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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission (after-final amendment) filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the previous claim objections are overcome by the claim amendments.
Second, the claim amendments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), although they precipitate a specification objection (see MPEP 608.01(o), long paragraph) since the amended claim recites “new terminology”1 that the ends of the parallel struts define side wall sections, with the shell-shaped carrier component 24 (see FIGS. 6 and 7) that included side wall sections 52, 54 apparently not having struts that extend parallel to one another, as now claimed.
In this respect, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made for claim 14, because its language (e.g., “a plate”, etc.) now becomes unclear when read in the context of the amended independent claim 1 from which it depends (e.g., that also now recites “a plate”).
Third, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In this respect, concerning Constantakis et al. (‘909), applicant asserts:
However, none of these references discloses, teaches, or suggests the claimed arrangement of components, which includes:
1. a carrier component comprising
- a plate, and
- at least two parallel struts extending from the plate,
- the ends of the struts defining opposed side wall sections;
2. a brake pedal pivotably suspended between those opposed side wall sections about a pivot axis extending through them; and
3. the damping unit and sensor unit mounted in the specific positional relationship
required by the claim.
While applying a new piece of art (Lee et al. 2018/0208163, first cited with the Office action of 1 August 2024; see e.g. FIG. 1, paragraphs [0016], [0017], etc.) to show that a brake pedal is normally/conventionally (and would have obviously been, when Constantakis et al. (‘909) was interpreted by one having ordinary skill in this art, in order to make the brake pedal operate in a pivoting fashion as intended) supported2, at its upper end, by a pivot pin (44) and bushings, where the pivot pin is itself supported by a pair of [parallel extending] arms (42) provided in the brake pedal bracket, the examiner herein below maps all claim limitations to the applied references, providing the necessary motivations for combining the references.
Next, applicant asserts:
Constantakis' bracket is a unitary molded body, not a plate with parallel struts extending therefrom. It contains no opposed side wall sections formed at the ends of struts, nor does it suspend a pedal between such sections. Further, the pedal is not pivotably mounted between opposed structural members, but instead uses a clevis pin mounted to a molded bracket surface. Accordingly, Constantakis cannot be rearranged to match the claimed geometry without hindsight reconstruction, which is impermissible under §103.
The fact that the mounting bracket (40) in Constantakis et al. (‘909) may be molded (from plastic) is believed to be immaterial to whether the mounting bracket includes a plate and the struts, with the plate and parallel struts being shown in FIG. 1[3] of Constantakis et al. (‘909), and with these features being obviously understood by one having ordinary skill in this art from FIG. 1 and the totality of the Constantakis et al. (‘909) disclosure and the applied prior art and based on the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141.03), e.g., for example, in the manner in which FIG. 1 is annotated below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
873
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Despite applicant’s arguments (which the examiner does not fully understand), the brake pedal 16 in Constantakis et al. (‘909) is shown in FIG. 1 (to those having ordinary skill in this art) as obviously being “pivotably mounted between opposed structural members” at its upper end (at the imaginary “axis” depicted by the examiner), with the disclosed “plunger clevis 14” being used to operate the brake pedal emulator mechanism 12, and not to pivotally mount the brake pedal, in Constantakis et al. (‘909).
Next, applicant argues:
To meet the claim, the Examiner must:
● reinterpret Constantakis' molded bracket surfaces as "struts";
● further reinterpret unrelated bracket geometry as "side wall sections";
● reposition the pedal to be suspended between these imagined side wall sections;
● import unrelated structures from Koo and functional teachings from Poertzgen; and
● assemble them into a new structure not suggested in any reference.
This is precisely the kind of improper hindsight the law prohibits.
As the Federal Circuit has made clear, one cannot combine references merely because, after knowing the applicant's invention, the pieces can be hypothetically rearranged to match it. The prior art must already teach or suggest the claimed arrangement. Here, the prior art clearly does not.
Indeed, the §103 rejection should be withdrawn, because the prior art does not disclose the elements arranged as in the claim, the Examiner's combination requires impermissible hindsight-based reconstruction, and none of the cited references suggest the specific structural relationships cited in Claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection under §103 is improper and must be withdrawn for at least this reason.
The examiner disagrees, and using clearly depicted portions of the mounting bracket 40 in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909), see MPEP 2125, I., to read on the broad claim term “plate”, the broad claim term “struts”, the broad claim term “ends of the struts defining opposed side wall sections” does not seem unreasonably to the examiner, in his broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI; MPEP 2111) of the claim language consistent with applicant’s specification. As to the examiner’s motivation to combine the references, these reasonings have been stated previously and herein below, with the applicant neither apparently addressing, controverting, nor providing reasoned argument against (e.g., other than simply stating overall that the examiner’s combinations use “impermissible hindsight”) any particular reasonings set forth by the examiner that would be “impermissible”, in the applicant’s opinion.
Next, applicant argues:
Constantakis' bracket is a single-piece molded structure, not:
● a plate with
● parallel struts extending from the plate, with
● the strut ends defining opposed side wall sections, and
● a brake pedal suspended between them about a pivot axis.
The Examiner's interpretation requires recasting unrelated molded features into struts and side wall sections, which is an improper hindsight analysis, divorced from the actual disclosure of Constantakis.
The examiner disagrees, with the plate, the parallel struts extending from the plate, the strut ends defining opposed side wall sections, and the brake pedal suspended between them about a pivot axis being clearly shown in, and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from, FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) and the corresponding description, as detailed above. Again, that the mounting bracket 40 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) may be molded is immaterial to the patentability of applicant’s claims, with the molded mounting bracket 40 in Constantakis et al. (‘909) clearly or obviously having portions defining the claimed plate, the claimed parallel struts, etc., as described above (and herein below) by the examiner.
Lastly, applicant argues is partial repetition:
To match Claim 1, one must:
● reinterpret Constantakis' molded bracket as struts + plate + wall sections;
● reposition the pedal to be suspended between imagined wall sections; and
● combine structural teachings not suggested by any reference.
This is precisely the kind of hindsight reconstruction §103 forbids. Accordingly, because the cited references do not disclose the structural elements arranged as in the claim, and no reference suggests modifying them to do so, withdrawal of the §103 rejection is respectfully requested.
Again, Constantakis et al. (‘909) clearly shows the mounting bracket 40 obviously having the struts + plate + wall sections, and his brake pedal was obviously suspended pivotally from the mounting bracket in a manner that was fully conventional and obvious to one having ordinary skill in this art (see the “Prior Art” section below in this Office action). As to the examiner’s motivation to combine the references, these reasonings have been stated previously and herein below, with the applicant neither apparently addressing, controverting, nor providing reasoned argument against (e.g., other than simply stating overall that the examiner’s combinations use “impermissible hindsight”) any particular reasonings set forth by the examiner that would be “impermissible”, in the applicant’s opinion.
Accordingly applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)4 and MPEP § 608.01(o)5. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis should be provided in the specification for the following new claim terminology, without adding new matter: “the ends of the struts [6] defining opposed side wall sections”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the ending punctuation of claim 1 should be changed from, “,.” (a comma and a period) to “.” (a period), for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 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.
In claim 14, lines 2ff, “a plate and at least one strut of the at least two struts which extends from the plate, wherein the damping unit is secured on the plate and the brake pedal is mounted pivotably to the at least two struts” is indefinite because i) “a plate” has already been recited in the independent claim, and so it is unclear whether the “a plate” in line 2 of claim 14 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the “plate” already recited in the independent claim, ii) “at least one strut of the at least two struts” is unclear/confusing and apparently meaningless in limiting the claim, and iii) it is unclear which of the previously “a plate” recitations (e.g., in line 4 of claim 1 and in line 2 of claim 14) the phrase “the plate” (in line 3 of claim 14) is referring back to.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantakis et al. (2005/0082909) in view of Lee et al. (2018/0208163), Poertzgen (European, 768224), and Koo et al. (2010/0012442).
Constantakis et al. (‘909) reveals:
per claim 1, a brake pedal module for a brake-by-wire brake system [e.g., “brake by wire”, paragraph [0002]] of a vehicle, comprising:
a carrier component [e.g., the bracket 40 in FIG. 1] for securing the brake pedal module on the vehicle [e.g., paragraph [0056]], the carrier component further including a plate and at least two struts extending parallel to one another from the plate [e.g., FIG. 1 in Constantakis et al. (‘909), with the plate, strut(s), pivot axis of the brake pedal, etc. labeled by the examiner in the footnote below[7]], each strut [e.g., as shown at left and right sides of the brake pedal in FIG. 1] having an end remote from the plate [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated in the footnote by the examiner], the ends of the struts defining opposed side wall sections [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated in the footnote by the examiner; see MPEP 2125, I.],
a brake pedal [e.g., the brake pedal 16], which is mounted pivotably on the carrier component [e.g., FIG. 1], the brake pedal being pivotally suspended between the opposed side wall sections about a pivot axis extending through the opposed side wall sections [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated by the examiner in the footnote above, with the examiner understanding that the depicted element (e.g., shaft/pivot) on which the brake pedal is mounted for pivotal movement must be (or alternatively, would have obviously been, when Constantakis et al. (‘909) was interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art) received in and/or obviously journalled within the (left and right) side wall sections/portions at ends of the struts; see MPEP 2125, I.],
a damping unit [e.g., the brake pedal feel emulator device 12 with a hysteresis property, that captures energy and converts it to heat (paragraph [0038]); and/or with a/the separate hysteresis device (28, 30, 32, etc.) of paragraph [0037]] that includes a piston [e.g., the plunger 24 that reciprocates in the chamber 26; and/or the plunger 34 that reciprocates in the chamber 36], wherein the piston is mechanically coupled at one end to the brake pedal [e.g., by the plunger clevis 14 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) that operates the brake pedal feel emulator device 12 and is pinned (see FIG. 1) to the brake pedal] and an end of the damping unit is coupled to the carrier component [e.g., the chamber(s) 26, etc. is integrated with into the lower part of the (plastic) mounting bracket 40 (and is thus materially coupled to it), in Constantakis et al. (‘909), and an end (e.g., the rear end) of the chamber 26 is obviously coupled to the bracket 40 as shown in FIG. 1, with the other end (e.g., the free end) extending outwardly toward the brake pedal] in order to produce a resistance when the brake pedal is actuated [e.g., by capturing energy and converting it to heat and/or by exhibiting hysteresis/hysteresis effect including frictional resistance (paragraph [0005])], and
a sensor unit [e.g., the position sensor 18] for detecting a braking intention of a driver,
wherein the brake pedal module is a pre-assembled structural unit [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909), with the mounting bracket obviously being mounted in a “vehicle” (paragraph [0056])] which is self- contained in terms of forces [e.g., since the brake pedal assembly 10 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) would have obviously been stationary at times, per Newton’s Second Law, the sum of its forces would have been zero],;
It may be alleged that Constantakis et al. (‘909) does not expressly reveal that the brake pedal is mounted pivotally on the carrier component (e.g., at a hinge) in the manner claimed and suspended between the opposed side wall sections[8], or that the brake pedal feel emulator device 12 is a damping unit, although the examiner believes that these features would have been implicit in and/or obvious from the pictorial view in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909), see MPEP 2125, I., and the written description, even without further teaching, to one having ordinary skill in this art who was aware of how fully conventional brake pedals (for use with conventional emulators/simulators, for brake-by-wire) are structured[9] and operate to be suspended on and pivot around an axis/pin/shaft/pivot/axle. Constantakis et al. (‘909) also may not expressly reveal that the brake pedal module/assembly is a pre-assembled structural unit which is self-contained in terms of forces, although this is a product-by-process limitation that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art (MPEP 2113) from the teachings of the brake pedal assembly in Constantakis et al. (‘909), where FIG. 1 shows a complete assembly.
Constantakis et al. (‘909) also may not reveal the claimed sensor unit mounted to the damping unit to detect the braking intention of the driver, although Constantakis et al. (‘909) describes a position sensor 18 for generating a position signal used by the brake by wire system in the well-known fashion (and shows its location in FIG. 1), wherein the position sensor 18 may be connected to a pin member on the brake pedal itself, rather than the arrangement defined for the sensor unit of claim 1.
However, in the context/field of an improved fly-by-wire vehicle brake pedal assembly with a hysteresis generating assembly 34 (36) including dashpots, Lee et al. (‘163) teaches at paragraphs [0016] and [0017], that a molded bracket 30 having a pair of arms 42 supports a pivot pin 44 (e.g., at distal ends of the arms, as shown in FIG. 1), wherein the brake pedal arm 32 (to which the depicted pedal pad 12[10] is mounted at the lower end) is supported at an upper end thereof by the pivot pin 44 and bushings (as was a well-known and conventional supporting arrangement for brake pedals).
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved actuation means for an electronically controlled brake system of a motor vehicle, Poertzgen (EP, ‘224) teaches in FIGS. 1 to 4, etc. that various differently positioned rotational angle and linear detectors (36, 54) may be equivalently used in order to electronically sense the actuation of the brake pedal by the driver and actuate an electromechanical actuator which operates on brake pads at the wheels, with one detector replacing the other, in order to sense the movement of the brake pedal, wherein in FIG. 4 and in claim 4, instead of the linear detector 54 measuring the travel path of the brake pedal 28 and disposed between the support 38 and the brake pedal 28 as in FIG. 3, the linear detector 54 may detect the movement of the emulator piston 14b relative to the cylinder 12 provided at/rigidly coupled to the support 38 of the brake pedal, by being mounted at least partly to the piston 14b and/or the cylinder/support:
PNG
media_image2.png
358
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in the context/field of an improved electro pedal device for a brake-by-wire system as shown in FIG. 1, Koo et al. (‘442) teaches that the pedal 1 is “hinged at one end” (paragraph [0025]) to the pedal member (bracket) 2 (as was a well-known and conventional way to mount a brake pedal to a brake pedal bracket), and that the electro pedal device is a singular unit (with a pedal 1, a bracket/member 2, sensors 3, and a pedal simulator 4 having a variable damper including a piston 7, wherein the simulator includes a housing 5 that is (apparently) mounted to a back side (i.e., the side opposite the pedal 1) of the bracket/member 2, such that the piston 7 (and apparently the operation rod 8) etc. passes through a depicted aperture[11] in the bracket member 2, when the housing 5 is mounted to the bracket/member 2, as shown in FIG. 1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly so that the brake pedal 16 (to which the pedal pad is mounted at the lower end, as shown in FIG. 1) would have been supported (and thus suspended) at an upper end thereof by a pivot pin (44) and bushings provided at (the ends of a pair of) arms 42 of the molded bracket, as taught by Lee et al. (‘163) at paragraphs [0016] and [0017] and as shown in his FIG. 1, and also as suggested/shown by the depiction in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) himself (with the examiner annotating an obvious depicted “shaft” or pivot in that FIG. in the footnote) to one having ordinary skill in this art, and as further taught by the hinged connection in Koo et al. (‘442), and so that the provided pivot pin (44) would have been supported at/by ends of the pair of arms/struts of the (molded) mounting bracket 40, as taught by Lee et al. (‘163) in FIG. 1 and as suggested/shown by the depiction in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909)12, in order to support and suspend the brake pedal from the mounting bracket for pivotal movement in a manner known to those having ordinary skill in this art (MPEP 2141.03) so as to be operated by a driver in a familiar pivoting fashion, e.g., in a well-known and conventional manner, with a reasonable expectation of success, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Moreover, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly so that the position sensor 18 would have been (e.g., equivalently) implemented as a linear detector (54) that was mounted at least partly on/to the plunger 24 (piston) and/or chamber 26 (cylinder) of the emulator mechanism 12, as taught by Poertzgen (EP, ‘224) in conjunction with FIG. 4, in order to generate the (position) signal to be used by the brake-by-wire system, in order that the distance resulting from a movement of the plunger/piston relative to the chamber/cylinder would have been sensed and a signal derived therefrom would have been provided, as taught by Poertzgen (EP, ‘224), for use in operating an electromechanical actuator which operates on brake pads at the vehicle wheels, with a reasonable expectation of success, as substituting art recognized equivalents for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06, II.), as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
For example only, the examiner depicts below/on the next page a sketch of the one manner in which the linear detector 54 of FIG. 4 (claim 4) in Poertzgen (EP, ‘224) would have been provided in Constantakis et al. (‘909) to sense the distance resulting from a movement of the plunger/piston 24 relative to the chamber/cylinder 26 to generate the position signal used by the brake by wire system in the well-known fashion:
PNG
media_image4.png
504
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly so that the brake pedal assembly would have been predictably pre-assembled (e.g., obviously for transport/shipping of the pedal assembly/device and/or obviously for its sale and/or for incorporating into a vehicle) so as to be self-contained in terms of forces (as shown by the complete brake pedal assembly in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘901) and also by FIG. 1 of Koo et al. (‘442)), and to further implement or modify the Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly for the dependent claims so that the brake pedal assembly would have been predictably provided with a (further) variable damper (4, 5, 7, etc. in Koo et al. (‘442)) mounted to the opposite side of the bracket from the brake pedal, as taught in FIG. 1 of Koo et al. (‘442), such that the variable damper, etc. extended through an aperture in the bracket 40, as taught by Koo et al. (‘442) and as shown by the chamber/cylinder 36 in Constantakis et al. (‘909), with the limitations being e.g., product-by-process limitations (MPEP 2113), in order to improve the (variable) damping capabilities and assembling/assembly/assembled product of the Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Constantakis et al. (‘909) brake pedal assembly would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a brake pedal module for a brake-by-wire brake system [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), “brake by wire”, paragraph [0002]] of a vehicle, comprising:
a carrier component [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), the bracket 40 in FIG. 1; and in Lee et al. (‘163), the bracket 30 having a pair of arms 42] for securing the brake pedal module on the vehicle [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), paragraph [0056]], the carrier component further including a plate and at least two struts extending parallel to one another from the plate [e.g., FIG. 1 in Constantakis et al. (‘909), with the plate, strut(s), pivot axis of the brake pedal, etc. labeled by the examiner in the footnote below[13]; see MPEP 2125, I.; and the pair of arms 42 in Lee et al. (‘163) interconnected at the rear of the bracket 30 (FIGS. 1 and 2); and as shown in FIG. 1 of Koo et al. (‘442)], each strut [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), as shown at left and right sides of the brake pedal in FIG. 1; and by the pair of arms 42 in Lee et al. (‘163)] having an end remote from the plate [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated in the footnote by the examiner; and as shown in FIG. 1 of Lee et al. (‘163)], the ends of the struts defining opposed side wall sections [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated in the footnote by the examiner, with the examiner understanding that the depicted element (e.g., annotated as “shaft” or pivot by the examiner) on which the brake pedal is mounted in FIG. 1 for pivotal movement must be (or alternatively, would have obviously been, when Constantakis et al. (‘909) was interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art) received in and/or obviously journalled within the side wall sections/portions of the struts; see MPEP 2125, I.; and as particularly shown in FIG. 1 of Lee et al. (‘163) by the pivot pin 44 and bushings in the pair of arms 42, used for supporting the pedal arm 32 of the brake pedal],
a brake pedal [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), the brake pedal 16; and 10, 12, 32 in Lee et al. (‘163)], which is mounted pivotably on the carrier component [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), FIG. 1, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in this art; and as taught at paragraphs [0016] and [0017] of Lee et al. (‘163); with the pedal 1 being “hinged at one end” (paragraph [0025]) to the pedal member (bracket) 2, as taught in Koo et al. (‘442)], the brake pedal being pivotally suspended between the opposed side wall sections about a pivot axis extending through the opposed side wall sections [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), as shown in FIG. 1, and as annotated by the examiner in the footnote above, with the examiner understanding that the depicted element (e.g., shaft/pivot) on which the brake pedal is mounted for pivotal movement must be (or alternatively, would have obviously been, when Constantakis et al. (‘909) was interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art) received in and/or obviously journalled within the (left and right) side wall sections/portions at ends of the struts; see MPEP 2125, I.; and as taught by the pivot pin and bushings supporting/suspending the brake pedal in Lee et al. (‘163) at paragraphs [0016], [0017], FIG. 1, etc.],
a damping unit [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), the brake pedal feel emulator device 12 with a hysteresis property, that captures energy and converts it to heat (paragraph [0038]); and/or with a/the separate hysteresis device (28, 30, 32, etc.) of paragraph [0037]; and the variable damper including a piston 7 in Koo et al. (‘442)] that includes a piston [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), the plunger 24 that reciprocates in the chamber 26; and/or the plunger 34 that reciprocates in the chamber 36; and the piston 7 in Koo et al. (‘442); and the pistons shown in FIG. 2 of Lee et al. (‘163)], wherein the piston is mechanically coupled at one end to the brake pedal [e.g., by the plunger clevis 14 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) that operates the brake pedal feel emulator device 12 and is pinned (see FIG. 1) to the brake pedal; and by the ball ends and ball cups in FIG. 2 of Lee et al. (‘163)] and an end of the damping unit is coupled to the carrier component [e.g., the chamber(s) 26, etc. is integrated with into the lower part of the (plastic) mounting bracket 40 (and is thus materially coupled to it), in Constantakis et al. (‘909), and an end (e.g., the rear end) of the chamber 26 is obviously coupled to the bracket 40 as shown in FIG. 1, with the other end (e.g., the free end) extending outwardly toward the brake pedal] in order to produce a resistance when the brake pedal is actuated [e.g., in Constantakis et al. (‘909), by capturing energy and converting it to heat and/or by exhibiting hysteresis/hysteresis effect including frictional resistance (paragraph [0005])], and
a sensor unit [e.g., the position sensor 18, in Constantakis et al. (‘909); being obviously implemented by the linear detector 54 in FIG. 4 of Poertzgen (EP, ‘224)] for detecting a braking intention of a driver [e.g., to detect the actuation of the brake pedal by the driver as taught at column 1, lines 13ff of Poertzgen (EP, ‘224); and to detect, by the position sensor, the position of the brake pedal in Constantakis et al. (‘909)], wherein the sensor unit is mounted to the damping unit [e.g., to the plunger (piston) 24 and/or the chamber (cylinder) 26 as taught in FIG. 4 by Poertzgen (EP, ‘224)] to measure a movement travel of the piston [e.g., to sense the movement of the piston (plunger 24) relative to the cylinder (chamber 26), as taught by Poertzgen (EP, ‘224) in FIG. 4, claim 4, etc.] to detect the braking intention of the driver [e.g., to detect the actuation of the brake pedal by the driver as taught at column 1, lines 13ff of Poertzgen (EP, ‘224); and to detect, by the position sensor, the position of the brake pedal in Constantakis et al. (‘909)],
wherein the brake pedal module is a pre-assembled structural unit [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909), with the mounting bracket obviously being mounted in a “vehicle” (paragraph [0056]); and as shown by Koo et al. (‘442) in FIG. 1, obviously in order to sell, transport/ship, install in a vehicle, etc. the complete brake pedal assembly/device; this product-by-process limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art from the teachings of Constantakis et al. (‘909) and Koo et al. (‘442) in conjunction with FIG. 1, see MPEP 2113] which is self- contained in terms of forces [e.g., since the brake pedal assembly 10 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) would have obviously been stationary at times, per Newton’s Second Law, the sum of its forces would have been zero; and with the brake pedal assemblies shown by Constantakis et al. (‘909) in FIG. 1 and Koo et al. (‘442) in FIG. 1 obviously being self-contained physical modules capable of being e.g., sold, shipped, transported, installed, etc. as units; see MPEP 2113],;
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, wherein the damping unit is coupled to the brake pedal between ends thereof [e.g., as shown by both Constantakis et al. (;909) and Koo et al. (‘442)];
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the damping unit is coupled to the brake pedal by an actuating tappet [e.g., plunger clevis 14 in Constantakis et al. (‘909); and/or the operation rod 8 in Koo et al. (‘442)], wherein the actuating tappet is mounted in an articulated manner on the brake pedal [e.g., pinned to the brake pedal 16, paragraph [0036] and FIGS. 5A to 5D in Constantakis et al. (‘909)] by one of a pivot joint [e.g., pinned to the brake pedal 16, paragraph [0036] and FIGS. 5A to 5D in Constantakis et al. (‘909)] or a ball-and-socket joint;
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, wherein there is an aperture for the damping unit in the carrier component [e.g., inside the chamber/cylinder 36 in Constantakis et al. (‘909); and as shown in FIG. 1 of Koo et al. (‘442), as called out by the examiner e.g., in footnote 11, above], and the damping unit [e.g., including the plunger 34, the springs 30, 32, etc. in Constantakis et al. (‘909); and including the piston 7, the operation rod 8, etc. in Koo et al. (‘442)] is inserted into the aperture [e.g., as shown/obvious in FIGS. 1A-1 to 1A-3 of Constantakis et al. (‘909); and similarly in FIG. 1 of Koo et al. (‘442)], from a side of the carrier component which faces away from the brake pedal [e.g., this product-by-process limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art, e.g., to assemble the assembly/device shown in Constantakis et al. (‘909) and Koo et al. (‘442); see MPEP 2113];;
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein the damping unit is pneumatically self-contained such that no there are no fluid connections on the damping unit [e.g., inside the chamber/cylinder 36 and the chamber 26, in Constantakis et al. (‘909); and inside the housing 5 (having the chamber 5a) in Koo et al. (‘442)];
per claim 10, depending from claim 1, wherein the damping unit is mechanically coupled to the brake pedal in such a way that the damping unit is subjected to compression when the brake pedal is actuated [e.g., as shown by both Constantakis et al. (‘909) in FIG. 1 and Koo et al. (‘442) in FIG. 1];
per claim 14, depending from claim 4, wherein the carrier component has a plate and at least one strut of the at least two struts which extends from the plate [e.g., as shown by both Constantakis et al. (;909; e.g., FIG. 1) and Koo et al. (‘442; e.g., FIG. 1), wherein the damping unit is secured on the plate and the brake pedal is mounted pivotably to the at least two struts [e.g., the examiner marks the plate and strut(s) on FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) in the footnote above];
per claim 18, depending from claim 1, wherein the damping unit further comprises a housing [e.g., the cavity 26 in Constantakis et al. (‘909)] in which the piston [e.g., the plunger 24 in Constantakis et al. (‘909), and in particular the (increased diameter) left-most section thereof which is received by the chamber 26] is movably mounted, wherein the piston is coupled to the brake pedal [e.g., to 16 in Constantakis et al. (‘909)] via a piston rod [e.g., the plunger clevis 14, or equivalently the (reduced height) extension of the plunger 24 that defines the hole in FIG. 1A-1] and an actuating tappet [e.g., the pin shown in FIG. 1 by which the plunger clevis 14 is pinned to the brake pedal 16 (paragraph [0036])] resting against the piston rod;
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Puhn (Brake Handbook, 1985, Chapter 6) shows at page 67 a conventional hanging pedal that is attached to (and obviously suspended by) the pedal bracket by a pivot, as reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image5.png
452
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shellhause (3,714,780, patented February 6, 1973) shows in FIG. 1 (reproduced below/on the next page) an early bracket 44 and hinge assembly 40 for a brake pedal:
PNG
media_image6.png
534
880
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mochizuki et al. (2006/0055241) reveals a brake-by-wire brake system having a stroke simulator 27 and a brake pedal having an arm portion 23 that is pivotally supported on a support shaft 24 supported by a pair of side walls of a bracket 22, as shown in FIG. 3 (reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner):
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
PNG
media_image7.png
798
594
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Vreeken et al. (5,829,317) reveals in FIG. 1 one manner in which a brake pedal 12 is mounted to a brake pedal bracket 26 provided with a pair of sidewalls 24 (extending from a back plate), using a shoulder bolt 34 on an axis 30:
PNG
media_image8.png
466
558
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Carr et al. (5,588,338) reveals one manner in which a vehicle control pedal (e.g., as used for the brakes and the clutch; column 1, line 13) can be mounted to opposed flanges 22 of the pedal bracket 14, wherein bearings 42 disposed within a hub 40 fixed to the pedal snap from a compressed position to an extended position (FIG. 3), to limit the pedal to rotary movement about the axis of rotation 24, with FIG. 1 (showing a pre-assembled state) being reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image9.png
798
462
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 MPEP 608.01(o).
2 Or “suspended”, since this arrangement is conventionally called a hanging brake pedal (see the Brake Handbook chapter from 1985 cited near the end of this Office action).
3 See MPEP 2125, I., “Drawings as Prior Art”, which indicates, “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).”
4 Quoting the rule section: “(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)”
5 Quoting the MPEP, “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
6 Struts being shown at 34 in FIGS. 2 to 5.
7 FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) as marked by the examiner below/on the next page to show one of the two parallel struts, the plate, the pivot axis of the brake pedal, one of the two side wall section, and an obvious depicted shaft (or pivot) on which the pedal is mounted (and obviously journalled within the side wall sections) for pivotal movement:
PNG
media_image1.png
873
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
8 This has already been alleged by applicant at page 10, lines 14 and 15 of the Remarks filed 28 January 2026.
9 See the Prior Art section near the end of this Office action for a conventional diagram from Puhn’s Brake Handbook (1985), showing a conventional hanging pedal that is attached to (and obviously suspended by) the pedal bracket by means of a pivot.
10 This should apparently be, “pedal pad 10”, based on the description.
11 The examiner has labeled/annotated the (circular) aperture in an enlargement of FIG. 1 from Koo et al. (‘442), see MPEP 2125, I., reproduced below/on the next page:
PNG
media_image3.png
812
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
12 As depicted/labeled by the examiner in the footnote above.
13 FIG. 1 of Constantakis et al. (‘909) as marked by the examiner below/on the next page to show one of the two parallel struts, the plate, the pivot axis of the brake pedal, one of the two side wall section, and an obvious depicted shaft (or pivot) on which the pedal is mounted (and obviously journalled within the side wall sections) for pivotal movement:
PNG
media_image1.png
873
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights