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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-10, 12, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are currently pending.
2. Claims 11, 13-16, 19-20, and 23 are canceled.
3. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are currently amended.
4. The 112(b) rejections to Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-11, 17-18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawthorne (US 20080221763 A1) in view of Vaisanen (US 20220411018 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Cawthorne teaches a method of transitioning a… [vehicle] from a drive state to a reverse state, the method comprising: receiving at a controller a throttle signal, and a speed signal… and a reverse request… (Cawthorne: [0018]);
The reverse request causing the controller to (Cawthorne: [0024]):
Transition the… [vehicle] from a drive state to a reverse state when the speed signal is below a speed threshold, wherein in the reverse state, the controller drives the… [vehicle] in a reverse direction based on the throttle signal (Cawthorne: [0005] and [0031] Note that the speed signal below a predetermined speed threshold is equivalent to the speed dropping below the threshold output speed. Also, note that transitioning to a reverse state and driving in a reverse direction is equivalent to executing the requested shift event and continuing to operate the reverse map.);
And, transition the… [vehicle] from a drive state to a reverse requested state when the speed signal is above the speed threshold, wherein in the reverse requested state, the controller does not drive operation of the… [vehicle] based on the throttle signal… (Cawthorne: [0018], [0027], and [0030] Note that the controller not driving operation of the vehicle based on the throttle signal is equivalent to inhibiting the shift into reverse mode when the speed is greater than a threshold.).
Cawthorne fails to explicitly teach to receive... a reverse request from a user interface of the electric snowmobile; and transitions the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vaisanen teaches a method of transitioning an electric snowmobile from a drive state to a reverse state, the method comprising (Vaisanen: [0002]):
Receiving at a controller a reverse request from a user interface of the electric snowmobile (Vaisanen: [0088], [0124], and [0133] Note that under BRI, the user interface of the electric snowmobile may be interpreted as a button cluster (of a start and reverse buttons).);
And transition the electric snowmobile from a drive state to a reverse requested state when the speed signal is above the speed threshold, wherein in the reverse requested state, the controller does not drive operation of the electric snowmobile based on the throttle signal and transitions the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0125], [0128], and [0130] Note that transitioning the snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state is equivalent to returning to step 420 when the speed of the snowmobile is not zero.).
Cawthorne and Vaisanen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and transitioning into a reverse state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawthorne to incorporate the teachings of Vaisanen to receive a reverse request from a user interface on the electric vehicle because it provides the benefit of preventing damage when transitioning into a reverse state for additional vehicle types and to increase the awareness of the user.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches when the electric snowmobile is in the reverse requested state, the controller transitions the electric snowmobile from the reverse requested state to the reverse state when the speed signal transitions from above the speed threshold to below the speed threshold (Cawthorne: [0005] and [0031]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches when the electric snowmobile is in the drive state, the controller drives the electric snowmobile in a forward direction based on the throttle signal (Cawthorne: [0026] Note that the driving the vehicle in a forward direction based on the throttle signal is equivalent to the vehicle traveling in a forward direction governed by the forward map. The map determines the output torque based on the throttle % (from 0% to 100%).).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vaisanen teaches the transition from the drive state to the reverse state is contingent upon determining that a throttle signal is below the throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0131], [0132], and [0133] Note that the throttle signal below a throttle threshold is equivalent to the acceleration lever not being actuated.).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vaisanen teaches the transition from the drive state to the reverse requested state includes changing an indicator configuration in the user interface of the electric snowmobile (Vaisanen: [0133]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Vaisanen teaches said changing the indicator configuration includes at least one of changing a configuration of a visual indicator and changing a configuration of an audible indicator (Vaisanen: [0133]).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches when the electric snowmobile is in the reverse requested state, the controller transitions the electric snowmobile from the reverse requested state to the reverse state when the speed signal transitions from above the speed threshold to below the speed threshold (Cawthorne: [0005] and [0031]).
Cawthorne fails to explicitly teach wherein the transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state includes changing an indicator configuration in the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vaisanen teaches wherein the transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state includes changing an indicator configuration in the user interface (Vaisanen: [0133] Note that the indicator configuration changes for a transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state because the indication is provided when the snowmobile is changed to the reverse state.).
Cawthorne and Vaisanen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and transitioning into a reverse state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawthorne to incorporate the teachings of Vaisanen to include changing an indicator configuration during the transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state because it provides the benefit of increased awareness for the operator of the vehicle.
16. Regarding Claim 8, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vaisanen teaches an operator interacting with the user interface to generate the reverse request at the user interface (Vaisanen: [0133]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches acquiring the speed signal associated with the electric snowmobile, the speed signal comprising at least one of a vehicle speed and a motor speed (Cawthorne: [0025] and [0030] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transmission output speed is determined based on the motor speed and transmission gear ratio. Also, the vehicle speed is determined based on the transmission output speed and differential gear ratio. Therefore, the speed signal comprising a vehicle speed or motor speed is based at least in part of the transmission output speed.).
18. Regarding Claim 10, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches driving the electric snowmobile in the reverse direction includes mapping a throttle signal to a corresponding power request based on a power map, and applying the power request to an electric motor of the electric snowmobile (Cawthorne: [0026] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that power is determined from the output torque and vehicle speed. Therefore, a power map is equivalent to the map in Fig. 3 of Cawthorne. Also, note that the map determines the output torque based on the throttle % (from 0% to 100%).).
19. Regarding Claim 17, Cawthorne teaches a… vehicle comprising: a controller having a processor and a non-transitory memory, the non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, the instructions being executable by the processor for enabling the controller to (Cawthorne: [0018]):
Receive a reverse request… (Cawthorne: [0018]);
And following receipt of the reverse request from the user interface of the electric vehicle (Cawthorne: [0024]):
Transition the… vehicle from a drive state to a reverse state when a speed signal associated with the… vehicle is below a speed threshold, wherein in the reverse state, the controller drives the… vehicle in a reverse direction based on the throttle signal (Cawthorne: [0005] and [0031] Note that the speed signal below a predetermined speed threshold is equivalent to the speed dropping below the threshold output speed. Also, note that transitioning to a reverse state and driving in a reverse direction is equivalent to executing the requested shift event and continuing to operate the reverse map.);
And, transition the… vehicle from a drive state to a reverse requested state when a speed signal associated with the… vehicle is above the speed threshold, wherein in the reverse requested state, the controller does not drive operation of the… vehicle based on the throttle signal… (Cawthorne: [0018], [0027], and [0030] Note that the controller not driving operation of the vehicle based on the throttle signal is equivalent to inhibiting the shift into reverse mode when the speed is greater than a threshold.).
Cawthorne fails to explicitly teach an electric vehicle comprising: an electric motor; a battery configured for supplying the electric motor with electrical power; a throttle actuator operable to provide a throttle signal changing as a function of a position of the throttle actuator; and to receive a reverse request from a user interface of the electric vehicle; and transitions the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vaisanen teaches an electric vehicle comprising (Vaisanen: [0002]):
An electric motor; a battery configured for supplying the electric motor with electrical power; a throttle actuator operable to provide a throttle signal changing as a function of a position of the throttle actuator (Vaisanen: [0034] and [0106]);
And to receive a reverse request from a user interface of the electric vehicle (Vaisanen: [0088] and [0133] Note that under BRI, the user interface of the electric snowmobile may be interpreted as a button cluster (of a start and reverse buttons).);
And transition the electric vehicle from a drive state to a reverse requested state when a speed signal associated with the electric vehicle is above the speed threshold, wherein in the reverse requested state, the controller does not drive operation of the electric vehicle based on the throttle signal and transitions the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0125], [0128], and [0130] Note that transitioning the snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state is equivalent to returning to step 420 when the speed of the snowmobile is not zero.).
Cawthorne and Vaisanen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and transitioning into a reverse state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawthorne to incorporate the teachings of Vaisanen to receive a reverse request from a user interface on the electric vehicle because it provides the benefit of preventing damage when transitioning into a reverse state for additional vehicle types and to increase the awareness of the user.
20. Regarding Claim 18, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Cawthorne teaches in the reverse requested state, the controller transitions the electric vehicle from the reverse requested state to the reverse state when the speed signal transitions from above the speed threshold to below the speed threshold (Cawthorne: [0005] and [0031]).
21. Regarding Claim 21, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vaisanen teaches the transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state is contingent upon determining that a throttle signal is below the throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0131], [0132], and [0133] Note that the throttle signal below a throttle threshold is equivalent to the acceleration lever not being actuated. Also, note that the transition to the reverse state is contingent on the throttle signal being below the throttle threshold.).
22. Regarding Claim 22, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vaisanen teaches voiding the reverse request upon determining that the throttle signal is above the throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0131] Note that the throttle signal above a throttle threshold is equivalent to the acceleration lever being actuated. Also, voiding the reverse request is equivalent to returning to step 420 because the electric snowmobile continues to operate in a forward mode.).
23. Regarding Claim 24, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Vaisanen teaches the transition from the reverse requested state to the reverse state is contingent upon determining that the throttle signal is below the throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0131], [0132], and [0133] Note that the throttle signal below a throttle threshold is equivalent to the acceleration lever not being actuated. Also, note that the transition to the reverse state is contingent on the throttle signal being below the throttle threshold.).
24. Regarding Claim 25, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Vaisanen teaches the transition from the drive state to the reverse state is contingent upon determining that the throttle signal is below the throttle threshold (Vaisanen: [0131], [0132], and [0133] Note that the throttle signal below a throttle threshold is equivalent to the acceleration lever not being actuated.).
25. Regarding Claim 26, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Vaisanen teaches an operator interacting with the user interface to generate the reverse request at the user interface (Vaisanen: [0133]).
26. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawthorne (US 20080221763 A1), in view of Vaisanen (US 20220411018 A1), in further view of Yoneda (US 20180326867 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 12, Cawthorne and Vaisanen remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Cawthorne and Vaisanen fail to explicitly teach in the reverse requested state, the controller drives the electric motor in a regenerative mode to actively decelerate the electric snowmobile.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoneda teaches in the reverse requested state, the controller drives the electric motor in a regenerative mode to actively decelerate the electric snowmobile (Yoneda: [0044] and [0046]).
Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Yoneda are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawthorne and Vaisanen to incorporate the teachings of Yoneda for the controller to drive the electric motor in a regenerative mode to actively decelerate the electric snowmobile because it provides the benefit of supplying electric power to the battery and other electrical components. This provides the additional benefit of increased battery life and an increased distance the snowmobile can travel on one charge.
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
29. First, the Applicant has alleged "neither Cawthorne nor Vaisanen teach transitioning an electric snowmobile to a 'reverse requested state'” when the speed signal is above a threshold, and transitioning 'back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when a throttle signal above a threshold signal is received.'" The Examiner disagrees.
It appears that the applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Nonfinal Office Action mailed 4/22/2025, Cawthorne was only used to disclose transitioning the vehicle from a drive state to a reverse requested state when the speed signal is above the speed threshold, wherein the reverse requested state does not drive the operation of the snowmobile based on the throttle signal. Vaisanen was used to teach transitioning the electric snowmobile back to the drive sate from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a threshold.
Vaisanen has been applied to cure the deficiencies of Cawthorne and to teach transitioning the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold. Vaisanen teaches in at least [0130] that the snowmobile is in a reverse requested state. Although Vaisanen does not call this step a reverse request state, it performs the same function, and therefore teaches the reverse requested state. In Fig. 13, the process of changing the snowmobile from a forward to a reverse direction is explained in steps 418-444. If the criteria is not met to change the snowmobile to a reverse direction at step 444, the process returns to steps 420-426 where the acceleration is permitted and the snowmobile is returned to the drive state.
Further, Vaisanen teaches in [0125]-[0131] that the electric snowmobile is started up, put into a forward drive mode, and must follow the process of 414-444 to change to operation in a reverse mode. At step 420, acceleration is permitted. This is equivalent to the electric snowmobile being in the drive state. At step 426, the electric snowmobile continues to be in the drive state as the electric motor is operated in the same position of the acceleration lever previously obtained. This is equivalent to the speed signal being above a speed threshold. In between steps 426 and 428 is where the snowmobile enters the equivalent to the reverse request mode. This is because, Vaisanen teaches the snowmobile is only able to enter the reverse mode when the speed of the snowmobile is zero.
Therefore, even if the user of the snowmobile requests a reverse direction through the reverse actuator before the speed is zero (YES at step 428), the speed must be zero to actually continue the process of shifting into reverse. If the speed is not zero (NO at step 428), the process continues to step 430 and back to 420 where the snowmobile is returned to the drive state. This decision is made as part of the reverse request mode.
30. Second the Applicant has alleged "to amend Cawthorne with the teachings of Vaisanen would fundamentally change the operation of Cawthorne and make it unsatisfactory for its intended use."
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Vaisanen teaches to use an electric vehicle for transitioning from a drive state to a reverse requested when the speed is above a threshold and to transition back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold. Therefore, Vaisanen improves on Cawthorne by using an electric vehicle to transition back to a drive state from a reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold instead of always shifting to a reverse direction after a reverse request state. This motivation taken directly from [0006] and [0124] of the combining reference is the strongest type of motivation.
Therefore, Vaisanen resolves the certain issues of Cawthorne by using the reset timers to make sure the actuation performed by the driver is the intended result and not an erroneous actuation. Transitioning back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold provides the benefit of preventing damage when transitioning into a reverse state and to increase the awareness of the user.
31. Cawthorne (US 20080221763 A1), in view of Vaisanen (US 20220411018 A1), in further view of Yoneda (US 20180326867 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
32. Claims 1-10, 12, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663