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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the replacement drawing sheet is accepted by the examiner and overcomes the drawing objection.
Second, in view of applicant’s argument regarding the claim interpretation of “controller”, that the term is not a generic placeholder, the examiner withdraws his interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See also the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181.
Third, the amendments to claims 7 and 17 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, which is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim amendments change (but do not overcome) the indefiniteness analysis and rejection, as detailed below.
Fourth, the claim amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which is withdrawn. Accordingly, the claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 February 2026. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)1 and MPEP § 608.01(o)2. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis for the following new claim terminology should be provided in the specification, without adding new matter, so that the meaning of the terms and phrases can be ascertainable by reference to the description: “target regenerative torque” and “wherein the relative state between the left and right wheels of the electrified vehicle includes a number of occurrences per unit time of discrepancies in a number of revolutions between the left and right wheels of the electrified vehicle” in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 17, and 19 to 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 8 to 10, in claim 11, lines 9 to 11, and in claim 21, lines 7 to 9, “wherein the relative state between the left and right wheels of the electrified vehicle includes a number of occurrences per unit time of discrepancies in a number of revolutions between the left and right wheels of the electrified vehicle” is indefinite and not reasonably certain3 from the teachings of the specification which does not clarify what would constitute such “discrepancies” (e.g., is the smallest measurable error/difference in RPMs, e.g., for example only RPM_left minus RPM_right, a “discrepancy”?) or such a “number of occurrences of discrepancies per unit time”, particularly how such a discrepancy number per unit time might be characterized/defined/counted, or even what the “unit time” is, particularly. For example, is this “number of occurrences of discrepancies” the number of times that the discrepancy transitions between positive and negative values through zero, as might be inferable from FIG. 2, where there might be eight (8) such transitions over the depicted timeframe? Or is this number the (higher) number of times that the rpm discrepancy merely exists as might be calculated when the left/right RPMs do not match each other (e.g., at a measurement or sampling or computational frequency) in any given “unit time” (whatever that is) even while the/that/those discrepancy value(s) (e.g., for example, RPM_left minus RPM_right) possibly remain(s) positive or negative, without transitioning between positive and negative, e.g., a frequency approaching the measurement/sampling frequency of the wheel speed sensors when the left and right wheel speeds do not match each other? See e.g., published paragraph [0075] of the specification which does not apparently make clear how any “lower” frequency of discrepancies, during a turn, might be characterized or defined.4 The specification at published paragraph [0078] is also unclear. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
Similarly, in claims 4, 9, 10, 14, and 18 to 21[5], the phrase, “a frequency of discrepancies”, is indefinite and not reasonably certain from the teachings of the specification which does not clarify what would constitute such “discrepancies” (e.g., is the smallest measurable error/difference a “discrepancy”?) or such a “frequency”, and/or how such a discrepancy frequency might be characterized/defined. For example, is this “frequency” the frequency at which the discrepancy transitions between positive and negative values through zero? Or is this the (higher) frequency at which the discrepancy itself varies (e.g., high frequency noise/errors) even while possibly remaining positive or negative, e.g., a frequency approaching the measurement/sampling frequency of the wheel speed sensors? See e.g., published paragraph [0075] of the specification which does not apparently make clear how the “lower” frequency of discrepancies, during a turn, might be characterized or defined.
In claim 7, line 3, “by using to an efficiency map” is grammatically incorrect and unclear, and could be changed to, “by using an efficiency map” (cf. claim 17), if such be applicant’s intent.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 17, and 19 to 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the rule section, “(d) (1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)”
2 Quoting the MPEP: “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
3 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
4 Quoting published paragraph [0075] of the specification: “[0075] If the driving direction of the towing vehicle is not a straight driving direction, that is, if the vehicle drives on a curved road, turns left or right, or makes a U-turn, the difference in the wheel speed between the left and right wheels is intended, and the behavior of the vehicle body is stable when the frequency of discrepancies in the wheel speed between the left and right wheels is lower, so the efficiency of regenerative braking may be further improved by considering the efficiency of the motor 100 in priority over stabilization of the behavior of the vehicle body.”
5 The dependent claims in this rejection depended on claims 3 and 13 in the previous Office action. This rejection is based on (and tracks) the previous rejection of claims 3 and 13.