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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 18 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elements of Invention I appear in dependent claims to Invention II and that this is evidence of a lack of additional search burden. This is not found persuasive because while elements of the subcombination may be claimed within the combination, the claims as currently constructed are properly restrictable. Moreover, there is in fact a search burden even if the elements may appear in the combination as a search of the subcombination would require different fields of search and applicable prior art would likely be different (i.e. a search of a clamping mechanism would focus on details of clamps, which may be used in any capacity while a search of a foot pedal support assembly would focus on such support assemblies that may include clamps).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 August 2026.
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) 4-6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCleave (US Patent Number 8478403).
Regarding claim 4, McCleave discloses a foot pedal support assembly, comprising: a telescoping main body (5); a slider (of 24) and a support plate (22) coupled to the main body and configured to support a foot pedal (21, which is at least indirectly supported); and a pair of clamps (14) coupled to the main body, each of the pair of clamps configured to releasably couple to a foot tube of a keyboard stand (1, 2). McCleave may not explicitly disclose a foot tube or clearly show the pedal arrangement and clamping arrangement in a single embodiment. Regarding the tube, as the limitation is functional McCleave would still appear to anticipate the structure (i.e. clamps configured to couple a foot rail or tube). Nevertheless, foot tubes are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a foot tube with the clamped stand based on normal variation to improve strength, manufacture, and adaptability for various users. Regarding the different embodiments, duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the claimed arrangement based on normal variation to improve function and versatility for various users.
Regarding claim 5, McCleave, at least as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above and further discloses the telescoping main body comprises two bodies (see figures), wherein a first clamp of the pair of clamps is coupled to an end of the inner body, and wherein a second clamp of the pair of clamps is coupled to an end of the outer body (again, see figures). McCleave does not clearly describe inner and outer telescoping bodies. Such an arrangement would appear inherent in a telescoping design as disclosed, but at the very least such arrangements are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide telescoping bodies as claimed based on normal variation to ensure proper operation and improved convenience for various users.
Regarding claim 6, McCleave, at least as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above and further discloses the first clamp and the second clamp are positionable at different distances away from each other by telescoping the main body (as above and/or as in Figures 3-5 for instance).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the prior art (see in particular US 7514619 to Bruce and US 6696625 to Sato in addition to McCleave) discloses a range of foot pedal supports, it does not teach, inter alia, clamps comprising fingers pivotable about pins and having tapered depressions, as well as driving knobs operating as claimed nor would it have been obvious to provide such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights