DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/924612, filed 12/21/21, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Essentially, the applicant’s invention as it stands is not originally disclosed by the parent and must be changed to the status as a CIP to include the newly recited features.
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 1-15, 17 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14 relate to a driver side brake controller and structure thereof; however, the applicant’s claimed invention is then related to specific arrangements of the structure in relation to well known features of a vehicle (i.e. the handle of the brake controller being beneath the steering wheel). While these features are well known, there is no meaningful way to determine infringement as the vehicle is not the subject of the invention and vehicles come in a nigh infinite variety of configurations (e.g. compact sedan, SUV, Truck, EV, City car, Sports Car) wherein the position, posture and ability to adjust the aspect of the steering wheel in relation to the vehicle body and thereby the claimed driver side brake controller is also well known. Does the device infringe if at any point the steering wheel can be located to be at the same level as the claimed handle? What if the handle at operating position (ergonomically for the user) is positioned to be not entirely beneath the steering wheel, is it no longer infringing on the applicant’s claimed invention (at which point the applicant’s own claimed invention would no longer be covered by the claim)? The metes and bounds of the applicant’s claim, given that the vehicle is not the subject of the invention, are unascertainable.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US Pat No 6,435,055).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses passenger side driving instructor brake controller, comprising:
a telescoping shaft (24) including a first end and a second end;
a brake lever (40) connector disposed at the first end of a telescoping shaft and adapted to be secured to a brake lever of a motor vehicle disposed within a driver-side front floorboard area of the motor vehicle; and
a tubular main body (32) having a first end and a second end configured to adjustably accept the second end of the telescoping shaft within the first end the tubular main body and secure the telescoping shaft with locking hardware (50) at a fixed position within the tubular main body to enable the main body to reach beneath a steering wheel in a motor vehicle at a second end of the tubular main body where it terminates at a handle area, which can also be located beneath the steering wheel (e.g. the handle to 20 is capable of being manipulated or turned to be beneath the steering wheel),
a handle (22) disposed on the second end of the tubular main body where the tubular main body terminates beneath the steering wheel thereby defining the handle area;
wherein a driver can selectively control the driver side brake controller with either right or left hand by griping the handle disposed on the second end of the tubular main body beneath the steering wheel area (e.g. the handle is capable of being grasped by either a right or left hand of a user).
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses the brake controller is configured to enable a driving instructor to pull back on the handle area as a student driver applies foot pressure to the pedal to enable correction of the student diver's action when the instructor notices the student driver has inadvertently used too much foot pressure on the pedal or push forward on the handle when the driver has not used enough foot pressure on the pedal to stop the motor vehicle.
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 2, 3, 5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Lenz et al (US Pat No 5,129,492).
Regarding claim 2, Sato fails to disclose a swivel joint connecting the first end of the telescoping shaft and the brake lever connector. However, Lenz discloses a swivel joint (e.g. ball joint 108), wherein the swivel joint enables the telescoping shaft and tubular main body to be manipulated 360 degrees with respect to the brake lever connector when the brake lever connector is connected to the brake lever. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Lenz to achieve the predictable result of providing the brake controller with freedom for adjusting the position of the handle with respect to the brake pedal (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Sato discloses the use of a clamp (40) and tightening screw (41) to firmly grasp the brake lever connector. However, Sato fails to disclose the clamp being a C-shaped clamp. Lenz discloses the use of a c-shaped clamp (26) to connect to the brake lever. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Lenz to achieve the predictable result of providing a firm clamp onto the brake lever (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Sato discloses the use of a clamp (40) and tightening screw (41) to tightly and immovably secure the telescoping shaft within the tubular main body. However, Sato fails to disclose the clamp being a c-shaped clamp. Lenz discloses the use of a c-shaped clamp (26) to connect to the brake lever. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Lenz to achieve the predictable result of providing a firm clamp onto the brake lever (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Regarding claims 8, Sato discloses passenger side driving instructor brake controller, comprising:
a telescoping shaft (24) including a first end and a second end;
a brake lever (40) connector disposed at the first end of a telescoping shaft and adapted to be secured to a brake lever of a motor vehicle disposed within a driver-side front floorboard area of the motor vehicle; and
a tubular main body (32) having a mid-section and bent near its mid-section, the tubular main body configured to adjustably accept the second end of the telescoping shaft within the tubular main body and secure the telescoping shaft with locking hardware (50) at a fixed position within the tubular main body to enable the main body to traverse over a main console of the motor vehicle where the tubular main body is bent at its mid-section and also extend into a passenger compartment area of the motor vehicle wherein the tubular main body terminates at a handle area (38, as shown in figure 1).
It is noted that Sato fails to disclose a swivel joint connecting the first end of the telescoping shaft and the brake lever connector. However, Lenz discloses a swivel joint (e.g. ball joint 108), wherein the swivel joint enables the telescoping shaft and tubular main body to be manipulated 360 degrees with respect to the brake lever connector when the brake lever connector is connected to the brake lever. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Lenz to achieve the predictable result of providing the brake controller with freedom for adjusting the position of the handle with respect to the brake pedal (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Regarding claims 13, and 19, Sato discloses the brake controller is configured to enable the driver to pull back on the handle as the driver applies foot pressure to the pedal to enable correction of the diver's foot action on the pedal when the driver notices the driver has inadvertently used too much foot pressure on the pedal or push forward on the handle when the driver had not used enough foot pressure on the pedal to stop the motor vehicle.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Peters (US Pat No 5,542,312).
Regarding claim 4, Sato discloses the handle area further comprises grip formed around the tubular main body at the handle area. However, Sato fails to disclose the grip is padded. Peters discloses a similar device wherein the grip (38) is padded. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Peters to achieve the predictable result of providing a comfortable/soft means for interacting the with brake controlling device (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of McCoy (US Pub No 2004/0217621).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that Sato fails to specifically disclose a coating. However, McCoy discloses a device for use in the interior of a vehicle having a shaft (2) covered in a rubber coating (see paragraph [0016]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of McCoy to achieve the predictable result of providing a shaft with a protective covering which not only protects the shaft but prevents other structures from being damaged (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lenz et al, further in view of Peters.
Regarding claims 10, Sato discloses the handle area further comprises grip formed around the tubular main body at the handle area. However, Sato fails to disclose the grip is padded. Peters discloses a similar device wherein the grip (38) is padded. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Peters to achieve the predictable result of providing a comfortable/soft means for interacting the with brake controlling device (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Claims 12 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Lenz, further in view of McCoy (US Pub No 2004/0217621).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses a telescoping shaft (24) including a first end and a second end;
a brake lever (40) connector disposed at the first end of a telescoping shaft and adapted to be secured to a brake lever of a motor vehicle disposed within a driver-side front floorboard area of the motor vehicle; and
a tubular main body (32) having a first end and a second end configured to adjustably accept the second end of the telescoping shaft within the first end the tubular main body and secure the telescoping shaft with locking hardware (50) at a fixed position within the tubular main body to enable the main body to reach beneath a steering wheel in a motor vehicle at a second end of the tubular main body where it terminates at a handle area, which can also be located beneath the steering wheel (e.g. the handle to 20 is capable of being manipulated or turned to be beneath the steering wheel),
a handle (22) disposed on the second end of the tubular main body where the tubular main body terminates beneath the steering wheel thereby defining the handle area;
wherein a driver can selectively control the driver side brake controller with either right or left hand by griping the handle disposed on the second end of the tubular main body beneath the steering wheel area (e.g. the handle is capable of being grasped by either a right or left hand of a user).
It is noted that Sato fails to disclose a swivel joint connecting the first end of the telescoping shaft and the brake lever connector. However, Lenz discloses a swivel joint (e.g. ball joint 108), wherein the swivel joint enables the telescoping shaft and tubular main body to be manipulated 360 degrees with respect to the brake lever connector when the brake lever connector is connected to the brake lever. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of Lenz to achieve the predictable result of providing the brake controller with freedom for adjusting the position of the handle with respect to the brake pedal (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Further, it is noted that Sato and Lenz fail to specifically disclose a coating. However, McCoy discloses a device for use in the interior of a vehicle having a shaft (2) covered in a rubber coating (see paragraph [0016]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of McCoy to achieve the predictable result of providing a shaft with a protective covering which not only protects the shaft but prevents other structures from being damaged (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Sato and Lenz fail to specifically disclose a coating. However, McCoy discloses a device for use in the interior of a vehicle having a shaft (2) covered in a rubber coating (see paragraph [0016]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Sato with the teachings of McCoy to achieve the predictable result of providing a shaft with a protective covering which not only protects the shaft but prevents other structures from being damaged (e.g. obvious to try with limited, predictable results).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the newly claimed features. As noted above, the applicant’s independent claims are rejected under 112(b) for reciting relations to features not part of the claimed invention. Further, the device taught by Sato is capable of being extended or retracted and therefore rotated (e.g. the handle need not be in the upright position as shown). Between the adjustability of the disclosed braking stick, and the ability to use the stick in different vehicles (e.g. for vehicles having different arrangements of vehicle features and heights) the applicant’s claimed invention is still anticipated.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the combination of Sato and Lenz fail to disclose the claimed swivel joint functionally providing 360 degree manipulation; as well known as ball joints art, the fundamental principle of ball joints is the ability for the ball to rotate freely within the socket (e.g. enabling the 360 degree rotation required by the applicant), while movement of the arm relative to the joint may be limited. The applicant’s argument seems to be predicated on allowing unlimited, universal movement of the handle while being connected to the pedal which is not supported by the applicant’s original disclosure or claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights