or suggests the use or the forming of a pedal arm and a housing formed from a molded plastic (claims 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly in Campbell to make use of plastic material for said pedal arm and housing, as taught by Silva, since it would provide the predictable result of making the pedal assembly lighter and easier to manufacture and potentially cheaper.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USP 8042430) in view of Ooya et al. (USP 9081408).
Regarding claim 19, Campbell fails to disclose the lever arm further includes a protrusion that engages a recess formed in the cavity of the housing.
Ooya et al. teaches the use of a stopper in the form of a protrusion that engages a recess formed in the cavity of the housing (protrusion 31 and cavity 19 in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal assembly in Campbell to include the use of a protrusion that engages a recess formed in the cavity of the housing, as taught by Ooya et al., in order to provide the predictable result of providing a distinct feel to the end range of the pedal assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art contains numerous examples of art that can read on the claims in a number of different ways due to the breadth of the claims. In addition, some are relevant due to the overall concept of using a lever arm of some sort to create hysteresis effect on the assembly.
A notable piece of art that is closer to specific order of functionality of the disclosed invention is Kim et al. (USP 7568407) which utilizes a lever arm 30 which engages a protrusion member of the pedal and this lever arm rotates against the bias of a spring during rotation of pedal arm. An important distinction here is that the spring extends between the lever arm and another end supported on an anchor point but not directly on the end portion of the pedal arm. The issue is the claim doesn’t specifically set forth that the spring contacts pedal arm end but only needs to extend between and it is arguable that this prior art would read on the claim without said qualification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
