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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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 01/08/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection of claims 4-5 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments request withdrawal or reconsideration of the double patenting rejection in view of the amendments to independent claim 4. However, upon review of the amended claim language, the Examiner asserts that claims 4-5 remain unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,815,175 in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0297484 A1). The Examiner refers to the Double Patenting analysis below for further discussion. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection of claims 4-5 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 8-9, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the claims resolve the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) concerns by amending “actual acceleration” to “acceleration”, for which ample support exists in the written description (see at least [0012]. [0018], and [0042]). Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claim 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 9-10, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 4-5 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Suzuki fails to teach or suggest “causing a driving force source to output a signal torque, distinct from a driving torque, for the purpose of enabling a driver to sense a change in vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of a shift position”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that signal torque and driving torque of Suzuki are distinct from one another. The signal torque of Suzuki corresponds to “a drive torque instruction value” intended to be provided to an electric motor (see at least [0017]); that is, the signal torque of Suzuki is a torque value represented in signal form. The drive torque of Suzuki corresponds to the torque actually produced by the inverter 5 and electric motor 1 of Suzuki. While Applicant argues that Suzuki does not “intentionally generate perceptible vehicle behavior”, this is not required by the claims; rather, the claim language requires that the driver be enabled to sense a change in a vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position. The signal torque achieves this through instructing (i.e., signaling to) the electric motor and inverter 5 to output a physical torque (i.e., the driving torque). In the context of [0016]-[0017] and [0049] of Suzuki, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a driver would be enabled to sense a change in the vehicle moving forward or backward as a result of the driver switching the shift position and causing the output of the signal torque as a driving torque.
Applicant further argues that Suzuki does not disclose “selecting a torque direction specifically to inform the driver of a post-switch traveling direction”. However, Applicant’s argument is directed towards features which have not been claimed. Claim 4 merely requires that, when the driver switches the shift position, the driving force source is caused 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. This does not amount to selecting a torque direction, and the claim merely requires that the driver is enabled to sense a change in a vehicle behavior, and does not require specifically informing the driver of a post-switch driving direction.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,815,175 in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0297484 A1).
Claim 4 of the present application include substantially parallel limitations to those included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,815,175, despite minor differences in phrasing. Claim 4 of the present application includes additional limitations directed towards “the shifting device being configured to selectively set one of two types of shift positions including a non-traveling position that does not generate a driving force, and a traveling position that causes the driving force source to generate the driving force by transmitting output torque of the driving force source to the driving wheels, the traveling position including a forward traveling position for moving the electric vehicle forward and a reverse traveling position for moving the electric vehicle backward,” and “wherein the controller is configured to, when the driver switches the shift position, 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, wherein the controller is configured to cause the driving force source to output the signal torque in a same direction as a rotational direction of the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position after the driver switches the shift position between the forward traveling position and the reverse traveling position.” Suzuki teaches these limitations in at least [0016]-[0017] and [0049]-[0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11,815,175 to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki, as doing so provides the benefit of eliminating or reducing undesirable vibrations based on the signal torque and the driving torque (see at least [0068]-[0069]). The Examiner refers to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 4 below for further analysis.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application, the claim is dependent upon claim 4 of the present application and therefore includes the above-discussed limitations and limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,815,175. Claim 5 of the present application includes additional limitations directed towards “the controller is configured to cause the motor to output the signal torque in a direction opposite to the rotational direction of the driving torque after causing the motor to output the signal torque in the same direction as the rotational direction of the driving torque.” Suzuki teaches this limitation in at least [0049]-[0050] and [0016]-[0017]. ]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11,815,175 to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki, as doing so provides the benefit of eliminating or reducing undesirable vibrations based on the signal torque and the driving torque (see at least [0068]-[0069]). The Examiner refers to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 below for further analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0297484 A1), hereinafter Suzuki
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches a control device of an electric vehicle, including:
a driving force source having at least one motor,
Suzuki teaches ([0015]): "FIG. 1 is a system diagram of an electric vehicle according to a first embodiment. The electric vehicle according to the first embodiment is a front-wheel-drive vehicle (a two-wheel-drive vehicle) in which front wheels FR and FL are driven by an electric motor 1." Suzuki further teaches ([0017]): "The vehicle controller 6 calculates a drive torque instruction value directed to the electric motor 1 based on the accelerator position and the like, and drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value." The Examiner has interpreted the driving force source as the cooperative arrangement between vehicle controller 6 and the electric motor 1/inverter 5.
driving wheels,
Suzuki teaches ([0015]): "FIG. 1 is a system diagram of an electric vehicle according to a first embodiment. The electric vehicle according to the first embodiment is a front-wheel-drive vehicle (a two-wheel-drive vehicle) in which front wheels FR and FL are driven by an electric motor 1."
a shifting device operated by a driver,
Suzuki teaches ([0016]): "The electric vehicle includes a shift lever 12, an accelerator position sensor 7, and a resolver 8. The shift lever 12 outputs a range position signal indicating a running mode of the vehicle… The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver..."
and a sensor configured to detect the shift position set by the shifting device,
Suzuki teaches ([0016]): "The vehicle controller 6 includes a first reception portion, which receives the range position signal from the shift lever 12 and the accelerator position signal from the accelerator position sensor 7... The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward."
the control device comprising: a controller configured to control the driving force source according to the shift position detected by the sensor,
Suzuki teaches ([0016]): "The vehicle controller 6 includes a first reception portion, which receives the range position signal from the shift lever 12 and the accelerator position signal from the accelerator position sensor 7... The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward." Suzuki further teaches ([0033]): "In step S1, the selection portion 605 determines whether the range positional signal is the R range. If the R range is selected, the selection portion 605 determines that the vehicle moves backward and then the processing proceeds to step S2."
wherein the controller is configured to, when the driver switches the shift position, 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,
Suzuki teaches ([0016]): "The vehicle controller 6 includes a first reception portion, which receives the range position signal from the shift lever 12 and the accelerator position signal from the accelerator position sensor 7... The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward." Suzuki further teaches ([0049]): "At time t1, when the driver operates the shift lever 12 to perform a shift operation from the R range to the D range..." Suzuki even further teaches ([0017]): "The vehicle controller 6 calculates a drive torque instruction value directed to the electric motor 1 based on the accelerator position and the like, and drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a driver would be enabled to sense a change in a vehicle behavior accompanied with switching of the shift position (e.g., by sensing a change from forward motion to reverse motion). The Examiner notes that the signal torque (i.e., the drive torque instruction value) of Suzuki is distinct from the driving torque (i.e., the torque produced by driving the inverter 5) because the signal torque of Suzuki refers to a signal instructing a torque rather than being a physically produced torque like the driving torque.
However, Suzuki does not outright state that the controller is configured to cause the driving force source to output the signal torque in a same direction as a rotational direction of the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position after the driver switches the shift position between the forward traveling position and the reverse traveling position. Suzuki is modified to teach:
the shifting device being configured to selectively set one of two types of shift positions including a non-traveling position that does not generate a driving force, and a traveling position that causes the driving force source to generate the driving force by transmitting output torque of the driving force source to the driving wheels, the traveling position including a forward traveling position for moving the electric vehicle forward and a reverse traveling position for moving the electric vehicle backward,
Suzuki teaches ([0016]): "The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward." Suzuki further teaches ([0017]): "The vehicle controller 6 calculates a drive torque instruction value directed to the electric motor 1 based on the accelerator position and the like, and drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value."
wherein the controller is configured to cause the driving force source to output the signal torque in a same direction as a rotational direction of the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position after the driver switches the shift position between the forward traveling position and the reverse traveling position.
Suzuki teaches ([0049]): "At time t1, when the driver operates the shift lever 12 to perform a shift operation from the R range to the D range… Then, a value gradually approaching from the second vibration damping control torque to the first vibration damping control torque is output as the damping control torque." Suzuki further teaches ([0050]): "At time t2, when the vibration damping control torque and the first vibration damping control torque match each other, the transition processing ongoing flag Ftra changes from 1 to 0, and the first vibration damping control torque is output as the vibration damping control torque. As a result, the switching is fully completed." Suzuki even further teaches ([0016]): "The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward." Suzuki still further teaches ([0017]): "The vehicle controller 6 calculates a drive torque instruction value directed to the electric motor 1 based on the accelerator position and the like, and drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the D range, the driving force source produces a signal torque in the same direction as a rotational direction of a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the D range (i.e., the forward direction), while in the R range the rotational direction is reversed to allow for backward travel.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Suzuki to provide that the controller is configured to cause the driving force source to output the signal torque in a same direction as a rotational direction of the driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the traveling position after the driver switches the shift position between the forward traveling position and the reverse traveling position. Suzuki already provides shifting from the traveling position for moving the electric vehicle forward and the traveling position for moving the electric vehicle backward in at least [0049]-[0050], and that the wheels of the vehicle are driven by an electric motor ([0015]-[0017]). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that, in the D range, the driving force source produces a signal torque in the same direction as a rotational direction of a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the D range (i.e., the forward direction), while in the R range the rotational direction is reversed to allow for backward travel.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. However, while Suzuki does provide an example of shifting from a reverse travel position to a forward travel position (see at least [0049], Suzuki does not outright disclose that the controller is configured to cause the motor to output the signal torque in a direction opposite to the rotational direction of the driving torque after causing the motor to output the signal torque in the same direction as the rotational direction of the driving torque. Suzuki is modified to teach:
the controller is configured to cause the motor to output the signal torque in a direction opposite to the rotational direction of the driving torque after causing the motor to output the signal torque in the same direction as the rotational direction of the driving torque.
Suzuki teaches ([0049]): "At time t1, when the driver operates the shift lever 12 to perform a shift operation from the R range to the D range… Then, a value gradually approaching from the second vibration damping control torque to the first vibration damping control torque is output as the damping control torque." Suzuki further teaches ([0050]): "At time t2, when the vibration damping control torque and the first vibration damping control torque match each other, the transition processing ongoing flag Ftra changes from 1 to 0, and the first vibration damping control torque is output as the vibration damping control torque. As a result, the switching is fully completed." Suzuki even further teaches ([0016]): "The shift lever 12 is operated by a driver, and outputs the range position signal indicating a parking range (hereinafter referred to as a P range) when the vehicle is parked, a neutral range (hereinafter referred to as an N range) when no power is transmitted, a drive range (hereinafter referred to as a D range) when the vehicle moves forward, and a reverse range (hereinafter referred to as an R range) when the vehicle moves backward." Suzuki still further teaches ([0017]): "The vehicle controller 6 calculates a drive torque instruction value directed to the electric motor 1 based on the accelerator position and the like, and drives the inverter 5 according to the drive torque instruction value." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the D range, the driving force source produces a signal torque in the same direction as a rotational direction of a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the D range (i.e., the forward direction), while in the R range the rotational direction is reversed to allow for backward travel. While the above example discusses a shift from the R range to the D range, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the teachings of Suzuki to instead shift from the D range to the R range. When switching from drive to reverse, the torque applied in the reverse mode is opposite to that of the forward drive mode.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Suzuki to provide that the controller is configured to cause the motor to output the signal torque in a direction opposite to the rotational direction of the driving torque after causing the motor to output the signal torque in the same direction as the rotational direction of the driving torque. Suzuki already provides shifting from the traveling position for moving the electric vehicle forward and the traveling position for moving the electric vehicle backward in at least [0049]-[0050], and that the wheels of the vehicle are driven by an electric motor ([0015]-[0017]). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that, in the D range, the driving force source produces a signal torque in the same direction as a rotational direction of a driving torque that drives the electric vehicle in the D range (i.e., the forward direction), while in the R range the rotational direction is reversed to allow for backward travel. While the example provided in [0049]-[0050] illustrates a shift from the R range to the D range, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the teachings of Suzuki to instead shift from the D range to the R range. When switching from drive to reverse, the torque applied in the reverse mode is opposite to that of the forward drive mode.
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. The Examiner refers to the Response to Arguments above for further discussion regarding the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art of record.
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).
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