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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The instant application is a 371 national stage of PCT/EP2019/080199 and also claims foreign priority to DE102018128565.5. Examiner has checked and verified that the foreign priority document supports the subject matter of the instant application, and as such, the earlier filed date of 11/14/2018 is granted.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendments filed on 11/10/2025 have been entered. Claims 11-20 remain pending in the application. The arguments filed do not address the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections, and as such, those rejections are still maintained in the current action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites the limitation of “… wherein the visual signal comprises at least one of: an indication of the current driving experience mode, vehicle passenger compartment lighting, warning signal, navigation display, infotainment display, road sign detection display, steering wheel lighting, combination instrument display, keypad lighting, status display or a driving assistance system, or parking indication.”.
However, claim 11 already specifies the visual signal comprising “a passenger compartment lighting”. As such, claim 12 does not further limit claim 11 as it broadens the scope of the claims in question, namely by broadening what the visual signal is. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki et al., EP 2070787 A1, herein referred to as Suzuki, and in view of both Schilling et al., US 20140324317 A1, herein referred to as Schilling, and Krauss et al., US 20120319828 A1, herein referred to as Krauss.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses a sensor configured to sense a current operating mode of an internal combustion engine and of an electric drive of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0043 and 0053; Vehicle can use sensor to determine accelerator pedal opening degree, this opening degree corresponds to different driving modes including an electric and hybrid mode), and an electronic control unit coupled to the sensor and configured to adapt a visual signal, output by the vehicle, based on the sensed current operating mode (Paragraphs 0009 and 0012; Vehicle may show an indicator to a driver to show which mode the vehicle is currently operating in), but fails to disclose a sensor configured to sense a current operating mode of an internal combustion engine and of an electric drive of the vehicle that reflects a non-zero relative usage of each of the internal combustion engine and the electric drive in driving the vehicle, and wherein the visual signal comprises a passenger compartment lighting. However, Schilling, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a sensor configured to sense a current operating mode of an internal combustion engine and of an electric drive of the vehicle that reflects a non-zero relative usage of each of the internal combustion engine and the electric drive in driving the vehicle (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0030; a relative usage pie chart may be displayed to a driver indicating percentage usage of propulsion for combustion engine, hybrid, and zero emission (electric)), and Krauss, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the visual signal comprises a passenger compartment lighting (Paragraph 0038; interior space lights may have their color change to indicate a current operating mode of the vehicle).
Therefore, from the teachings of both Schilling and Krauss, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the driving system of Suzuki to include a sensor configured to sense a current operating mode of an internal combustion engine and of an electric drive of the vehicle that reflects a non-zero relative usage of each of the internal combustion engine and the electric drive in driving the vehicle, and wherein the visual signal comprises a passenger compartment lighting as taught/suggested by Schilling and Krauss, respectively. The motivation to do so would be to give the driver a better indication of what mode the vehicle is in and to what extent, as well as ensure that the indication is easy to visualize. By utilizing a lighting system in the passenger compartment to indicate which mode the vehicle is in, a driver may quickly glance towards the indicator and will immediately know which mode the vehicle is in. This can increase safety as the driver will not be as distracted when wanting to determine the current mode.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Suzuki further discloses the visual signal comprises at least one of: an indication of the current driving experience mode, vehicle passenger compartment lighting, warning signal, navigation display, infotainment display, road sign detection display, steering wheel lighting, combination instrument display, keypad lighting, status display of a driving assistance system, or parking distance indication (Paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2; visual indicator shows the current operating mode).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Suzuki further discloses adapting the visual signal comprises changing at least one of the following properties of the visual signal: intensity, brightness, color, color sequence, color nuance, or flashing frequency (Paragraphs 0042 and Fig. 2; indicator used to show modes can change intensity to show the current mode, indictor portion 110 can increase or decrease the number of filled blocks 111 to show which mode is currently active; this increase/decrease of filled blocks can be considered a change in intensity of the display).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Suzuki further discloses in response to the internal combustion engine operating alone or in addition to the electric drive, the at least one of the properties of the visual signal is changed in at least one of the following ways: increasing or reducing the intensity; increasing or reducing the brightness; changing the color; changing the color sequence; changing the color nuance; or increasing or reducing the flashing frequency (Paragraphs 0042 and Fig. 2; indicator used to show modes can change intensity to show the current mode, indictor portion 110 can increase or decrease the number of filled blocks 111 to show which mode is currently active; this increase/decrease of filled blocks can be considered a change in intensity of the display).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Suzuki further discloses an individual sensor coupled to the electronic control unit to sense at least one individual parameter assigned to a vehicle occupant, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to adapt the visual signal based on the at least one individual parameter of the vehicle occupant (Paragraph 0018, Fig. 2; vehicle may determine a threshold value for switching driving modes based on a switch activated by the driver, indicator will change threshold for when driving modes switch, the switch activation may be considered a driver parameter).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Suzuki further discloses the at least one individual parameter defines the adaptation of the visual signal and adds to or replaces the adaptation based on the sensed operating mode (Paragraph 0018, Fig. 2; vehicle may determine a threshold value for switching driving modes based on a switch activated by the driver, indicator will change threshold for when driving modes switch, the switch activation may be considered a driver parameter).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Suzuki further discloses a parameter that can be set and stored by the respective vehicle occupant is used as the at least one individual parameter, wherein the at least one individual parameter changes at least one of the following properties of the reproduction of the visual signal: intensity, brightness, color, color sequence, color nuance, or flashing frequency (Paragraphs 0018, 0042, Fig. 2; vehicle may determine a threshold value for switching driving modes based on a switch activated by the driver, indicator will change threshold for when driving modes switch, the switch activation may be considered a driver parameter and is stored as the threshold is modified based on the activation, changing of the threshold could be considered a change in intensity (higher threshold=higher intensity)).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Suzuki further discloses an output device to output, in the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the visual signal as adapted (Paragraphs 0009 and 0012; vehicle may show an indicator to a driver to show which mode the vehicle is currently operating in, if indicator is viewable by driver, then the indicator is in the passenger compartment of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki, in view of both Schilling and Krauss, and further in view of Crombez et al., US 20110080278 A1, herein referred to as Crombez.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Suzuki further discloses an individual sensor coupled to the electronic control unit to sense at least one individual parameter assigned to a vehicle occupant, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to adapt the reproduction of the visual signal in accordance with the at least one individual parameter of the vehicle occupant (Paragraph 0018, Fig. 2; vehicle may determine a threshold value for switching driving modes based on a switch activated by the driver, indicator will change threshold for when driving modes switch, the switch activation may be considered a driver parameter), but fails to explicitly disclose detecting the identity of the vehicle occupant, and transmitting the detected identity of the vehicle occupant to the individual sensor.
However, Crombez, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches detecting the identity of the vehicle occupant, and transmitting the detected identity of the vehicle occupant to the individual sensor (Paragraphs 0026-0027; a driver’s identity may be obtained for personalized settings, as well as sending the driver’s identity to various components). Therefore, from the teaching of Crombez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the vehicle system of Suzuki, Schilling, and Krauss to include detecting the identity of the vehicle occupant, and transmitting the detected identity of the vehicle occupant to the individual sensor, as taught/suggested by Crombez. The motivation to do so would be to allow personalized settings to be used for the vehicle. This expended functionality would allow better functionality in situations where multiple users are present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the currently applied prior art combination of Suzuki in view of both Schilling and Krauss does not render obvious the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that the combination of Suzuki and Schilling for teaching a visual signal showing non-zero relative usage of both an internal combustion engine and an electric motor is incorrect because the indicators of both prior arts would not be able to being combined due to their differing purposes. However, Schilling is entirely brought in to teach an obvious alternative visual signal functionality to show relative usage of the combustion engine or electric motor instead of a pedal opening degree as seen in Suzuki.
Secondly, Applicant is arguing that the utilization of Krauss to teach passenger compartment lighting is incorrect because it conflicts with the teachings of the other prior art as the relative usage seen in Schilling is directed towards a display instead of compartment lighting. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize different methods of conveying information related to relative combustion engine/electric motor usage. Because Krauss clearly teaches interior lighting changing based on an operating mode, one would find it obvious to utilize this method of conveying information instead of, or in addition to, the prior art combination of Suzuki and Schilling, which teaches a display showing relative usages. For instance, would find it obvious to change compartment lighting color to indicate various relative usages of the combustion engine/electric motor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/C.A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658