DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 02/19/2026. Claim 4 was previously canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending and are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 02/19/2026 has been entered and applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 14 is improper because there is proper antecedent basis for the “at least one of the drivetrain or the suspension” provided in claim 13. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2010/0055649 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takahashi, in view of Galasso et al. (US 2020/0248770 A1), hereinafter referred to as Galasso.
Regarding claim 1:
Takahashi discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle, comprising: a chassis; a drivetrain mounted to the chassis; a suspension mounted to the chassis; a plurality of wheels mounted to the suspension and coupled to the drivetrain; a display device; and an in-vehicle control system.” (Takahashi ¶ 64 and FIG. 1A reproduced below disclose a passenger vehicle 20 with front and rear wheels 22, an information presenter 4 which can be a display, and a control unit 10. Further, Takahashi ¶ 200 discloses that the vehicle includes a suspension system. It is implied that the passenger vehicle would also include a chassis forming the frame of the vehicle and a drivetrain for delivering power from the engine 30 to the wheels 22.)
PNG
media_image1.png
473
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“configured to: output, on the display device, a plurality of per-wheel interface elements configured to display attributes of per-wheel portions of the suspension associated with each wheel of the plurality of wheels… and update information in the plurality of per-wheel interface elements according to current values for attributes of the per-wheel portions.” (Takahashi ¶ 175: “when detecting or estimating a tire force upper limit that can be generated on each wheel and a tire force current value currently being generated on each wheel, such a tire force upper limit and a tire force current value may be presented as information. For example, as shown in FIG. 24, a ratio NF of the tire force current value to the tire force upper limit may be displayed.” The tire force values read on the “attributes of per-wheel portions of the suspension associated with each wheel of the plurality of wheels” as claimed. Further, displaying the “current” values of tire force implies that the displayed information is updated according to current values of the tire force attributes.)
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose “wherein the attributes of the per-wheel portions include state of compression of a wheel suspension of the suspension coupled to each wheel of the plurality of wheels, the state of compression indicating a magnitude of loading of the wheel suspension of the suspension coupled to each wheel of the plurality of wheels.” However, these limitations are taught by Galasso. (Galasso ¶ 32: “Suspension sag is the measured distance a shock compresses while the rider, wearing intended riding gear, is seated on (for example) a bicycle or motorcycle in a riding position, versus its fully extended position (sag also applies to ATVs, trucks and other suspension equipped vehicles and may account for not only the driver weight but other operational payload weight as well). … each suspension component is equipped with a position sensor (e.g. electronic or mechanical) for indicating the magnitude (or state) of extension or compression existing in the suspension.” Further, Galasso ¶ 54: “the screen prompts the user to: connect the pump to the gas spring; pump the gas spring to overpressure; and load the vehicle, following which the screen displays the sag pressure and then instructs the user to adjust unloaded air pressure to Pi (a suggested value is displayed).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Takahashi by displaying an indicator of loading compression for each suspension component as taught by Galasso with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Galasso ¶ 32 teaches that “Getting the sag correct sets the front end steering/handling geometry, puts the rear suspension at its intended linkage articulation for pedaling or riding efficiency (if applicable) and bump absorption and provides some initial suspension compression to allow the wheels/suspension to react to negative terrain features (e.g. dips requiring suspension extension) without having the entire vehicle ‘fall’ into those features. Proper sag adjustment is critical in ensuring continuous contact between tire and ground and greatly enhances traction over varied terrain.”
Regarding claim 5:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” and Takahashi additionally teaches “wherein the in-vehicle control system is further configured to configure each per-wheel portion of the per-wheel portions to include a region having a size corresponding to the state of [loading] of the suspension coupled to each wheel of the plurality of wheels corresponding to the each per-wheel portion.” (Takahashi ¶ 175 and FIG. 24: “as shown in FIG. 24, a ratio NF of the tire force current value to the tire force upper limit may be displayed.” Takahashi FIG. 24 below illustrates the size of the regions corresponding to the loading on each tire.)
PNG
media_image2.png
353
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As was explained regarding claim 1 above, Galasso teaches to replace the tire loading indicator of Takahashi with an indicator of suspension compression. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution to allow the display region of each wheel to have a size that corresponds to the suspension “state of compression” instead of the state of tire loading as claimed.
Regarding claim 6:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 5,” and Takahashi further teaches “wherein the region is circular.” (Takahashi FIG. 24 shows a display of a circular region corresponding to each wheel.)
Regarding claim 7:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 5,” and Takahashi additionally teaches “wherein, for each per-wheel portion of the per-wheel portions, the in-vehicle control system is configured to display the region within a perimeter and cause the region to fill the perimeter when the suspension coupled to the wheel of the plurality of wheels corresponding to the each per-wheel portion is completely [loaded].” (Takahashi ¶ 175 and FIG. 24: “as shown in FIG. 24, a ratio NF of the tire force current value to the tire force upper limit may be displayed.”)
As was explained regarding claim 1 above, Galasso teaches to replace the tire loading indicator of Takahashi with an indicator of suspension compression. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution to have the display region fill the perimeter when the suspension “is completely compressed” instead of completely loaded as claimed.
Regarding claim 8:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” and Takahashi additionally teaches “wherein the plurality of per-wheel interface elements are displayed on a representation of the chassis at positions corresponding to positions of the plurality of wheels relative to the chassis.” (Takahashi FIG. 24 illustrates the per-wheel interface elements being displayed at positions indicated in relation to a rectangular representation of the chassis.)
Regarding claim 18:
Takahashi discloses “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable code that, when executed by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to” perform a method. (Takahashi ¶ 64: “The driving skill improvement device … includes a control unit with a built-in microcomputer for performing various control on the vehicle.” The use of such a microcomputer implies the inclusion of a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer-executable program code for instructing the microcomputer to perform its control functions.)
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are taught by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Galasso as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Hamada et al. (JP 2018-034640 A), hereinafter referred to as Hamada.
Regarding claim 2:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the attributes of the per-wheel portions further include torque exerted on each wheel of the plurality of wheels.” However, Hamada does teach this limitation. (Hamada Abstract discloses “To accurately display the state of torque distributed to each wheel of a four-wheel drive vehicle.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of the torque that is distributed to each wheel as taught by Hamada with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Hamada ¶ 4 teaches that this “allows the driver to visually recognize the magnitude of the torque distributed to the four wheels.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that conveying the magnitude of torque distribution to the driver would allow for the adjustment of driving behavior to avoid unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the attributes of the per-wheel portions further include at least one of: torque exerted on each wheel of the plurality of wheels; and tire pressure of each wheel of the plurality of wheels.” However, Hamada does teach this limitation. (Hamada Abstract discloses “To accurately display the state of torque distributed to each wheel of a four-wheel drive vehicle.” This at least teaches the attributes comprising a torque exerted on each wheel as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 19, consistent with the specification, the attributes of the per-wheel portions including “at least one of: torque exerted on each wheel of the plurality of wheels; and tire pressure of each wheel of the plurality of wheels” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “torque exerted on each wheel of the plurality of wheels” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of the torque that is distributed to each wheel as taught by Hamada with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Hamada ¶ 4 teaches that this display “allows the driver to visually recognize the magnitude of the torque distributed to the four wheels.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that conveying the magnitude of torque distribution to the driver would allow for the adjustment of driving behavior to avoid unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Galasso as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oguro (JP 2020-029212).
Regarding claim 3:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the attributes of the per-wheel portions further include tire pressure of each wheel of the plurality of wheels.” However, Oguro does teach this limitation. (Oguro ¶ 22: “when the gradient of the road is a downward gradient, it is preferable that the control unit 12 add the torque distribution of each drive wheel and the tire air pressure to the images 2a to 2c and display them on the image display 11.” Further, Oguro ¶ 28: “when the gradient of the road is an uphill gradient, it is preferable that the control unit 12 add the torque distribution of each drive wheel and the tire air pressure to the images 2d to 2f and display them on the image display 11.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of the tire pressure of each wheel as taught by Oguro with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Oguro ¶ 5 teaches that this helps with allowing vehicle users to easily recognize the vehicle state. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that making the driver aware of the tire pressures would allow the driver to adjust any abnormal tire pressures before they resulted in a flat tire.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Galasso as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krog et al. (US 2023/0112003 A1), hereinafter referred to as Krog.
Regarding claim 9:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein: the drivetrain comprises one or more motors; and the in-vehicle control system is further configured to display, on the display device, one or more per-motor interface elements configured to display attributes of per-motor portions of the drivetrain associated with each motor of the one or more motors.” However, Krog does teach this limitation. (Krog ¶ 74: “the motor speed controllers 222 may receive position and/or temperature feedback, among other data, from one or more sensors mounted on the motor attached to each of the drive assemblies.” Also, Krog ¶ 203: “a ‘display drive unit data’ control element 1548 may be selected to display monitored data of the drive unit 110, such as a battery charge status, a status of the receiver 504, a temperature and/or current for each motor speed controller 222, and/or a speed of the drive unit 110.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of parameters associated with each motor as taught by Krog with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Krog ¶ 74 teaches that the system can be throttled in order to account for conditions such as over-temperature, over-current, and over-voltage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the display to make the vehicle user aware of the motor parameters could help the user to notice over-temperature, over-current, and over-voltage conditions and adjust driving behavior to account for these conditions and avoid unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Takahashi, Galasso, and Krog teaches “The vehicle of claim 9,” and Krog further teaches “wherein the attributes of the per-motor portions include a temperature of each motor of the one or more motors.” (Krog ¶ 74: “the motor speed controllers 222 may receive position and/or temperature feedback, among other data, from one or more sensors mounted on the motor attached to each of the drive assemblies.” Further, Krog ¶ 203: “a ‘display drive unit data’ control element 1548 may be selected to display monitored data of the drive unit 110, such as a battery charge status, a status of the receiver 504, a temperature and/or current for each motor speed controller 222, and/or a speed of the drive unit 110.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of a temperature associated with each motor as taught by Krog with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Krog ¶ 74 teaches that the system can be throttled to account for over-temperature conditions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the display to make the vehicle user aware of the temperature of each motor could help the user to notice such over-temperature conditions and adjust driving behavior to account for these conditions and avoid unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Takahashi, Galasso, and Krog teaches “The vehicle of claim 9,” and Krog further teaches “wherein the one or more motors are electric motors, and the attributes of the per-motor portions include current drawn by each motor of the one or more motors.” (Krog ¶ 203: “a ‘display drive unit data’ control element 1548 may be selected to display monitored data of the drive unit 110, such as a battery charge status, a status of the receiver 504, a temperature and/or current for each motor speed controller 222, and/or a speed of the drive unit 110.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying indications of a current drawn by each motor as taught by Krog with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Krog ¶ 74 teaches that the system can be throttled to account for over-current conditions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the display to make the vehicle user aware of the current drawn by each motor could help the user notice such over-current conditions and adjust their driving behavior to account for these conditions and avoid unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Galasso and Krog as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (WO 2015/027394 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yao.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Takahashi, Galasso, and Krog teaches “The vehicle of claim 9,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the attributes of the per-motor portions include an output torque of each motor of the one or more motors.” However, Yao does teach this limitation. (Yao ¶ 55: “the drive motor system provided in this specific embodiment may further include a display 26 for displaying the torque detected by the torque sensor 24. With such arrangement, the torque of each sub-motor 12 can be monitored through the display 26 and the controller 25.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi, Galasso, and Krog by displaying an indication of the output torque of each motor as taught by Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Yao ¶ 55 teaches that “With such arrangement, the torque of each sub-motor 12 can be monitored through the display 26 and the controller 25, ensuring that each sub-motor 12 system can operate accurately.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that displaying the output torque of each motor would help the driver to become aware of any issues with the motors, which could help the driver to avoid any unnecessary wear or damage to the vehicle.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Galasso as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Negishi et al. (US 2021/0309064 A1), hereinafter referred to as Negishi.
Regarding claim 13:
Takahashi in view of Galasso teaches “The vehicle of claim 1,” and Takahashi additionally teaches “wherein the in-vehicle control system is further configured to: define a plurality of drive modes, each drive mode of the plurality of drive modes defining a configuration of at least one of the drivetrain or the suspension.” (Takahashi ¶¶ 200-201: “a device that enables characteristics such as a brake booster, suspension, stabilizer and the like to be changed via electronic control may be set as a changeable item, whereby the control characteristics thereof is to be made changeable within a certain range by the driver. Moreover, in the tuning mode, in addition to individually changing such changeable items, settings dedicated in advance to specific purposes may be arranged so as to be selectable. For example, settings including respective items set to increase fuel efficiency may be designated in advance as ‘Eco style’ and settings including respective items set to increase acceleration characteristics as ‘Sports style’, whereby control characteristics of the vehicle can be changed by having the driver select either the ‘Eco style’ or the ‘Sports style’. In addition, settings in which the driver has changed the control characteristics of the respective items can be arranged to be saved as ‘Custom style’.” This at least teaches to define a plurality of drive modes with each drive mode defining a configuration of the suspension as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 13, consistent with the specification, “each drive mode of the plurality of drive modes defining a configuration of at least one of the drivetrain or the suspension” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the suspension has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
The combination of Takahashi and Galasso does not specifically teach to “select a portion of the attributes of the per-wheel portions according to a drive mode of the plurality of drive modes selected by a user.” However, Negishi does teach this limitation. (Negishi ¶ 94: “the manual option includes a user selectable switch, icon on a touch display, or the like at the suspension control application 17 on IVI system 14, that allows a user to make a selection based on given characteristics, e.g., highway mode-for smooth terrain, -off-road mode-for rough terrain, a mixed mode for intermediate terrain, etc. In one embodiment, the manual option is provided at the application 154 operating on the user's mobile device 150. In one embodiment, the manual option may be one or more switches, buttons, screen inputs, and the like, that allow the use to select and adjust one or more pre-defined suspension settings.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by displaying the wheel information based on a selected driving mode as taught by Negishi with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Negishi ¶ 92 teaches that this allows the user to adjust the suspension system to “increase firmness in the suspension in order to provide increased feedback, feel and precision of handling” or “decrease firmness in the suspension in order to provide a more comfortable ride” depending on the specific preferences of the user.
Regarding claim 14:
Takahashi in view of Galasso and Negishi teaches “The vehicle of claim 13,” and Takahashi also teaches “wherein the in-vehicle control system is further configured to: receive a selection of a selected drive mode of the plurality of drive modes; and configure the at least one of the drivetrain or the suspension according to the selected drive mode.” (Takahashi ¶¶ 200-201: “a device that enables characteristics such as a brake booster, suspension, stabilizer and the like to be changed via electronic control may be set as a changeable item, whereby the control characteristics thereof is to be made changeable within a certain range by the driver. Moreover, in the tuning mode, in addition to individually changing such changeable items, settings dedicated in advance to specific purposes may be arranged so as to be selectable.” This disclosure at least teaches to receive a selection of a selected drive mode and configure the suspension according to the selected drive mode as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 14, consistent with the specification, the step to configure “at least one of the drivetrain or the suspension according to the selected drive mode” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only configuring the suspension has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 15:
Takahashi in view of Galasso and Negishi teaches “The vehicle of claim 14,” and Takahashi also teaches “wherein the configuration of each drive mode of the plurality of drive modes defines at least one of ride height, suspension stiffness, suspension damping, traction control, stability control, accelerator pedal response, brake pedal response, or regenerative braking behavior.” (Takahashi ¶ 200: “a device that enables characteristics such as a brake booster, suspension, stabilizer and the like to be changed via electronic control may be set as a changeable item, whereby the control characteristics thereof is to be made changeable within a certain range by the driver.” This at least teaches the drive modes defining “stability control” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 15, consistent with the specification, the configuration of each drive mode defining “at least one of ride height, suspension stiffness, suspension damping, traction control, stability control, accelerator pedal response, brake pedal response, or regenerative braking behavior” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “stability control” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 16:
Takahashi in view of Galasso and Negishi teaches “The vehicle of claim 14,” and Negishi also teaches “wherein the plurality of drive modes include an on-road drive mode and an off-road drive mode.” (Negishi ¶ 94: “the manual option includes a user selectable switch, icon on a touch display, or the like at the suspension control application 17 on IVI system 14, that allows a user to make a selection based on given characteristics, e.g., highway mode-for smooth terrain, -off-road mode-for rough terrain, a mixed mode for intermediate terrain, etc.” The “highway mode” reads on the “on-road drive mode” as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takahashi and Galasso by incorporating an on-road drive mode and an off-road drive mode as taught by Negishi with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Negishi ¶ 97 teaches that with this modification, the system “is able to adjust the shock assemblies automatically and on the fly to make suspension adjustments. For example, suspension control application 17 on IVI system 14 will configure the shock assemblies into a highway mode during travel down a roadway, e.g., that is configuring the remotely adjustable shock assemblies to operate in a firmer mode, and then as the vehicle transitions to rougher terrain, the remotely adjustable shock assemblies will be reconfigured to a softer setting to increasing absorption of shock and thereby provide a smoother ride.”
Regarding claim 17:
Takahashi in view of Galasso and Negishi teaches “The vehicle of claim 14,” and Takahashi also teaches “wherein the plurality of drive modes include two or more of an energy-saving mode, an all-purpose driving mode, a sport driving mode, and a snow and ice driving mode.” (Takahashi ¶ 201: “settings including respective items set to increase fuel efficiency may be designated in advance as ‘Eco style’ and settings including respective items set to increase acceleration characteristics as ‘Sports style’, whereby control characteristics of the vehicle can be changed by having the driver select either the ‘Eco style’ or the ‘Sports style.’” This at least teaches the drive modes including an energy-saving mode and a sport driving mode as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 17, consistent with the instant specification, the drive modes including “two or more of an energy-saving mode, an all-purpose driving mode, a sport driving mode, and a snow and ice driving mode” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “two or more” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only two of the limitations apply. Accordingly, while only the “energy-saving mode” and “sport driving mode” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 13 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662