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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/2026. The claims as amended have changed the relationship between the battery electric vehicle of claim 1 and the vehicle characteristics customization system of claim 8 to that of subcombinations usable together. Therefore, claims 1-7 are examined as elected.
As claim 1 is not in condition for allowance, the claims are not rejoined at this time.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“driving operation member” in claim 1
“pseudo shifting operation member” in claim 1
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. Namely, they are interpreted as referring to an accelerator pedal and a pseudo shifter, respectively, in light of claim 3.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,118 in view of Bernatchez et al. (US 20220314818). Claim 3 of the reference patent (and claim 1, upon which it depends) teaches:
A battery electric vehicle that includes an electric motor as a drive source
(Claim 1) “An electric vehicle configured to use an electric motor as a power device for traveling”
a driving operation member that is used to drive the battery electric vehicle
(Claim 1) “an accelerator pedal”
a pseudo shifting operation member that imitates an operation member that is used to perform a shifting operation of a manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle
(Claim 1) “a pseudo-clutch pedal; a pseudo-gearshift”
a control device configured to control motion of the battery electric vehicle with respect to an operation of the driving operation member according to an operation state of the pseudo shifting operation member
(Claim 1) “a controller configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the operation mode selected by the operation mode selector”
acquire customized setting of vehicle characteristics of the manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle to be replicated by the battery electric vehicle
(Claim 3) “the operation mode selector is configured to switch the operation mode in accordance with a selection by a driver.”
change setting of motion characteristics of the battery electric vehicle with respect to the operation of the driving operation member and an operation of the pseudo shifting operation member based on the customized setting when the customized setting is suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Claim 1) “an operation mode selector configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode”
change setting of motion characteristics of the battery electric vehicle with respect to the operation of the driving operation member and an operation of the pseudo shifting operation member based on the customized setting when the customized setting is suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Claim 1) “a controller configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the operation mode selected by the operation mode selector”
The reference patent does not explicitly teach maintaining a present setting if a selection is invalid; however, Bernatchez et al. teaches:
maintain the setting of the motion characteristics at present setting or default setting when the customized setting is not suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Bernatchez – [0174]) “The validation of the value(s) may be used to prevent regulating the output of electric motor 50, 150 using invalid value(s) of parameter(s) 36.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vehicle settings of the reference patent with the validation routine of Bernatchez et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent the vehicle from operating in an unsafe manner (Bernatchez – [0174]).
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 1-7 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.
The term “suitable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “suitable” will be interpreted as meaning a characteristic which is within an allowable range, in light of the disclosure of, in paragraph [0089] of the present application, a “suitable range” outside of which customized settings are canceled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimine et al. (US 20220041062) in view of Bernatchez et al. (US 20220314818).
Claim 1.
Nishimine et al. teaches:
A battery electric vehicle that includes an electric motor as a drive source
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
a driving operation member that is used to drive the battery electric vehicle
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
a pseudo shifting operation member that imitates an operation member that is used to perform a shifting operation of a manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
a control device configured to control motion of the battery electric vehicle with respect to an operation of the driving operation member according to an operation state of the pseudo shifting operation member
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The operation mode selector is a device configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. The first operation mode is an operation mode reflecting operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal and operation of the pseudo-gearshift in control of the electric motor. The second operation mode is an operation mode not requiring the operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal for the control of the electric motor. The controller is a device configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the control mode selected by the mode selector.”
acquire customized setting of vehicle characteristics of the manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle to be replicated by the battery electric vehicle
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The operation mode selector is a device configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. The first operation mode is an operation mode reflecting operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal and operation of the pseudo-gearshift in control of the electric motor. The second operation mode is an operation mode not requiring the operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal for the control of the electric motor. The controller is a device configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the control mode selected by the mode selector.”
change setting of motion characteristics of the battery electric vehicle with respect to the operation of the driving operation member and an operation of the pseudo shifting operation member based on the customized setting when the customized setting is suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The operation mode selector is a device configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. The first operation mode is an operation mode reflecting operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal and operation of the pseudo-gearshift in control of the electric motor. The second operation mode is an operation mode not requiring the operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal for the control of the electric motor. The controller is a device configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the control mode selected by the mode selector.”
While Nishimine et al. teaches an automatic switching determination unit that automatically selects a suitable mode, Nishimine et al. does not explicitly teach determining the suitability of a user setting. However, Bernatchez et al. teaches, with respect to Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
712
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A parameter setting interface according to Bernatchez et al. (originally Bernatchez Fig. 9)
acquire customized setting of vehicle characteristics of the manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle to be replicated by the battery electric vehicle
(Bernatchez – [0140, 0143]) “receiving, via operator interface 26A, 26B, a value of an individually-variable parameter 36 defining a propulsive performance characteristic of electric vehicle 12 … when motor 50 is being driven, regulating an output of motor 50 based on the value of the individually-variable parameter 36”
change setting of motion characteristics of the battery electric vehicle with respect to the operation of the driving operation member and an operation of the pseudo shifting operation member based on the customized setting when the customized setting is suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Bernatchez – [0140, 0143]) “receiving, via operator interface 26A, 26B, a value of an individually-variable parameter 36 defining a propulsive performance characteristic of electric vehicle 12 … when motor 50 is being driven, regulating an output of motor 50 based on the value of the individually-variable parameter 36”
maintain the setting of the motion characteristics at present setting or default setting when the customized setting is not suitable for the battery electric vehicle
(Bernatchez – [0174]) “The validation of the value(s) may be used to prevent regulating the output of electric motor 50, 150 using invalid value(s) of parameter(s) 36.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vehicle settings of Nishimine et al. with the parameter customization system of Bernatchez et al. Both Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. are directed towards adjusting operating characteristics of a vehicle according to user preferences; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do in order to prevent the user from setting preferences which would create an unsafe situation (Bernatchez – [0174]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Bernatchez et al. further teaches:
wherein the control device is configured to present, to a user, a settable range for customizing from the present setting or the default setting
(Bernatchez – [0155]) “a value of an operating parameter 36 may be selectable within a predefined range.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 3.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 2 below, Nishimine et al. further teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
409
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: A block diagram of the transmission model of Nishimine et al. (originally Nishimine Fig. 5)
the driving operation member includes an accelerator pedal
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
the pseudo shifting operation member includes a pseudo shifter that imitates a shifter of a manual transmission
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
the customized setting includes a relationship among a vehicle speed of a host vehicle, an operation amount of the accelerator pedal, a shift position selected by an operation of the pseudo shifter, and torque of the electric motor
(Nishimine – [0049]) “The MT vehicle model 530 is a model that calculates the driving wheel torque obtained by operating the accelerator pedal 22, the pseudo-clutch pedal 28, and the pseudo-gearshift 26”
(Nishimine – [0055]) “the accelerator opener Pap detected by the acceleration position sensor 32 is input to the engine model 531. A clutch pedal depression amount Pc is input to the clutch model 532. … A shift position Sp is input to the MT model 533. … in the MT vehicle model 530, the vehicle speed Vw (or wheel speed) detected by the wheel speed sensor 30 is used in a plurality of models. In the MT vehicle model 530, a driving wheel torque Tw and an imaginary engine speed Ne are calculated based on these input signals.”
Claim 4.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 2 above, Nishimine et al. further teaches:
the driving operation member includes an accelerator pedal
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
the pseudo shifting operation member includes a pseudo shifter that imitates a shifter of a manual transmission
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
a pseudo clutch operation device that imitates a clutch operation device
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The electric vehicle according to the present disclosure is an electric vehicle using an electric motor as a power device for traveling, comprising an accelerator pedal, a pseudo-clutch pedal, a pseudo-gearshift, an operation mode selector, and a controller.”
the customized setting includes a relationship among a vehicle speed of a host vehicle, an operation amount of the accelerator pedal, a shift position selected by an operation of the pseudo shifter, an operation amount of the pseudo clutch operation device, and torque of the electric motor
(Nishimine – [0049]) “The MT vehicle model 530 is a model that calculates the driving wheel torque obtained by operating the accelerator pedal 22, the pseudo-clutch pedal 28, and the pseudo-gearshift 26”
(Nishimine – [0055]) “the accelerator opener Pap detected by the acceleration position sensor 32 is input to the engine model 531. A clutch pedal depression amount Pc is input to the clutch model 532. … A shift position Sp is input to the MT model 533. … in the MT vehicle model 530, the vehicle speed Vw (or wheel speed) detected by the wheel speed sensor 30 is used in a plurality of models. In the MT vehicle model 530, a driving wheel torque Tw and an imaginary engine speed Ne are calculated based on these input signals.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Nishimine et al. further teaches:
wherein the customized setting includes whether the pseudo clutch operating device is used
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The operation mode selector is a device configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. The first operation mode is an operation mode reflecting operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal and operation of the pseudo-gearshift in control of the electric motor. The second operation mode is an operation mode not requiring the operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal for the control of the electric motor. The controller is a device configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the control mode selected by the mode selector.”
Claim 7.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nishimine et al. further teaches:
wherein the customized setting includes at least one of settings of engine characteristics, shifting characteristics, and suspension characteristics of the manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle
(Nishimine – [0010]) “The operation mode selector is a device configured to switch an operation mode between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. The first operation mode is an operation mode reflecting operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal and operation of the pseudo-gearshift in control of the electric motor. The second operation mode is an operation mode not requiring the operation of the pseudo-clutch pedal for the control of the electric motor. The controller is a device configured to control a motor torque output by the electric motor in accordance with the control mode selected by the mode selector.”
Bernatchez et al. further teaches:
wherein the customized setting includes at least one of settings of engine characteristics, shifting characteristics, and suspension characteristics of the manual-transmission internal combustion engine vehicle
(Bernatchez – [0134]) “operating parameter(s) 36 may define respective propulsive performance characteristics of vehicle 12. For example, parameter(s) 36 may define output characteristics of powertrain 16 so as to customize the propulsive behaviour of vehicle 12 according to operator preferences.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20190358535).
Claim 6.
The combination of Nishimine et al. and Bernatchez et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Neither Nishimine et al. nor Bernatchez et al. explicitly teaches a type of shifter; however, Chen teaches:
a pseudo sequential shifter that imitates a sequential shifter of the manual transmission
(Chen – [0027]) “the game machine is able to provide a gear shifting device having the sequential gear-shifting mode and the H-pattern gear shifting mode for example on the same machine.”
a pseudo H-shifter that imitates an H-shifter of the manual transmission
(Chen – [0027]) “the game machine is able to provide a gear shifting device having the sequential gear-shifting mode and the H-pattern gear shifting mode for example on the same machine.”
the customized setting includes whether the pseudo sequential shifter or the pseudo H-shifter is used
(Chen – [0007, 0008]) “The host computer includes a control unit electrically connected to the switching module for triggering the switching module to switch the current gear-operation mode to either the first mode or the second mode. … the first mode and the second mode are a sequential gear-shifting mode and an H-pattern gear-shifting mode, respectively.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pseudo shifter of Nishimine et al. with the alternate gear operation modes of Chen. Both Nishimine et al. and Chen are directed towards the simulation of a vehicle manual transmission; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to further enhance the user’s ability to customize the controls of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duo’ et al. (US 20220063494) teaches a sound and performance emulator for an electric vehicle which simulates the use of a clutch and a gear-shifter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669