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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 4/08/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a sensor mounted within the respective sensor housing (claims 1 and 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Examiner notes that the drawings appear to show the sensor (e.g. 310a or 310b) and sensor housing (e.g. 306a or 306b) as the same component, without the sensor being within the sensor housing. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slanec (US2003/0188600) in view of Seol (US2023/0054790).
Re claim 1
Slanec discloses:
A non-contact brake (para. [0039]) pedal (1) position sensing and feedback system comprising:
a first brake pedal unit (1, see Fig. 4) and a second brake pedal unit (other “1” in Fig. 4) configured for angular displacement about a rotation axis at respective first ends thereof, responsive to manual engagement at respective second ends thereof;
a respective sensor cam (4; See Figs. 1 and 4) located at the first end of each brake pedal unit and configured for angular displacement along therewith;
a sensor housing (8) for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit, wherein each respective sensor housing is mounted at a fixed position with respect to the rotation axis; and
a respective sensor (3) mounted within each sensor housing and configured to generate output signals corresponding to a sensed air gap between the sensor and the sensor cam, wherein the sensed air gap between the sensor cam and the sensor corresponds to an amount of angular displacement for the respective brake pedal unit(para. [0032]).
While Slanec discloses a sensor housing (8) and two sensors (3) mounted within the sensor housing (8), Slanec does not disclose a respective sensor housing for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit, and that the respective sensor is mounted within each sensor housing.
In In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) teaches a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when it would not have modified the operation of the device. Additionally, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) teaches the particular placement of a part when it does not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Slanec by duplicating the sensor housing and rearranging parts as necessary, as held by the courts, since the duplication would not produce in any new and unexpected result and since any rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device.
Slanec as modified above is silent to a spring driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess and a second recess; and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension at least partially positioned within the first recess, and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension at least partially positioned within the second recess, wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position.
Seol teaches a spring (160) driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess (150) and a second recess (150, note that Seol may be used to teach to both brake pedal units); and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension (140) at least partially positioned within the first recess (150), and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension (140) at least partially positioned within the second recess (150), wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring (160) driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position, for the purpose of returning each brake pedal when not pressed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Slanec such that a spring driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess and a second recess; and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension at least partially positioned within the first recess, and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension at least partially positioned within the second recess, wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position, as taught by Seol, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of returning each brake pedal when not pressed.
Re claim 10
Slanec discloses a work vehicle comprising:
a frame supported by one or more ground engaging apparatus (para. [0001] - an automobile is known to have a frame and wheels engaging with the ground);
one or more power sources configured to drive an advance speed for the work vehicle (para. [0001] - an automobile is known to have at least one power source), responsive at least in part to control signals from a braking unit (para. [0003] - “a clutch pedal and a neighboring braking pedal are combined in a mutual body, on which the pedal levers are supported.” Additionally, the Examiner notes that engaging a clutch pedal and therefore the clutch has a braking-like effect during which power from the engine is either transmitted less or not at all to the wheel(s));
a first brake pedal unit and a second brake pedal unit configured for angular displacement about a rotation axis at respective first ends thereof, responsive to manual engagement at respective second ends thereof; (See rejection of claim 1 hereinabove) and
a non-contact brake pedal position sensing system comprising (See rejection of claim 1 hereinabove), for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit:
a sensor cam located at the first end of the respective brake pedal unit and configured for angular displacement along therewith (See rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a sensor housing (8) for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit, wherein the sensor housing is to the second elongate support member at a fixed position with respect to the rotation axis (See Figs. 1, 5); and
a sensor (3) mounted within the sensor housing and configured to generate output signals corresponding to a sensed air gap between the sensor and the sensor cam, wherein the sensed air gap between the sensor cam and the sensor corresponds to an amount of angular displacement for the respective brake pedal unit (para. [0032]).
While Slanec discloses a sensor housing (8) and two sensors (3) mounted within the sensor housing (8), Slanec does not disclose a respective sensor housing for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit, and that the respective sensor is mounted within each sensor housing.
In In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) teaches a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when it would not have modified the operation of the device. Additionally, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) teaches the particular placement of a part when it does not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Slanec by duplicating the sensor housing and rearranging parts as necessary, as held by the courts, since the duplication would not produce in any new and unexpected result and since any rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device.
Slanec as modified above is silent to a spring driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess and a second recess; and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension at least partially positioned within the first recess, and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension at least partially positioned within the second recess, wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position.
Seol teaches a spring (160) driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess (150) and a second recess (150, note that Seol may be used to teach to both brake pedal units); and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension (140) at least partially positioned within the first recess (150), and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension (140) at least partially positioned within the second recess (150), wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring (160) driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position, for the purpose of returning each brake pedal when not pressed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Slanec such that a spring driver positioned between and configured to interact with the first and second brake pedal units, the spring driver comprising a first recess and a second recess; and the first brake pedal unit comprising a first extension at least partially positioned within the first recess, and the second brake pedal unit comprising a second extension at least partially positioned within the second recess, wherein manual engagement of the first and/or second brake pedal unit causes the respective first and/or second extension to contact a surface of the respective first and/or second recess, and wherein the spring driver is configured responsive to the manual engagement to bias the respective first and/or second brake pedal unit from an engaged position to a disengaged position, as taught by Seol, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of returning each brake pedal when not pressed.
Slanec as modified above further suggests:
Re claims 2 and 11.
The non-contact brake pedal position sensing system of claim 1, wherein the respective (respective as taught above) sensor housing is oriented orthogonally with respect to the rotation axis (See Figs. 1, 4).
Re claims 8 and 17.
The non-contact brake pedal position sensing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (para. [0015]) functionally linked to receive the output signals from each respective sensor, and further configured to generate braking command signals to a braking unit based on the received output signals (para. [0039]).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slanec (US2003/0188600) in view of Seol (US2023/0054790), and further in view of Ding (US10,501,011).
Re claims 9 and 18
Slanec as modified above suggests all claim dependency limitations, see above, but does not disclose a display unit configured to display information corresponding to an amount of angular displacement for the respective brake pedal unit, based on the output signals from the sensor.
Ding teaches a display unit (402) configured to display information corresponding to an amount of angular displacement for the respective brake pedal unit, based on the output signals from the sensor (C6/L33-56), for the purpose of indicating an amount or a level of brake force exerted on a brake pedal of a driving apparatus (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of Slanec such that a display unit configured to display information corresponding to an amount of angular displacement for the respective brake pedal unit, based on the output signals from the sensor, as taught by Ding, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of indicating an amount or a level of brake force exerted on a brake pedal of a driving apparatus.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slanec (US2003/0188600) in view of Seol (US2023/0054790), and further in view of McDearmon (US2004/0017190).
Re claims 3 and 12
Slanec as modified above suggests all claim dependency limitations, see above, but does not disclose for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit a magnet coupled to the respective sensor cam, wherein the respective sensor is configured to detect variations in a magnetic field produced by the magnet with manual engagement of the respective brake pedal unit.
McDearmon teaches for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit a magnet coupled to the respective sensor cam, wherein the respective sensor is configured to detect variations in a magnetic field produced by the magnet (para. [0022] - “magnet sensor such as a Hall0Effect sensor”) with manual engagement of the respective brake pedal unit, for the purpose of providing an inexpensive sensor but one that can sense absolute position (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of Slanec such that for each of the first brake pedal unit and the second brake pedal unit a magnet is coupled to the respective sensor cam, wherein the respective sensor is configured to detect variations in a magnetic field produced by the magnet with manual engagement of the respective brake pedal unit, as taught by McDearmon, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an inexpensive sensor but one that can sense absolute position.
Re claim 4 and 13
Slanec suggests all claim dependency limitations, see above, but does not disclose wherein the sensor comprises a back-biased Hall effect sensor. (The Examiner notes that dependent claims 3 and 4, respectively, and 12 and 13, respectively, appear to claim mutually exclusive embodiments. I.e. in claims 3 and 12, the magnet is located not on the “sensor(s)” but located on the sensor cam(s), and in claims 4 and 13 the magnet(s) is/are implicitly located in the back-biased Hall effect sensor(s), since that is how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “back-biased Hall effect sensor”. Slanec teaches multiple embodiments including both claimed embodiments.)
McDearmon teaches wherein the sensor comprises a back-biased Hall effect sensor (para. [0022] - “Hall-Effect sensor […] with a back-biased magnet”), for the purpose of providing an inexpensive sensor but one that can sense absolute position (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Slanec such that wherein the sensor comprises a back-biased Hall effect sensor, as taught by McDearmon, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an inexpensive sensor but one that can sense absolute position.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slanec (US2003/0188600) in view of Seol (US2023/0054790), and further in view of Bingeman (US6,446,005).
Re claims 19 and 22
Slanec as modified above suggests all claim dependency limitations, see above, but is silent to wherein each respective sensor housing is cylindrical in shape.
Bingeman teaches wherein each respective sensor (30) housing (31) is cylindrical in shape (C11/L53-C12/L4), for the purpose of readily attaching the sensors, for the purpose of achieving high tolerance alignment or adjustment during manufacturing/assembly (C13/L64-C14/L13), and for the purpose of readily servicing for replacement of parts if and when the need arises (C15/L12-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of Slanec such that each respective sensor housing is cylindrical in shape, as taught by Bingeman, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of readily attaching the sensors, for the purpose of achieving high tolerance alignment or adjustment during manufacturing/assembly, and for the purpose of readily servicing for replacement of parts if and when the need arises.
Re claims 20 and 23
Slanec as modified above further suggests:
wherein a longitudinal axis of each respective sensor (30 in Bingeman; 3 in Slanec) housing (31 in Bingeman) is arranged substantially orthogonal to the rotation axis (The respective sensor and sensor housing taught by and modified by Bingeman is mounted in bracket 26, which corresponds to second elongate support member (the upper horizontal portion of 5 as seen in Fig. 4) in Slanec. The longitudinal axis will thus be substantially orthogonal to the rotation axis when mounted in bracket 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to the prior and pending drawing objections, the Applicant states once again (as was stated in their previous remarks filed 11/12/2025) in their remarks that replacement drawings have been filed. However, the Examiner notes once again that no replacement drawings appear to have been filed with Applicant’s response. The last set of drawings appears to be those filed on 12/12/2022 with the original application. The Examiner attempted to call the Applicant on 5/8/2026 and 5/11/2026, but the Applicant’s representative (i.e. Gary Montle) was not in the Applicant’s phone directory and the voicemail to a general mailbox was not returned.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter (such as the newly claimed spring driver) specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights