DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 27 October 2025. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1-4, 7 and 14. Claims 16-20 were newly added; No claims were cancelled. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 of claims 1 and 4-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claims 1 and 14, Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose "wherein the limitation condition in the boost traveling includes information relating to a remaining amount for which the boost traveling can be continued". Examiner does not agree.
Elements #312 an #320 of Figs. 7 and 8 are interpreted to show the claimed limitation condition. And as explained by Sheidler, the gauge 312 is an indicator that displays a remaining amount of energy that has been stored (see para. 0071). The gauge indicator moves according to the amount available for boost traveling. The increasing and decreasing movement of the gauge is equivalent to “a remaining amount for which the boost traveling can be continued” as when the gauge indicates it is empty, boost traveling is not possible. The rejection is maintained.
Next, for claim 5 Applicant asserted that Figs. 7, 8 and #332 of Sheidler indicated by the Examiner is not an initial segmented display region initially displayed when boost can be performed. However, Examiner pointed to elements #306a and #306b of Fig. 7 for that specific limitation. Element 306 is segmented and displays when boost can be performed, as #306a indicates that boost is not in use and therefore, available to be performed.
Applicant further asserted a similar argument for claim 6. The citations for this claim have been updated to better reflect the teachings for segmentation and performing boost (see Fig. 7, #306a, 306b).
Applicant also asserted that the prior art of record does not disclose the limitations of claim 8. Examiner does not agree. Specifically, Applicant argues that Krauss discloses "a display area 31 for displaying a state of charge of an electrical energy store" in para. [0036] is a different region from "a display area 37 for a qualitative power display of the drive assembly" in para. [0043]" (see Krauss, Figs. 2, 3 and 4). However, claim 8 does not delineate different regions or provide negative limitations on where information may not be displayed.
Relatedly, Applicant asserts that the disclosure of Strasser is contrary to the feature "the circuitry changes a total number of the plurality of segmented regions in accordance with the boost remaining amount, and changes a display area of each of the plurality of segmented regions in accordance with the boostable output amount" in claim 8 because Strasser teaches that as the remaining time decreases, the display in Y direction decreases and when the power decreases, the light elements 17 are turned off (see Strasser, para. [0028]). However, Examiner is applying the same citation but with a different interpretation. The light elements of Strasser are interpreted to be segmented regions; the changing number of lights are equivalent to changing a number of regions. Further, as the light elements are turned off, this is interpreted to be equivalent to changing a display area of the segmented regions. Alternatively, as the display in the Y direction changes, this is equivalent to changing the display area of the regions. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2 and 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877).
For claim 1, Sheidler discloses a display system for a vehicle which can perform boost traveling, comprising: a display displaying a boost information image including a boost limitation condition information image indicating boost limitation condition information (see Figs. 7, 8, #312, #320, #306, #332); and a circuitry (see para. 0049) controlling display of the display to change a display area of the boost limitation condition information image in accordance with a limitation condition in the boost traveling (see Figs. 7, 8, #312, #320); and wherein the limitation condition in the boost traveling includes information relating to a remaining amount for which the boost traveling can be continued (see Figs. 7, 8, #312, #320 dynamic changes show amount of boost left; equivalent to “amount of boost traveling can be continued”).
With reference to claim 4, Sheidler further teaches wherein the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, #306), and the circuitry controls display of the display to increase a total number of displays of the plurality of segmented regions as the boost remaining amount is larger compared with a case where the boost remaining amount is lesser (see Figs. 7, 8, #306a-c).
Referring to claim 5, Sheidler further teaches wherein the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, #306), the plurality of segmented regions include an initial segmented display region initially displayed when boost can be performed (see Fig. 7, #306a, 306b), and the initial segmented display region is a region bended into an L-like shape (see Fig. 7, #332).
Regarding claim 6, Sheidler further discloses wherein the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, #306), the plurality of segmented regions include an initial segmented display region initially displayed when boost can be performed (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, #306a), and the initial segmented display region has a largest display area in the plurality of segmented regions (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, #306a has largest area).
For claim 10, Sheidler further teaches wherein the display displays a vehicle information image indicating vehicle state information indicating a vehicle state (see Figs. 7, 8, #332), the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, 306), the plurality of segmented regions include an initial segmented display region initially displayed when boost can be performed (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, 306), and the vehicle information image is located adjacent to the initial segmented display region (see Figs. 7, 8, #313).
Referring to claim 12, Sheidler further discloses wherein the circuitry changes a display form of the boost information image between a boost mode state and a boost standby state (see Fig. 7, #330).
Claim 14 largely mirrors the substantive elements and limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
With regards to claim 17, Sheidler further teaches wherein the remaining amount includes information relating to any of a remaining consumed power amount, consumed current amount, or temperature which can be increased for which the boost traveling can be continued (see Figs. 7, 8, #320, #312, #306).
Pertaining to claim 18, Sheidler further teaches wherein the remaining amount is obtained by a temperature of the battery or a part for traveling (see paras. 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 19, Sheidler further teaches wherein the remaining amount is obtained based on a lapse time after a previous boost traveling (see para. 0059, durations and values measured, equivalent to lapse time).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877) as applied to claim 1 above.
For claim 11, Sheidler discloses wherein the display displays a rotation number information image indicating a total number of rotations of a power engine (see Figs. 7, 8, #313) the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions arranged along an extension direction of the rotation number information image (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, 306), and a direction in which a length of the rotation number information image increases by increase in the number of rotations of the power engine and a direction in which a display length of the plurality of segmented regions increases by reduction in a limitation condition in boost traveling coincide with each other (see Figs. 7, 8, #332, 306; arrow 307 changes segmented region size of 306b, 306c, equivalent to display length increasing, and in turn limitation of boost travelling reduced; when limitation reduced, equivalent to boost allowed).
Sheidler does not explicitly disclose displaying the engine rotations in bar form. However, modifying a display to change the way information is graphically conveyed on a display is generally accepted as well within the ordinary skill of the art and the changing thereof in Sheidler would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success based on the motivation to improve a vehicle enabled by energy storage that is managing the charge of the battery pack to maximize its life while at the same time achieving a useful increase in power.
With reference to claim 16, Sheidler further teaches wherein the remaining amount includes information relating to a remaining amount for which the boost traveling can be continued (see Figs. 7, 8, #312, #320 dynamic changes show amount of boost left). Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the amount of remaining time of boost. However, it is reasonable to conclude a user may watch and estimate the amount of time left by watching the amount of change within the gauge of Sheidler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to improve a vehicle enabled by energy storage that is managing the charge of the battery pack to maximize its life while at the same time achieving a useful increase in power (see para. 0006).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Krauss, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0319828).
Referring to claim 2, Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Krauss discloses wherein the circuitry controls display of the display so that a display area of the boost limitation condition information image is large as the limitation condition in the boost traveling is more eased compared with a case where the limitation condition in the boost traveling is stricter (see Figs. 4 and 5, #37, changes size and is larger when more boost available, and smaller when boost is strict/limited). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the effective date of filing to modify Scheidler with the teaching of Krauss based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to improve the operating mode selecting device which is assigned to the steering wheel and which comprises the rotatable selecting element and the button-like boost selecting element, the operator convenience for a driver can be further increased because operating modes for the motor vehicle can be selected or activated with certainty and reliably by a driver (see para. 0016).
With regards to claim 3, Sheidler further teaches wherein a limitation condition in the boost traveling includes a boost remaining amount (see Figs. 7, 8, #312, #320). Krauss teaches the circuitry controls display of the display so that a display area of the boost limitation condition information image is large as the boost remaining amount is larger compared with a case where the boost remaining amount is lesser (see Figs. 4 and 5, #37, changes size and is larger when more boost available, and smaller when boost is limited)
Referring to claim 7, Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Krauss discloses wherein a limitation condition in the boost traveling includes a boostable output amount (see Fig. 4, #35), and the circuitry controls display of the display so that a display area of the boost limitation condition information image is large as the boostable output amount is larger compared with a case where the boostable output amount is lesser (see Fig. 4, #37, size of #36 reflects size of 37).
For claim 15, Krauss teaches wherein the boost limitation condition information is provided separately from the battery remaining amount image indicating a remaining amount of the battery (see Fig. 3).
For claim 20, it contains substantially similar subject matter to what is claimed in claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1 and 15.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Krauss, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0319828) and in view of Strasser (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0009024).
With reference to claim 8, Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Krauss discloses wherein a limitation condition in the boost traveling includes a boost remaining amount and a boostable output amount (see Fig. 4, #37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the effective date of filing to modify Scheidler with the teaching of Krauss based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to improve the operating mode selecting device which is assigned to the steering wheel and which comprises the rotatable selecting element and the button-like boost selecting element, the operator convenience for a driver can be further increased because operating modes for the motor vehicle can be selected or activated with certainty and reliably by a driver (see para. 0016).
Continuing with the claim, a teaching from Strasser discloses the boost limitation condition information image includes a plurality of segmented regions (see paras. 0023-0024), and the circuitry changes a total number of the plurality of segmented regions in accordance with the boost remaining amount (see paras. 0023-0024), and changes a display area of each of the plurality of segmented regions in accordance with the boostable output amount (see paras. 0023-0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the effective date of filing to modify Scheidler with the teaching of Strasser based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to improve a proposed zone of a display instrument in which it is possible to display the remaining time in which the at least one electric motor can be operated in the boost mode, the driver of the hybrid vehicle is provided with information as to how long the boost mode can still be maintained, and he can therefore orient his driving style correspondingly (see para. 0009).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hennings, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0196557).
Regarding claim 9, Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Hennings discloses wherein the boost information image includes a boost permission display image displaying that boost traveling can be performed (see para. 0059), and when it is determined that boost traveling can be performed, the circuitry explicitly displays the boost permission display image in the display so that the boost permission display image can be recognized (see para. 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the effective date of filing to modify Scheidler with the teaching of Hennings based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to provide an improved method and an improved device for specifying a boost control strategy of a hybrid vehicle drive to make it possible to utilize the maximum available energy quantity in an efficient manner (see para. 0011).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheidler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277877) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Connors, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0303214).
For claim 13, Sheidler does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Connors discloses a saddle-riding vehicle including the display system for the vehicle according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the effective date of filing to modify Scheidler with the teaching of Connors based on a reasonable expectation of success and on the motivation to improve electric powersport vehicles to have the ability to be able to operate with increased power levels (see para. 0003).
Conclusion
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that have not been explicitly cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the amended claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights