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. On 6/5/2026, Applicant filed a Pre-Appeal Brief regarding the Final rejection issued on
1/13/2026. A Pre-Appeal Conference was held on 7/2/2026 to review the prosecution history of the
application at issue. It was determined that the Final rejection was improper.
The indicated rejections of Claims 1-10, 12, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 from the action on filed on 1/13/2026 are withdrawn and rejections based newly cited reference(s) follow. Prosecution is reopened.
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.
4. Claims 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 18, 21-22, and 24-26, have been included based on their dependency.
5. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electric snowmobile" in Lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the electric snowmobile is being interpreted as the electric vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-10, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawthorne (US 20080221763 A1), in view of Vaisanen (US 20220411018 A1), and in further view of Schneider (US 20140309901 A1).
10. 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 associated with the [vehicle], and a reverse request from a user interface of the [vehicle] (Cawthorne: [0018] and [0023] The PCM 22 is a controller that receives a speed signal from speed sensor 11 that detects throttle command. The transmission shift request is a reverse request.),
The reverse request causing the controller to (Cawthorne: [0024] PCM 22):
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 an electric snowmobile.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vaisanen teaches an electric snowmobile (Vaisanen: [0002] Vaisanen operates an electric snowmobile).
Cawthorne and Vaisanen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle direction 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 to incorporate the teachings of Vaisanen to control an electric snowmobile because it provides the benefit of controlling the drive and reverse states for additional vehicle types as explicitly explained in [0003] and [0112].
Cawthorne and Vaisanen fail to explicitly teach to transition 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, Schneider teaches to transition the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold (Schneider: [0027], [0031], and [0033] Note that discontinuing the direction change control is equivalent to transition the vehicle back to the drive state from the reverse requested state because activating the brake is not permitted and the vehicle driving speed is relatively high (drive state).).
Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle direction 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 Schneider to transition the vehicle back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold because it provides the benefit of continuing to control the vehicle without a driving direction change due to an erroneous operation of a transmission selector as explicitly explained in [0011] and [0027] of Schneider.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] “the detected output speed exceeds the threshold output speed by slowing the vehicle until the detected output speed drops below the threshold output speed”).
12. Regarding Claim 3, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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%).).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches the transition from the drive state to the reverse state is contingent upon determining that a throttle signal is below the throttle threshold (Cawthorne: [0023] and [0031] PCM 22 executes shifting event once reaching threshold output speed and continues operating according to map 40.).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] The indication that the operation mode has been changed is provided to the driver.).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] The indication is a visual indication on display cluster 68.).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] A shift is delayed “when the detected output speed exceeds the threshold output speed by slowing the vehicle until the detected output speed drops below the threshold output speed.”).
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 change an indicator in the user interface when transitioning from the drive state to the reverse requested state because it provides the benefit of informing the operator of the vehicle as explicitly explained in [0096] and [0133] of Vaisanen. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the operator's awareness.
17. Regarding Claim 8, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cawthorne teaches an operator interacting with the user interface to generate the reverse request at the user interface (Cawthorne: [0018] The operator uses the gear shift mechanism to request a transmission shift.).
18. Regarding Claim 9, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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.).
19. Regarding Claim 10, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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%).).
20. Regarding Claim 17, Cawthorne teaches a… vehicle comprising Cawthorne: [0005]):
A throttle actuator operable to provide a throttle signal changing as a function of a position of the throttle actuator (Cawthorne: [0023] Speed sensor 11);
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] PCM 22):
Receive a reverse request from a user interface of the… vehicle (Cawthorne: [0018] The PCM 22 is a controller that receives a speed signal from speed sensor 11 that detects throttle command. The transmission shift request is a reverse request.);
And following receipt of the reverse request from the user interface of the… vehicle: 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vaisanen teaches an electric vehicle comprising (Vaisanen: [0002] Vaisanen operates an electric snowmobile.):
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] Electric motor 32 and Acceleration lever 140).
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 control an electric vehicle because it provides the benefit of controlling the drive and reverse states for additional vehicle types as explicitly explained in [0003] and [0112].
Cawthorne and Vaisanen fail to explicitly teach to transition 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, Schneider teaches to transition the electric snowmobile back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold (Schneider: [0027], [0031], and [0033] Note that discontinuing the direction change control is equivalent to transition the vehicle back to the drive state from the reverse requested state because activating the brake is not permitted and the vehicle driving speed is relatively high (drive state).).
Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle direction 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 Schneider to transition the vehicle back to the drive state from the reverse requested state when the throttle signal is above a throttle threshold because it provides the benefit of continuing to control the vehicle without a driving direction change due to an erroneous operation of a transmission selector as explicitly explained in [0011] and [0027] of Schneider.
21. Regarding Claim 18, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] “the detected output speed exceeds the threshold output speed by slowing the vehicle until the detected output speed drops below the threshold output speed”).
22. Regarding Claim 21, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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 (Cawthorne: [0023] and [0031] PCM 22 executes shifting event once reaching threshold output speed and continues operating according to map 40.).
23. Regarding Claim 22, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Schneider teaches voiding the reverse request upon determining that the throttle signal is above the throttle threshold (Schneider: [0031] and [0033] The control device 5 discontinues driving direction change when the driver actuates the accelerator pedal immediately after calling for the direction change.).
24. Regarding Claim 24, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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 (Cawthorne: [0023] and [0031] PCM 22 executes shifting event once reaching threshold output speed and continues operating according to map 40.).
25. Regarding Claim 25, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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 (Cawthorne: [0023] and [0031] PCM 22 executes shifting event once reaching threshold output speed and continues operating according to map 40.).
26. Regarding Claim 26, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Cawthorne teaches an operator interacting with the user interface to generate the reverse request at the user interface (Cawthorne: [0018] The operator uses the gear shift mechanism to request a transmission shift.).
27. 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 view of Schneider (US 20140309901 A1), and in further view of Yoneda (US 20180326867 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 12, Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Cawthorne, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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] “the electric two-wheeled vehicle 1 performs braking control (regenerative control) during deceleration”).
Cawthorne, Vaisanen, Schneider 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, Vaisanen, and Schneider 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
29. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 1-2, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-10, 12, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-26 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schneider (US 20140309901 A1). Schneider teaches to determine when to initiate a driving direction change based on the speed on the vehicle.
30. Cawthorne (US 20080221763 A1), in view of Vaisanen (US 20220411018 A1), in view of Schneider (US 20140309901 A1), and in further view of Yoneda (US 20180326867 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention.
31. 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
32. 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
Prosecution Insights