DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/699,124 filed on 04/05/2024, in which claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2021 211 318.4, filed on 10/07/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection and objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/08/2025. Applicants
arguments, see page 3-10 filed on 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)
1, 5, 7, and 15 under 35 USC 102 and 2-4, 6, and 8-14 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 102 as necessitated by amendment over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1). Another grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of Birnschein (US 20180345971 A1) further in view of Claesson (US 20210053633 A) further in view of Meyer (US 11941922 B2) further in view of Derflinger (US 8892288 B2) and further in view of Claesson (US 20220026922 A1).
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly
anticipated by (US 20160121962 A1) to Miyoshi et al. (hereinafter Miyoshi).
Regarding claim 1, Miyoshi discloses A method for replacing a drive unit of a vehicle, comprising: capturing identification features of a first drive unit of a vehicle by way of a first service device, (Miyoshi Paragraph 0003: “This invention generally relates to a bicycle control system. More specifically, the present invention relates to a bicycle control system that a plurality of controls electric units.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0052: “The information that is stored by the storage unit 82 includes identification information for identifying the drive unit 52 and for setting information, which is information that determines the operation of the drive unit 52,”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0055: “The calculation unit 78 outputs all of the identification information, the setting information, and the log information stored in the storage unit 82, along with information that is unique to itself (for example the serial number), from the communication unit 80 every time a prescribed period has elapsed.”) wherein the identification features uniquely represent the first drive unit, transmitting the identification features from the first service device to a second service device, (Miyoshi Paragraph 0055: “The calculation unit 78 outputs all of the identification information, the setting information, and the log information stored in the storage unit 82, along with information that is unique to itself (for example the serial number), from the communication unit 80 every time a prescribed period has elapsed.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0062: “Additionally, when information that is output from the drive unit 52, the second operating unit 66, the display unit 68, and the gear shifter 70, which are the other electric units, is input from the communication unit 94, the calculation unit 92 overwrites and stores the input information in the storage unit 96.”) generating configuration data by way of the second service device on the basis of the identification features, transmitting the configuration data from the second service device to the first service device, (Miyoshi Paragraph 0055: “Additionally, when information that is output from the first operating unit 64, the second operating unit 66, the display unit 68, and the gear shifter 70, which are the other electric units, is input by the communication unit 80, the calculation unit 78 overwrites and stores the input information in the storage unit 82.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0062: “The calculation unit 92 outputs all of the identification information, the setting information, and the log information stored in the storage unit 96, along with information that is unique to itself, from the communication unit 94 every time a prescribed period has elapsed.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0102: “In the modified example shown in FIG. 6, the output selection unit 146 may select the units 52, 66, 68, and 70 as the destination for the information, according to the contents of the information to be output. Additionally, the control system 50 may add a function to change the units 52, 66, 68, and 70 as the destination for the information to be output by the operating unit 64, 66.”) (Note: The units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 will be interpreted as devices and not units.) (Note: Configuration data is the data sent by the first device, this data is overwritten in the storage unit.) providing a second drive unit at the first service device, and configuring the second drive unit by way of the first service device using the configuration data. (Miyoshi Paragraph 0048: “The drive unit 52 comprises a port 74 to which can be attached and detached an assist unit 54, a housing 60, the power communication line 72, and a control device 76. The assist unit 54 and the control device 76 are housed in the housing 60.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0102: “In the modified example shown in FIG. 6, the output selection unit 146 may select the units 52, 66, 68, and 70 as the destination for the information, according to the contents of the information to be output. Additionally, the control system 50 may add a function to change the units 52, 66, 68, and 70 as the destination for the information to be output by the operating unit 64, 66.”) (Note: The assist unit 54=second drive unit) (Note: The device 76, 114, 86, and 100 will be considered units not devices.) (Note: The first device 52 uses the information sent from 64 to configure the unit 76 and 54.)
PNG
media_image1.png
584
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Miyoshi discloses The method according to claim 1,wherein, when generating the configuration data, the configuration data are individualized by the second service device by generating additional replacement identification features uniquely representing the second drive unit. (Miyoshi Paragraph 0052: “The information that is stored by the storage unit 82 includes identification information for identifying the drive unit 52 and for setting information, which is information that determines the operation of the drive unit 52, and log information, which is a history of the operations of the drive unit 52. The identification information is stored in the storage unit 82 beforehand, at the time of shipping. The setting information is stored in the storage unit 82 beforehand, at the time of shipping. The setting information is updated by operating units 64, 66 or an external device. The log information is updated and/or added to when the drive unit 52 is operated.”) (Note: The assist unit 54 is included in the drive unit 52 therefore the assist unit has specific features that uniquely represent the assist unit that is included in the drive unit 52.) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0091: “For example, when replacing one of the units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70, the setting information can be set by the following operations. After connecting the replacement unit to the power communication line 72, the calculation unit of the replacement unit requests an output of the information that is stored in the other units by operating the operating units 88, 102 or with an external device that is connected to the control system 50.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0094: “For this reason, for example, when one of the units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 fails, the replacement unit 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 can inherit the log information of the failed unit 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 by using the information that is stored in the other units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70.”)
Regarding claim 7, Miyoshi discloses The method according to claim 6, wherein: generation of the configuration data is prevented given unrestricted functionality of the first drive unit. (Miyoshi Paragraph 0094: “For this reason, for example, when one of the units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 fails, the replacement unit 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 can inherit the log information of the failed unit 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 by using the information that is stored in the other units 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70.”) (Miyoshi Paragraph 0095: “For this reason, preventing information that is stored by the storage units 82, 96, 110, 124, and 140 of one unit 52, 64, 66, 68, and 70 from disappearing is possible.”) (Note: once the replacement unit inherits the information configuration data does not need to be used for replacement until another fault occurs.)
Regarding claim 15, Miyoshi discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an electric bicycle. (Miyoshi Paragraph 0003: “This invention generally relates to a bicycle control system. More specifically, the present invention relates to a bicycle control system that a plurality of controls electric units.”)
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.
7. Claim(s) 2, 6, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of (US 20180345971 A1) to Birnschein et al. (hereinafter Birnschein).
Regarding claim 2, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not teach The method according to claim 1, further comprising of: disassembling the first drive unit from the vehicle, and assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle.
However, Birnschein teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising of: disassembling the first drive unit from the vehicle, and assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle. (Birnschein Paragraph 0091: “FIG. 10 illustrates an example in which first and second drive modules have previously been installed to the body module, and the first drive module is removed and replaced with a third drive module. However, the same or similar method may additionally or alternatively be used during an initial assembly process of installing drive modules to the body module (e.g., at an assembly plant).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include teach The method according to claim 1, further comprising of: disassembling the first drive unit from the vehicle, and assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle taught by Birnschein. This would have been for the benefit to provide a modular system for an automotive vehicle configured to permit removal of a removable structural module from and reattachment to an automotive vehicle is described. [Birnschein Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 6, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a functionality of the first drive unit by way of the first service device.
However, Birnschein teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a functionality of the first drive unit by way of the first service device. (Birnschein Paragraph 0076: “During operation, the vehicle may monitor systems of the vehicle to make sure they are functioning properly. This monitoring may be performed by one or both of the drive modules (e.g., by diagnostics module 458), by a program running on a computing device”) (Birnschein Paragraph 0076: “At operation 804, the vehicle determines whether a fault has occurred in the first drive module.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a functionality of the first drive unit by way of the first service device taught by Birnschein. This would have been for the benefit to provide a modular system for an automotive vehicle configured to permit removal of a removable structural module from and reattachment to an automotive vehicle is described. [Birnschein Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 11, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising: deactivating the first drive unit such that, after deactivation, torque generation by the first drive unit is prevented.
However, Birnschein teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: deactivating the first drive unit such that, after deactivation, torque generation by the first drive unit is prevented. (Birnschein Paragraph 0080: “At operation 820, after deactivating the first drive module (and optionally changing a direction of travel in the case of a bidirectional vehicle) the vehicle proceeds to operate the vehicle using the second drive module, while the first drive module remains deactivated.”) (Note: When the first drive module is deactivated the second drive module is activated thus torque is prevented from the first drive module)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, further comprising: deactivating the first drive unit such that, after deactivation, torque generation by the first drive unit is prevented taught by Birnschein. This would have been for the benefit to provide a modular system for an automotive vehicle configured to permit removal of a removable structural module from and reattachment to an automotive vehicle is described. [Birnschein Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 12, Miyoshi in view of Birnschein teaches claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not teach The method according to claim 11, wherein the deactivation is performed prior to generation of the configuration data.
However, Birnschein teaches The method according to claim 11, wherein the deactivation is performed prior to generation of the configuration data. (Birnschein Paragraph 0077: “At operation 810, the vehicle may deactivate the first drive module”) (Birnschein Paragraph 0077: “Thus, if the energy storage system of one drive module fails or becomes discharged, the energy storage system of the other drive module can power the vehicle to allow it to continue operating.”) (Note: When the first drive module is deactivated the other drive module operates the vehicle and the first drive module does not generate torque configuration data)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 11, wherein the deactivation is performed prior to generation of the configuration data taught by Birnschein. This would have been for the benefit to provide a modular system for an automotive vehicle configured to permit removal of a removable structural module from and reattachment to an automotive vehicle is described. [Birnschein Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 13, Miyoshi in view of Birnschein teaches claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the second drive unit is unconfigured when provided.
However, Birnschein teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the second drive unit is unconfigured when provided. (Birnschein Paragraph 0053: In examples in which the drive modules 404A and 404B are identical, they provide the vehicle with redundancy of systems and components (e.g., sensors, battery, inverter, motor, steering, braking, suspension, HVAC, lighting, drive module controller, communication connections, etc.). Thus, if a system of one drive module or a component thereof fails or needs services, in many instances, the vehicle will be able to continue to operate by relying on the corresponding system or component of the other drive module”) (Note: The second drive module is used as a spare until a fault occurs in a first drive module. Therefore, the second drive module is unconfigured initially.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the second drive unit is unconfigured when provided taught by Birnschein. This would have been for the benefit to provide a modular system for an automotive vehicle configured to permit removal of a removable structural module from and reattachment to an automotive vehicle is described. [Birnschein Paragraph 0007]
8. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of (US 20180345971 A1) to Birnschein et al. (hereinafter Birnschein) and further in view of (US 20210053633 A) to Claesson et al. (hereinafter Claesson).
Regarding claim 3, Miyoshi in view of Birnschein teaches claim 2, accordingly the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi in view of Birnschein does not teach The method according to claim 2, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is performed only after assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle.
However, Claesson does teach The method according to claim 2, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is performed only after assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle. (Claesson Paragraph 0033: “According to an example, the method further comprises receiving a unique vehicle identity from the control centre. The control centre may generate a unique identity for the assembled vehicle and transmit the unique vehicle identity to all modules of the assembled vehicle. The unique vehicle identity may be a number, a combination of letters and/or numbers, or a specific word. When the different modules are physically and electrically connected, a vehicle has been assembled and a unique vehicle identity is generated.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi in view of Birnschein to include The method according to claim 2, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is performed only after assembling the second drive unit on the vehicle taught by Claesson. This would have been for the benefit to achieve a new and advantageous method for electrically connecting two physically connected modules of a vehicle, which method is safer, easier and less time consuming than prior art solutions [Claesson Paragraph 0006]
9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of (US 11941922 B2) to Meyer et al. (hereinafter Meyer).
Regarding claim 4, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data define one or more of the following properties of the second drive unit: rider force-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, assistance mode-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, motor torque limiting when exceeding a driving speed of 25 km/h or 45 km/h, driver profile-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, a wheel circumference of a rear wheel of the vehicle, a gear ratio of a vehicle gearshift, and maximum assist power of the second drive unit.
However, Meyer teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data define one or more of the following properties of the second drive unit: rider force-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, assistance mode-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, (Meyer Column 3, line number 30-36: “The user configurable vehicle may be operated via human power at least during some of its operation or via a combination of human and motorized power (assist) (which includes operating with no human and/or no motorized power), such as where the motorized power provides that operating power which is not provided by human power (supplemental/assist). Accordingly, the component devices may include those components necessary to provide motorized power, e.g. one or motors, batteries and/or controllers.”) (Note: The component can be a second drive unit) (Meyer Column 12, line number 23-28: “The chainring assembly component 40 may be attached to a crank arm component 46 to facilitate torque transfer from a rider to the rear wheel component 16 through the chainring assembly component 40, to the chain component 44, and to the sprocket assembly component 42.”) motor torque limiting when exceeding a driving speed of 25 km/h or 45 km/h, driver profile-dependent control of a motor torque that can be is provided by the second drive unit, a wheel circumference of a rear wheel of the vehicle, a gear ratio of a vehicle gearshift, and maximum assist power of the second drive unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data define one or more of the following properties of the second drive unit: rider force-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, assistance mode-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, motor torque limiting when exceeding a driving speed of 25 km/h or 45 km/h, driver profile-dependent control of a motor torque that is provided by the second drive unit, a wheel circumference of a rear wheel of the vehicle, a gear ratio of a vehicle gearshift, and maximum assist power of the second drive unit taught by Meyer. This would have been for the benefit to provide the disclosed embodiments generally relate to a computer-based system and/or method which automatically, e.g. with minimal, or entirely without, human intervention, identifies, distinguishes, disambiguates or otherwise differentiates among multiple configurable bicycles based on the data reported to the system from the bicycle's data-reporting components, such that the data reported by those components may be associated with a particular bicycle for real-time and/or later review, analysis, etc. [Meyer Column 2, line number 40-48]
10. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of (US 8892288 B2) to Derflinger et al. (hereinafter Derflinger).
Regarding claim 10, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an allowability of configuration of the second drive unit, by checking a homologation of the second drive unit, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is only performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the configuration.
However, Derflinger teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: determining an allowability of configuration of the second drive unit, by checking a homologation of the second drive unit, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is only performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the configuration. (Derflinger Column 3, line number 66-Column 4, line number 3: “Each individual drive unit 10, 12 can be scaled down or operated less strongly with regard to its nominal values of torque and power in order to shift the most efficient operating point to lower values in the homologation or urban drive load range.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: determining an allowability of configuration of the second drive unit, by checking a homologation of the second drive unit, wherein configuration of the second drive unit is only performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the configuration taught by Derflinger. This would have been for the benefit to provide A method for controlling an electric vehicle drivetrain having least two drive units with wheels located on opposite axles are driven by respective drive units, includes in a first operating mode, the ratio of the torques provided by the drive units in each case for a given torque requirement is set taking into account the efficiency applicable to each drive unit under the given operating conditions, and in a second operating mode, the ratio of the torques provided by the drive units in each case for a given torque requirement is set independently of the efficiency applicable to each drive unit under the given operating conditions. [Derflinger Column 1, line number 62-Column 2, line number 5]
11. Claim(s) 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 20160121962 A1) in view of (US 20220026922 A1) to Claesson et al. (hereinafter Claesson).
Regarding claim 8, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an allowability of a replacement of the first drive unit based on the identification features, wherein generation of the configuration data is only be performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the replacement.
However, Claesson does teach The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an allowability of a replacement of the first drive unit based on the identification features, wherein generation of the configuration data is only be performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the replacement. (Claesson Paragraph 0025: “The different drive modules of the set of modules may be identical or the drive modules may for example have different types/sizes of wheels, different suspension, different power capacity and/or different charge capacity. The at least one drive module and the assisting drive module may thus be identically configured.”) (Claesson Paragraph 0032: “Controlling the assisting drive module to perform at least the erroneous function of the at least one drive module means that the assisting drive module replaces the at least one drive module, at least with regard to the non-working function(s) of the at least one drive module.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an allowability of a replacement of the first drive unit based on the identification features, wherein generation of the configuration data is only be performed given affirmative determination of the allowability of the replacement taught by Claesson. This would have been for the benefit to achieve a new and advantageous method for a vehicle assembled from a set of modules, which method increases the safety in the traffic. [Claesson Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 9, Miyoshi in view of Claesson teaches claim 8, accordingly the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not teach The method according to claim 8, wherein replacement of the first drive unit is determined to be allowable if the first drive unit and the second drive unit are structurally identical.
However, Claesson does teach The method according to claim 8, wherein replacement of the first drive unit is determined to be allowable if the first drive unit and the second drive unit are structurally identical. (Claesson Paragraph 0025: “The different drive modules of the set of modules may be identical or the drive modules may for example have different types/sizes of wheels, different suspension, different power capacity and/or different charge capacity. The at least one drive module and the assisting drive module may thus be identically configured.”) (Claesson Paragraph 0032: “Controlling the assisting drive module to perform at least the erroneous function of the at least one drive module means that the assisting drive module replaces the at least one drive module, at least with regard to the non-working function(s) of the at least one drive module.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 8, wherein replacement of the first drive unit is determined to be allowable if the first drive unit and the second drive unit are structurally identical taught by Claesson. This would have been for the benefit to achieve a new and advantageous method for a vehicle assembled from a set of modules, which method increases the safety in the traffic. [Claesson Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 14, Miyoshi discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Miyoshi does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein: the first service device, the first drive unit, the second drive unit, and the vehicle are located in a common location, and the second service device is located in another location remote from the first service device.
However, Claesson does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein: the first service device, the first drive unit, the second drive unit, and the vehicle are located in a common location, (Note: The control unit and the first and second drive units 30 are all in a common location)
PNG
media_image2.png
481
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the second service device is located in another location remote from the first service device. (Note: The second service device is remote from the control unit 100 and the other drive modules)
PNG
media_image2.png
481
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyoshi to include The method according to claim 1, wherein: the first service device, the first drive unit, the second drive unit, and the vehicle are located in a common location, and the second service device is located in another location remote from the first service device taught by Claesson. This would have been for the benefit to achieve a new and advantageous method for a vehicle assembled from a set of modules, which method increases the safety in the traffic. [Claesson Paragraph 0006]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights