DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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, the “slave cylinder’, as claimed in claims 2,8 and 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 line 1 “plunger” has been misspelled (it has also been misspelled in the specification). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2,3,8,25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2,8,25 it is unclear from the drawings and specification what structure applicants consider to be the ‘slave cylinder’.
In claim 2 applicants claim “.. wherein the brake actuator comprises a solenoid coupled to the brake master cylinder, the solenoid coupled to a plunger in the master cylinder to apply pressure to the brake fluid…”
In claim 3 however applicant’s claim “.. a spring coupled to a rod of the solenoid for biasing the rod into the master cylinder, power applied to the solenoid tending to resist the spring bias.
The limitations of claim 3 regarding the action of the solenoid appear to conflict with those of claim 2.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12,17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrevich 5,701,977 in view of Miura 10,099,666 and Laird 3,561,573.
Regarding claims 1,17 Vrevich states in col 1:
The ESTOP provides a means of bringing to a stop a snowmobile or ATV when the driver has been ejected. Devices have been utilized that turn off the vehicle ignition when a driver is ejected. These devices are actuated by a lanyard attached to the driver and to an armed ignition switch.
Vrevich also states at the end of the document:
In all instances the armed ESTOP is actuated by a trigger pin extracted by a tether attached to the driver when the driver ejects from the vehicle.
(30) For best stopping results, the ESTOP should be installed on vehicles equipped with an ignition shut off device, and should be utilized in conjunction with said device.
Vrevich also states in col 4 around lines 10-12 that the braking force could be applied by other means such as electrical solenoid.
Vrevich shows in figure 1:
A vehicle brake 10 comprising a proximity device 32,34,36—tether arrangement as per applicant’s—and a brake actuator at 38A,38B and 16.
Lacking in Vrevich is a specific showing of a switch triggered by the ‘proximity device’ (i.e. tether arrangement 32,34,36) to provide an actuation signal to the brake actuator upon a determination of a preset proximity threshold being crossed.
The reference to Miura also shows a safety braking arrangement that can be applied to a snowmobile (col 5 around line 14 and see fig 9) and states in col 5 around lines 40-45:
When the driver leaves seat 14 with tether cord 25 on while the engine is in operation, tether cord 25 pulls the cap to turn on emergency stop switch 2, such that control section 3 is enabled. Then, control section 3 performs execution control to cause emergency stop mechanism 4 to execute braking by the brake mechanism and to cause the ignition system to stop operation of the engine.
The reference to Laird et al is relied upon to show one well known type of electro-hydraulic brake actuation system 10,12-16 (i.e. solenoid) known in the brake art.
Since Vrevich states that the brake device should be installed on vehicles equipped with an ignition shut off device and that the means for actuating the brake could be provided by an electrical solenoid one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to have slightly modified Vrevich with the tether and switch arrangement of Miura, since this would only represent a minor modification to the intended function of Vrevich as indicated therein.
Further since Vrevich indicates that the brake actuation force may be applied via an electrical solenoid arrangement of some type and shows that the brake includes a plunger 12, valve 26, piston 22 and cylinder 28 arrangement in figures 2,3 it would have been obvious to have used a self adjusting electrohydraulic arrangement, as taught by Laird at 12,14,16 as the brake actuator in Vrevich connected to the tether arrangement and therefore the switch. Note the brake arrangement shown by Laird would be modified so that it could actuate/deactuate the lever 16 in Vrevich.
Regarding claims 2,3 subject to the 112 1st rejection above, and as best understood Vrevich, as modified, meets the claimed limitations. Note the actuation of the springs at 17 or at 28 in Laird.
Regarding claim 4 note the lever at 16 in Vrevich.
Regarding claims 5,21 note the adjusting nut at 48 which as it appears, could be used to adjust a preload on the springs at 38A,38B.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed and as modified above Vrevich meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7 since the majority of vehicles of the ATV/Snowmobile type have batteries these limitations are considered to be met. Note for instance the power supply 26 in Miura.
Regarding claim 8, subject to the 112 1st rejection above (and as best understood) Vrevich as modified lacks specifically showing a ‘lever master cylinder’.
However Miura indicates that this could be provided in figure 9 at 21,60. Note also the ‘slave cylinder’ arrangement at 63.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vrevich with a lever master cylinder, as taught by Miura at 21,60, simply for a better emergency brake arrangement should the driver be thrown from the Snowmobile when on a hill.
As best understood the ‘slave cylinder’ is the cylinder arrangement at 28 in Vrevich.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, these limitations are met.
Regarding claim 10, as explained above in regard to claim 8, these limitations are considered to be met. Note the brake pads at 14A,14B and the rotor at 30. Also the solenoid (see 14,16 in Laird) is considered to be ‘indirectly coupled to’ the plunger 12,22 via the lever 16 in Vrevich.
Regarding claims 11,12 these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claims 18-20,22-25, as explained above (and as broadly claimed), these limitations are met by Vrevitch as modified above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrevitch/Miura/Laird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trotter U.S. 2025/0269943.
Regarding claim 13 Vrevitch, as modified, lacks specifically showing a proximity sensor that can measure or sense the distance between the vehicle and the driver.
However, such sensors are notoriously well known and the art and, among other things, used for kill switches to prevent vehicle theft.
Nevertheless the reference to Trotter is relied upon to provide a general example of this at 26 and as discussed in paras 0032,0066,0071.
It would have been obvious to have provided the brake system of Vrevitch with a rider equipped proximity sensor to kill the engine should the rider move away enough of a distance away from the vehicle (or fall of) for the reason above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrevitch/Miura/Laird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richard et al. U.S. Publication 2013/0221737.
Regarding claim 14 it would have been obvious to have used a ‘screw drive’ type actuator, as taught by Richard et al. at 28,271,282 in the device of Vrevitch simply as an equivalent type of actuator to that taught by Laird.
Claim(s) 15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrevitch/Miura/Laird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pongo U.S. Publication 2007/0273200.
Regarding claim 15 Vrevitch lacks specifically using a drum brake arrangement.
However the reference to Pongo shows an ATV arrangement that can use both disc or drum brakes. See for instance claim 18. (Note: although not applied Gornall 4,611,691 shows it is well known that a similar type of actuator can be used for both disc and drum brakes. Compare figs 2,3 with 4)
It would have been obvious to have used at least one drum brake in the device of Vrevitch simply as the obvious choice of using one well known type of brake over another likely dictated by costs.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, these limitations are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
11/6/25