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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The spelling of “convertor” in [0030] should be --converter--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 4, “convertor” should be --converter--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishi et al. (2007/0078041).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Nishi teaches a cruise control system for a low-speed vehicle, comprising:
a main control unit (controller 31 of figure 6) having a speed selector for setting a desired vehicle speed equal to or less than the maximum speed of the vehicle (via cruise speed operating tool 143 per at least [0141-0146]), said main control unit having a power input and a step down convertor for reducing the power from said power input based on said desired vehicle speed (see at least [0143-0145 via the setting of the cruise speed lever), and when receiving an engagement position signal, said main control unit sending the power as a power output (see at least [0141, 0148]);
a potentiometer for sending an engagement position signal to said main control unit based on user input when said potentiometer is powered on and engaged (see at least [0141] which teaches the widely well-known use of a potentiometer); and,
a throttle position sensor powered by said main control unit and regulating the speed of said low-speed vehicle based on said power output of said main control unit (throttle position is controlled by speed change pedal 24, see at least 0149, 0151, 0155, etc.]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 2-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (2007/0078041).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Nishi discloses a potentiometer is used as noted in rejected claim 1. Nishi does not explicitly disclose the potentiometer is a “micro-potentiometer” as the sizing is not disclosed. Nishi does however disclose the use of a microcomputer in the same paragraph where the potentiometer used to control speed of the vehicle is mentioned. The Examiner contends it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing, based on Nishi’s own teaching, to use any appropriately sized potentiometer for various reasons, including packaging and ergonomics for the user to help ensure a comfortable and safe ride in the vehicle for the user(s). It is further noted that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level skill in the art per In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Nishi discloses a potentiometer as noted in the rejection to claim 1 and 2, however, does not explicitly disclose the design choice wherein the micro-potentiometer is located on the steering wheel of the low-speed vehicle, as the exact location of the equivalent potentiometer is not disclosed. Nishi does note that the various control means are located in operators station 8 (see at least [0141]). Therefore, the Examiner contends it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide the speed control potentiometer on the steering wheel (or any other obvious well known location e.g. the steering column) for ergonomics and packaging reasons to ensure the user has easy access to the speed control.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Nishi discloses said potentiometer is powered by the engine, however, Nishi does not mention the battery of the vehicle. The Examiner notes it would have at least been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the vehicle, and thus the electric components found within the vehicle, are almost certainly controlled by a battery. In other words the components would not work if the battery power source were disconnected, as is widely well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide a battery to power the electronic systems of the vehicle of Nishi, including the potentiometers, in order to properly and reliably control the vehicle.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11 and 12, Nishi discloses the engagement position signal is sent from said potentiometer to said main control unit, as noted in the rejection to claim 1 above, however, Nishi does not specify whether the communication is done via wireless or wired communication. The Examiner notes that the choice between wired or wireless communication is a well-known design choice in the art, and the choosing of one type of communication over the other would have no bearing in this instant application on patentability. In other words, it is widely well known in the art that a design choice exists for almost any communication or networking within a vehicle that is dependent on various factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide Nishi with any appropriate communication means, whether wireless or wired, based at least on cost and use scenarios of the vehicle and/or parts availability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658