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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments, arguments and a request for continued examination (RCE) received on 30 April 2026 and information disclosure statement received May 1, 2026. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 1-6 remain pending. This communication is the third Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first calculating unit, second calculating unit, estimating unit and controlling unit in claim 1, interpreted as items 11, 12, 13 and 16 of Fig. 1 respectively, understood to be software algorithms performing data calculations, as described.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1: Applicant claims
a controlling unit that controls, based on the estimated vehicle body estimated by the estimating unit, the electric motor.
However, there is no antecedent basis for the estimated vehicle body. Corrective action or clarification is required. This term is understood to be referring to the estimated vehicle body velocity.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura (US 20210237585 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Miura discloses the following:
1. (Currently Amended) A vehicle control device that controls an electric motor that drives a wheel of the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1, wheels 10-1 to 10-4 driven by motor 20 and [0037] “motor 20 outputs a driving force (a torque) to the wheels 10-1 and 10-2”) the vehicle control device comprising:
a first calculating unit that calculates a first vehicle body velocity based on an angular velocity of the wheel; (see Fig. 1, item 45 and [0041] “The arithmetic device 45 calculates a speed of the wheel 10-3 and a rotation speed of the wheel 10-4 on the basis of pulse signals input from each of the wheel speed sensors 12-3 and 12-4 attached to the wheels 10-3 and 10-4… calculates the speed of the wheel 10-3 and the speed of the wheel 10-4 on a road plane by multiplying the rotation speed by an assumed radius of the wheel 10, and sets an average of the calculated speeds on a road plane as a first vehicle speed V1.”, see also Fig. 2, item 56 and [0053] “first vehicle speed acquirer 56 acquires the first vehicle speed V1 from, for example, the arithmetic device 45. As another example of the speed based on the speed of the wheel, the first vehicle speed acquirer 56 may acquire or obtain the first vehicle speed V1 on the basis of a rotation speed of a vehicle shaft, a rotation speed of a rotating member in the gear mechanism 24, and the like.”)
a second calculating unit that calculates a second vehicle body velocity based on an angular velocity of the electric motor (see at least [0037] “resolver 22 detects a physical event for detecting the rotational speed of the motor 20, and outputs a result of the detection to the control device 50. The physical event is, for example, a change in a magnetic field generated according to a rotation position of a rotor of the motor 20”, Fig. 2, item 58 and [0054] “The second vehicle speed acquirer 58 acquires the second vehicle speed V2 on the basis of the target torque Ttg.”, [0055] “[0055] The second vehicle speed acquirer 58 calculates a motor actual torque T.sub.MOTACT output from the motor 20 when the target torque Ttg obtained by subtracting the feedback torque T.sub.FB from a ford forward torque T.sub.FF (Ac) is given to the motor 20.” and [0058] “second vehicle speed acquirer 58… calculates the second vehicle speed (an estimated vehicle speed) V2 by dividing a value, obtained by subtracting a traveling resistance Fload and a gradient resistance Fslope from the driving force observer Fd (hat), by a vehicle weight M and integrating results.”) at a cycle time shorter than a cycle time of the first calculating unit; (see at least [0067] “Due to a communication speed of the CAN communication, a period in which the control device 50 determines the target torque Ttg (that is, a control period of the motor 20) is shorter than an acquisition period of the first vehicle speed V1. In other words, the acquisition period of the first vehicle speed V1 is longer than the control period of the motor 20.” and [0068] “reception interval of the CAN communication is, for example, about 30 to 60 [ms] (an example of a “second period”), and is longer than the control period of the motor 20 (for example, 3 to 8 [ms]; an example of a “first period”).”)
an estimating unit that estimates an estimated vehicle body velocity according to a state of the vehicle, the estimated vehicle body velocity being calculated by using the first vehicle body velocity and the second vehicle body velocity in combination; (see at least Fig. 2, item 60 and [0061] “The reference vehicle speed setter 60 sets the reference vehicle speed Vstd on the basis of Equation (2) if the vehicle speed Vref is equal to or higher than the first threshold value” and Equation (2) “Vstd=x×V1+(1−x)×V2”), see also Vstd calculations in [0062-[0063])
and a controlling unit that controls, based on the estimated vehicle body estimated by the estimating unit, the electric motor. (see at least Fig. 2, item 52 and [0043] “The target torque determiner 52 determines a target torque Ttg to be output by the motor 20… target torque determiner 52 determines the feedforward torque T.sub.FF (AC) by applying the speed of the vehicle M (which may also be any vehicle speed described below)… T.sub.FB is a feedback torque determined on the basis of the first vehicle speed, a second vehicle speed, and a reference vehicle speed”, [0065] “target torque determiner 52 determines the feedback torque T.sub.FB such that the second vehicle speed V2 is closer to the reference vehicle speed Vstd”)
In regards to claim 2, Miura discloses the following:
2. (Original) The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the estimating unit estimates a weighted average of the first vehicle body velocity and the second vehicle body velocity as the estimated vehicle velocity. (see at least [0062] “reference vehicle speed setter 60 sets the reference vehicle speed Vstd to the second vehicle speed V2 when the vehicle speed Vref is the first threshold value Th1, sets it to a weighted sum of the first vehicle speed V1 and the second vehicle speed V2 and a weighted sum in which a ratio of the first vehicle speed V1 is increased as the vehicle speed Vref approaches the second threshold value Th2”)
In regards to claim 3, Miura discloses the following:
3. (Currently Amended) The vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein a value of a weighting factor of the first vehicle body velocity is set to be smaller as the first vehicle body velocity or the second vehicle body velocity is lower, (see at least [0045] “target torque determiner 52 determines the target torque Ttg using different rules in each case of a first vehicle speed range in which the vehicle speed of the vehicle M (which may be any of the first vehicle speed, the second vehicle speed, and a weighted sum of these speeds to be described below) Vref is less than a first threshold value Vth1”, [0047] “first vehicle speed range is, for example, a vehicle speed range of about 2 to 5 [km/h], and is a low speed range in which sensitivity of the wheel speed sensor 12 deteriorates”, [0048] “in the low speed range, since the time interval between the rising and falling of the pulse signal is long, even if the speed of the vehicle M changes between the rising and falling, or between the falling and rising, no information for detecting a speed change can be obtained until next rising or falling arrives. For this reason, it can be said that the sensitivity of the wheel speed sensor 12 deteriorates” and [0062] “vehicle speed Vref is the first threshold value Th1, sets it to a weighted sum of the first vehicle speed V1 and the second vehicle speed V2 and a weighted sum in which a ratio of the first vehicle speed V1 is increased as the vehicle speed Vref approaches the second threshold value”)
and a value of a weighting factor of the second vehicle body velocity is set to be larger as the first vehicle body velocity or the second vehicle body velocity is lower. (see at least above and [0062] “vehicle speed Vref is the first threshold value Th1, sets it to a weighted sum of the first vehicle speed V1 and the second vehicle speed V2 and a weighted sum in which a ratio of the first vehicle speed V1 is increased as the vehicle speed Vref approaches the second threshold value”)
In regards to claim 4, Miura discloses the following:
4. (Original) The vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein, when abnormality occurs on a wheel velocity sensor that detects the angular velocity of the wheel, the estimating unit sets the weight for the second vehicle body velocity to be large. (see at least [0074] “accurate control is possible by using the second vehicle speed even in a first speed region in which the sensitivity of the wheel speed sensor 12 is poor, and, when a sensor such as the wheel speed sensor 12 fails, a sensor output stops, or an abnormal value is output in the second vehicle speed range or above, the second vehicle speed can be used instead.”)
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20100222953 A1) in view of Miura (US 20210237585 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Tang discloses the following:
1. (Original) A vehicle control device that controls an electric motor that drives a wheel of the vehicle, (see at least Abstract “all-electric vehicle” and Fig. 6, motors 601, 603 driving wheels 609, 611) the vehicle control device comprising:
a first calculating unit that calculates a first vehicle body velocity based on an angular velocity of the wheel; (see at least Figs. 13, 14 and [0074] “data from each wheel spin sensor, e.g., sensors 1303-1306” and [0059]-[0066] “torque controller 1301”)
a second calculating unit that calculates a second vehicle body velocity based on an angular velocity of the electric motor (see at least Figs. 13, 14 and [0059], [0067], [0074] “first motor speed sensor 1309, second motor speed sensor 1313” and [0059]-[0066] “torque controller 1301”)
Tang does not explicitly disclose the following, which is more explicitly taught by Miura:
at a cycle time shorter than a cycle time of the first calculating unit; (see at least [0067] “Due to a communication speed of the CAN communication, a period in which the control device 50 determines the target torque Ttg (that is, a control period of the motor 20) is shorter than an acquisition period of the first vehicle speed V1. In other words, the acquisition period of the first vehicle speed V1 is longer than the control period of the motor 20.” and [0068] “reception interval of the CAN communication is, for example, about 30 to 60 [ms] (an example of a “second period”), and is longer than the control period of the motor 20 (for example, 3 to 8 [ms]; an example of a “first period”).”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miura with the invention of Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing high accuracy in a wider vehicle speed range. (Miura, [0018])
Tang discloses the following:
an estimating unit that estimates an estimated vehicle body velocity according to a state of the vehicle, the estimated vehicle body velocity being calculated by using the first vehicle body velocity and the second vehicle body velocity in combination; ([0074] “data from each wheel spin sensor, e.g., sensors 1303-1306, is fed into unit 1509. Additionally, data from first motor speed sensor 1309, second motor speed sensor 1313, and steering sensor 1329 are input into the traction control command generation unit.” and [0075] “Using this data, unit 1509 calculates vehicle speed, C_vspeed”)
and a controlling unit that controls, based on the estimated vehicle body estimated by the estimating unit, the electric motor. (see [0076] “primary function of unit 1509 is to calculate wheel slip ratios” and [0079] “torque commands issuing from the second stage based on C_maxtorque1 and C_maxtorque2”, see also Fig. 16, steps 1601 and 1603 and Fig. 17, step 1701)
In regards to Claim 6, Tang discloses the following:
6. (Currently Amended) The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a differential mechanism that applies a torque difference to left and right wheels (see Figs. 11-14, Trans/Diff 607) and a pair of electric motors coupled to the differential mechanism, (see Figs. 11-14, Motors 601, 603)
the vehicle control device controls slip states of the left and right wheels independently of each other by controlling the pair of electric motors, (see [0076] “primary function of unit 1509 is to calculate wheel slip ratios” and [0079] “torque commands issuing from the second stage based on C_maxtorque1 and C_maxtorque2”, see also Fig. 16, steps 1601 and 1603 and Fig. 17, step 1701) and
the controlling unit controls the slip states of the left and right wheels independently of each other, using the estimated vehicle body velocity. (see [0076] “primary function of unit 1509 is to calculate wheel slip ratios” and [0079] “torque commands issuing from the second stage based on C_maxtorque1 and C_maxtorque2”, see also Fig. 16, steps 1601 and 1603 and Fig. 17, step 1701)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Miura, as applied, in view of Sakagami (US 20220169255 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Sakagami teaches the following:
2. (Original) The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the estimating unit estimates a weighted average of the first vehicle body velocity and the second vehicle body velocity as the estimated vehicle velocity. (see at least [0014] “vehicle body speed acquisition unit… and the estimation unit estimates the vehicle body speed by using a weighted average of a first speed acquired by the non-driving wheel rotation sensor and a second speed acquired by integrating the forward-backward acceleration acquired by the acceleration sensor”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sakagami with the inventions of Miura and Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately estimating vehicle speed on a rough road. (Sakagami, [0017])
In regards to Claim 3, Sakagami teaches the following:
3. (Original) The vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein in calculating the weighted average, when the first vehicle body velocity is lower or when the second vehicle body velocity is lower, the estimated unit sets a weight for the first vehicle body velocity to be smaller and a weight for the second vehicle body velocity to be larger. (see at least [0014] “changes weights of the weighted average to maximize a likelihood of a state quantity”, [0016] “when it is determined that the road surface is rough, changes the weights to reduce influence of the first speed on the vehicle body speed” and [0017] “When the vehicle is traveling on a rough road, a rotation fluctuation occurs in the non-driving wheel due to irregularities of the road surface and, since the timing at which the irregularities are passed differs between the driving wheel and the non-driving wheel, this rotation fluctuation becomes observation noise in obtaining the vehicle body speed. Therefore, when the vehicle is traveling on a rough road, it is preferred to reduce the influence of the first speed of the non-driving wheel on the vehicle body speed. On the other hand, when it is determined that the vehicle is traveling on a flat road, it is possible to increase the influence of the first speed of the non-driving wheel on the vehicle body speed to thereby improve the responsiveness of the estimated value when the road surface friction coefficient changes suddenly”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sakagami with the inventions of Miura and Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately estimating vehicle speed on a rough road. (Sakagami, [0017])
In regards to Claim 4, Sakagami teaches the following:
4. (Original) The vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein, when abnormality occurs on a wheel velocity sensor that detects the angular velocity of the wheel, the estimating unit sets the weight for the second vehicle body velocity to be large. (see at least [0014] “changes weights of the weighted average to maximize a likelihood of a state quantity”, [0016] “when it is determined that the road surface is rough, changes the weights to reduce influence of the first speed on the vehicle body speed” and [0017] “When the vehicle is traveling on a rough road, a rotation fluctuation occurs in the non-driving wheel due to irregularities of the road surface and, since the timing at which the irregularities are passed differs between the driving wheel and the non-driving wheel, this rotation fluctuation becomes observation noise in obtaining the vehicle body speed. Therefore, when the vehicle is traveling on a rough road, it is preferred to reduce the influence of the first speed of the non-driving wheel on the vehicle body speed. On the other hand, when it is determined that the vehicle is traveling on a flat road, it is possible to increase the influence of the first speed of the non-driving wheel on the vehicle body speed to thereby improve the responsiveness of the estimated value when the road surface friction coefficient changes suddenly”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Sakagami with the invention of Miura and Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately estimating vehicle speed on a rough road. (Sakagami, [0017])
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura, or Tang in view of Miura, as applied, and in further view of Kakeno et al. (US 20160141673 A1) herein Kakeno.
In regards to Claim 5, Tang discloses the following:
5. (Currently Amended) The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein
the second calculating unit calculates an estimated driving force that the wheel transmits to a road surface, the estimated driving force being based on a driving torque derived from the angular velocity of the electric motor and an inertia torque of the wheel, (see [0076] “primary function of unit 1509 is to calculate wheel slip ratios” and [0079] “torque commands issuing from the second stage based on C_maxtorque1 and C_maxtorque2”, see also Fig. 16, steps 1601 and 1603 and Fig. 17, step 1701)
Tang is silent, but Kakeno teaches the following:
and calculates the second vehicle body velocity by integrating a quotient obtained by dividing the sum of the estimated driving force with a physical weight of the vehicle. (see at least [0055] “predicted acceleration A.sub.EXP of the fuel cell vehicle 10 is calculated” and [0056] “PM-ECU 181A calculates a predicted rotational speed R.sub.EXP of the traction motor 136 by integrating the calculated predicted acceleration A.sub.EXP”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kakeno with the invention of Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of suppressing the deterioration of the sense of acceleration regarding the vehicle attributable to delayed reaction time of the powertrain. (Kakeno, [0054])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 4 and 5 of 7 of arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn. However, upon further review, Applicant should note that a new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been outlined above.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 5 and 6 of 7 of arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of newly cited art Miura, outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 22, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights