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 .
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: a control device in claims 1-5.
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. A control device will be interpreted as an electronic control unit ECU in view of Paragraph 0031 of the specification.
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.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of the gear ratios that are switchable by the transmission" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimine et al US 2022/0041064 A1 (hence Nishimine) in view of Satyanarayana et al US 2023/0250875 A1 (hence Satyanarayana).
In re claim 1, Nishimine discloses a vehicle configured to be able to select a traveling mode between an MT mode in which an electric motor is controlled with torque characteristics like an MT vehicle having a manual transmission and an internal combustion engine, and an EV mode in which the electric motor is controlled with normal torque characteristics (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A battery electric vehicle (Fig.1, #10, and Paragraph 0036 “an electric vehicle 10”) including an electric motor as a driving source (Fig.1, #2, and Paragraph 0036 “an electric motor 2 as a power source”), the battery electric vehicle comprising:
a transmission having a plurality of switchable gear ratios (Paragraph 0090 “a stepped or continuously variable automatic transmission”);
a pseudo shifter configured to select shift positions of the gear ratios that are switchable by the transmission (Fig.1, #26, and Paragraph 0041 “a pseudo-gearshift 26”);
and a control device configured to control the electric motor (Paragraph 0051 “The control signal calculation unit 520 processes the signals from these sensors and calculates motor torque which the electric motor 2 is made to output”) and the transmission (Paragraph 0090 “the automatic transmission may be controlled so as to output the motor torque calculated by MT vehicle model”), wherein the control device is configured to determine a combination of motor torque of the electric motor and the gear ratio of the transmission in such a manner that a relationship among an accelerator operation amount (Paragraph 0051 “The control signal calculation unit 520 receives signals from the wheel speed sensor 30, the accelerator position sensor 32”), a vehicle speed (Paragraph 0037 “The wheel speed sensor 30 is also used as a vehicle speed sensor for detecting the vehicle speed of the electric vehicle 10”), and drive wheel torque is switched according to the shift position selected by the pseudo shifter (Paragraphs 0051 “the shift position sensor 36”, and Paragraphs 0053-0055, and Fig.6, and Paragraph 0062)
However, Nishimine discloses that the pseudo-gearshift has positions corresponding to first speed through six speed (Paragraph 0041) doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a larger number of shift positions than the number of the gear ratios that are switchable by the transmission
Nevertheless, Satyanarayana discloses a two-speed transmission system for an electric vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a larger number of shift positions than the number of the gear ratios that are switchable by the transmission (Paragraph 0033 “two-speed transmission system”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Nishimine reference to include a two-speed transmission system, as taught by Satyanarayana, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the electric motor operates in highest efficient zones for a greater portion in a selected drive cycle (Satyanarayana, Paragraph 0083). By implementing a two-speed transmission system, the pseudo-gearshift having positions corresponding to first speed through six speed will have a larger number of shift positions than the number of the gear ratios that are switchable by the transmission.
In re claim 2, Nishimine teaches the following:
wherein: the control device has a map for each of required values of the drive wheel torque and each of the gear ratios of the transmission, the map defining, for each of the shift positions of the pseudo shifter, a relationship between a motor speed of the electric motor and the motor torque (Fig.4, #550, Fig.5, and Paragraph 0056); and the control device is configured to determine the motor torque based on the shift position selected by the pseudo shifter according to the map corresponding to the gear ratio at which the transmission is to be operated and the required value of the drive wheel torque (Paragraph 0057)
In re claim 3, Nishimine teaches the following:
wherein: one or more of the shift positions selectable by the pseudo shifter are associated with each of the gear ratios of the transmission; and the map for each of the gear ratios defines the relationship between the motor speed and the motor torque in the one or more shift positions associated with the gear ratio (Paragraph 0062)
In re claim 5, Nishimine teaches the following:
wherein the pseudo shifter includes either or both of an absolute instruction shifter whose shift positions are associated with predetermined physical positions and configured to select the physical position with a shift operation member, and a relative instruction shifter in which an increase or decrease in an instruction value of the shift position is associated with a relative operation of the shift operation member (Fig.1, #26, and Paragraph 0041 “a pseudo-gearshift 26”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amano JP 2024028601 A discloses a vehicle has a rotating electric machine for supplying electric power from an inverter (16), and for outputting torque to-be transmitted to a wheel and a shift device that selects a mode by a driver from multiple modes in which torque characteristic to rotating speed of the rotating electric machine is defined stepwise, where the torque characteristic is an electric vehicle (10) is arbitrarily set by the driver.
Palermo et al US 2025/0087201 A1 discloses a road vehicle provided with a reproduction device for the realization of a sound associable with an electric motor and a related method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669