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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 4-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the modified scope of amended claims 4-5 renders the previous ground(s) of rejection moot. Upon consideration of amended claims 4-5, the Examiner concludes that a double patenting rejection of amended claims 4-5 would be inappropriate, at least because US Patent No. 11,815,175 and the prior art of record fail to explicitly recite or fully teach or suggest the limitations “cause the driving force source to output a signal torque, distinct from a driving torque, that enables the driver to sense a change in a vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position… the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position… cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels backward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the forward traveling position to the reverse traveling position; and cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels forward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the reverse traveling position to the forward traveling position.” See further discussion with respect to these limitations in the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance below. Accordingly, the has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 4-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As discussed during the Examiner Interview held on 05/19/2026, the Examiner is in agreement that Suzuki fails to fully teach or suggest each of the features of amended independent claim 4. In particular, Suzuki fails to fully teach or suggest “cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels backward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the forward traveling position to the reverse traveling position; and cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels forward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the reverse traveling position to the forward traveling position”. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 4-5 has been withdrawn.
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 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites "cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels backward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the forward traveling position to the reverse traveling position; and cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels forward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the reverse traveling position to the forward traveling position.” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 4 for “cause the driving force source to output a signal torque, distinct from a driving torque” and “cause the driving force source to output the signal torque…” The claim is rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the second and third recitation of the phrase “a signal torque” refers to the same signal torque as the initial invocation of “a signal torque” and “the signal torque”. In other words, it is unclear precisely how many signal torque(s) are required by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is dependent upon claim 4 and therefore inherits the above-described deficiencies (particularly since claim 5 also recites to “the signal torque”). Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the controller is configured to, when the driver switches the shift position, cause the driving force source to output signal torque that is not sufficient to move the electric vehicle and is sufficient to enable the driver to sense a change in a vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position… and wherein the controller is configured to, in response to detecting a disturbance acceleration of the electric vehicle prior to switching to the travel position, cause the driving force source to output the signal torque that generates a perceptible acceleration greater than the disturbance acceleration without causing the electric vehicle to travel.” The closest prior art of record, Suzuki, Crombez, McGee, Schum, and Johri, fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations.
While Crombez does teach holding a vehicle stopped on a grade that exceeds the grade hold capability of a creep torque by increasing drive torque or brake torque (see at least Col. 8 lines 31-67), Crombez does not teach that the controller causes the driving force source to output the signal torque that generates a perceptible acceleration greater than the disturbance acceleration without causing the vehicle to travel. Similarly, while McGee does teach cancelling torque output to vehicle wheels by commanding the motor to output an equal and opposite torque such that the net torque to the vehicle wheels is zero (see at least [0022]-[0024]), McGee is silent regarding setting the signal torque to a value that is not sufficient to move the electric vehicle and is sufficient to enable the driver to sense a change in vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position. Further, the teachings of McGee do not make it clear that the signal torque is output as a result of the driver switching the shift position from the traveling position to the non-traveling position. Schum likewise fails to teach or suggest the above-recited limitations; in particular, [0021] of Schum teaches away from the claimed invention, as Schum ensures perceptibility of the signal torque by the driver by allowing the vehicle to move in a downhill direction. Johri too is silent regarding causing the driving force source to output the signal torque that generates a perceptible acceleration greater than the disturbance acceleration without causing the electric vehicle to travel in response to detecting a disturbance acceleration of the electric vehicle prior to switching to the travel position.
Additional search and consideration proved unfruitful, yielding no results which teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is considered to be allowable. Regarding independent claims 2-3 and 6-7, these claims include limitations which are not identical to those presented in independent claim 1 but are nonetheless conceptually similar; in particular, features directed towards the signal torque not causing the electric vehicle to travel while still enabling a driver to sense a change in vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position. Therefore, independent claims 2-3 and 6-7 are considered to be allowable under similar reasoning as independent claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 4 and dependent claim 5, these claims are presently rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for antecedent basis issues. However, the Examiner notes that these claims nevertheless include allowable subject matter and would be allowable if amended to overcome the outstanding antecedent basis concerns.
Regarding independent claim 4, the claim recites “cause the driving force source to output a signal torque, distinct from a driving torque, that enables the driver to sense a change in a vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position… the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position… cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels backward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the forward traveling position to the reverse traveling position; and cause the at least one motor to output a signal torque in a direction that rotates the driving wheels forward in response to the driver switching the shift position from the reverse traveling position to the forward traveling position.” The closest prior art of record, Suzuki, Crombez, McGee, Schum, and Johri, fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations.
In particular, the prior art of record fails to fully teach or suggest causing the at least one motor to output a signal torque (which is defined as being distinct from a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle). While Suzuki does teach outputting a signal torque (i.e., “a drive torque instruction value”) in a direction corresponding to the forward traveling and/or reverse traveling shift positions, the signal torque of Suzuki cannot teach or suggest the above-recited features, as the drive torque instruction value of Suzuki is merely a signaled torque value – paragraph [0017] of Suzuki makes it clear that the electric motor drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value. In other words, the signal torque of Suzuki is a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle and therefore fails to amount to the claimed signal torque which is defined as being distinct from a driving torque. Crombez, McGee, Schum, and Johri fail to cure this deficiency.
Additional search and consideration proved unfruitful, yielding no results which fully teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-discussed features of claim 4.
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 4 and therefore inherits the above-described allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fairgrieve et al. (US 2015/0232092 A1) teaches a vehicle speed control system with external force compensation, including controlling torque in an environment where an accelerating force (e.g., gravity) acts on the vehicle (see at least [0098]-[0099]). Otake (US 2018/0037235 A1) teaches a vehicle traveling control apparatus, including limiting wheel driving force while a shift lever is set at a parking range or a neutral range (see at least Claim 1).
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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights