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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 19/011,207 filed on 6/9/2026, in which Claims 1-11 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 and cancels Claim 8.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, for Application No. JP2024-002126.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01, the IDS submitted on 0, and the IDS submitted on 8/10/2026 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specification, paras 0013 and 0016, sufficiently describe FIG. 1 reference numerals 7F and 7R and the drawing objection should be withdrawn, citing “[t]he front wheels 6F are suspended on electronically controlled right and left front suspensions 7F that are independent of each other. The rear wheels 6R are suspended on electronically controlled right and left rear suspensions 7R that are independent of each other […]. […] [t]he front wheels 6F are suspended on electronically controlled right and left front suspensions 7F that are independent of each other. The rear wheels 6R are suspended on electronically controlled right and left rear suspensions 7R that are independent of each other [...]. […] [t]he battery electric vehicle 100 includes a vehicle speed sensor 11.”
Although the specification provides an explanation of the drawing, Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to note guidelines presented in MPEP 608.02 regarding the drawings and drawing standards, which note using conventional symbols or, where necessary, rectangular boxes appropriately labeled to properly provide a complete illustration of the invention (MPEP 608.02.V.(n).: DRAWING STANDARDS 37 C.F.R. 1.84 Standards for drawings. (n) Symbols; MPEP 608.02. IX.(n): DRAWING SYMBOLS 37 CFR 1.84; and 608.02(d) 37 C.F.R. 1.83 Content of drawing (a)-(c)). In the present application, FIG. 1 on its own does not provide a clear representation of the invention or application claims and therefore, does not on its own provide a clear illustration of the invention. There is nothing to distinguish what the rectangular boxes represent and one of ordinary skill in the art could assume these represent a variety of components including components of an axle assembly of a vehicle, the axle itself or a motorized axle, a motor, or a brake system at each wheel, etc. Therefore, the application would benefit from a more clear representation in FIG. 1 and Examiner maintains the objections to FIG. 1 set forth in office action of 3/31/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. , filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the set forth in office action of 3/31/2026 have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, a new objection to Claim 1 is introduced. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. , filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the set forth in office action of 3/31/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. , filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the set forth in office action of 3/31/2026 are maintained.
Applicant argues that the application specification, para 0070, provides examples of interior members and, therefore, the claim language is clear. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification, para 0070 uses exemplary language, “such as,” (MPEP2173.05(d)), which does not explicitly define the bounds of what is considered as, or included as, an “interior member.” Therefore, since the claim language relies on the definition in the specification to understand the bounds of the claim, the claim language is indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. , filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner briefly addresses Applicant’s arguments below. However, Applicant’s amendments, specifically the use of language from original Claim 8 in independent Claim 1 and similar amendments to independent Claim 11, result in an invention which cannot be reasonably rejected using a combination of the cited prior art or the prior art found at this time because one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to come to the cited invention. Therefore, the set forth in office action of 3/31/2026 is withdrawn. A summary of the allowable subject matter is provided below.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest all of the features of amended Claims 1 and 11, specifically "[an] electronic control unit is configured to disable inputs from [a] pseudo shifting operation member while giving [a] notification to [a] driver by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member." Applicant states that Mays, [pg. 2, para 0020] and [pg. 5, para 0037], discusses a system for warning a driver, including by haptic warning, and deploying countermeasures, such as limiting operability of the vehicle. Therefore, Applicant argues that Mays, nor any of the other cited prior art, teach or suggest individually or in combination a relationship between a “haptic warning” and an “operation member whose input is disabled.” Applicant further argues that by disabling input from an operation member “in situations where a collision could be effectively avoided by driver operation of that operation member,” then the driver cannot avoid a collision using their own judgement. Applicant further explains that, by contrast, amended Claims 1 and 11 recite a configuration that allows for providing a notification that can be effectively given without negatively affecting the driving of the vehicle, citing application specification pgs. 16-17, para 0069. Finally, Applicant states that Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are allowable over the cited prior art and further patentable by dependency on independent Claim 1 for the reasons cited above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonably interpretation of amended Claim 1 and 11 does not explicitly limit or describe when the input from the pseudo shifting operation member is disabled. Instead, the amended claim language is more broad and only requires disabling the input, while the notification is provided to the driver, but does not explicitly specify when, or if, the input is reenabled nor does it limit other times that the input could be disabled. In other words, the amended claim language does not explicitly reflect step S104 as described in specification pgs. 16-17, para 0069 and FIG. 5. Similarly, Mays discusses limiting operability during notification without explicitly address reenabling inputs, or returning control to the vehicle operator. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended Claim 1 and 11 includes detecting an approaching object, such as a collision, and providing a notification to the driver, wherein while providing the notification to the driver inputs are disabled, such as through the pseudo shifter. The amended language does not address, or limit, allowing an operator to manually control the vehicle or provide other vehicle inputs in an event of a collision. Additionally, Mays explicitly discusses limiting the operability, when no corrective action is taken, [pg. 5, para 0041], “In response to this determination, the vehicle safety system 100 first warns the operator either audibly, visually, or haptically, via output devices 48. If the vehicle operator ignores the warning or is unable to take corrective action, the vehicle safety system 100 then begins a series of active steps to obviate the hazardous condition, including, for example, de-fueling the engine or other braking actions, such as activating the brakes, to reduce vehicle speed.” In addition to Mays, Aitidis explicitly discusses disabling functions only in a first state where [pg. 7, para 0198] the functions can be selectively disabled, or “partially inhibited” to [pg. 1, paras 0006-0008] allow the driver some control during the potential collision scenario. However, these interpretations do not impact the allowability, as stated above, which relies on the unique combination of the recited features.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
FIG. 1: .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 21-24) recites “disable inputs from the pseudo shifting operation member while giving the notification to the driver by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member; and the notification includes notifying the driver by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member.” The bolded language is redundant and should be simplified.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 9 (line 3), Claim 10 (line 8), and Claim 11 (line 18) recite “interior member of the battery electric vehicle.” It is not clear what “interior member” refers to and instead should be explicitly stated or more clearly described. For example, the claim language could recite “interior member” but further explain what an interior member can include or directly recite the components that “interior member” is referring to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 contain allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 9-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The arts of record, especially Duo’ et al., PG Pub US-2022/0063494-A1, Mays, PG Pub US-2010/0194593-A1 and Aitidis et al., PG Pub US-2019/0241161-A1 do not singularly or in combination disclose the battery electric vehicles including a driving operation member that is used to drive the battery electric vehicle; a pseudo shifting operation member used to perform a shifting operation imitating a shifting operation of a manual transmission internal combustion engine vehicle; an electronic control unit comprising a processor and a memory, the electronic control unit for controlling the battery electric vehicle according to an operation of the driving operation member; and a perception sensor for detecting an object approaching the battery electric vehicle, wherein the electronic control unit detects the object approaching the battery electric vehicle via the perception sensor, executes a control mode based on a driver selection, wherein the control mode associates an operation of the pseudo shifter to an electric motor torque, notifies the driver during execution of the control mode by vibrating any member a cabin of the battery electric vehicle, when the object approaching the battery electric vehicle is detected, disables inputs from the pseudo shifting operation member while notifying the driver by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member or an interior member of the battery electric vehicle, as recited in independent Claims 1 and 11.
The uniqueness of the claimed invention is, as recited in Claims 1 and 11, the combination of disabling inputs from a pseudo shifting operation member of a battery electric vehicle, while notifying a driver when an object approaching the battery electric vehicle is detected, by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member or an interior member of the battery electric vehicle.
Duo’ being one of the closest prior art discloses a sound and performance emulator for an electric propulsion vehicle including sensors and a control unit for calculating a simulated engine revolution value and a simulated gear value to request a simulated torque or output throttle signal.
Mays being one of the closest prior art discloses a vehicle safety system for monitoring vehicle surroundings and operational conditions to identify and address safety concerns, including limiting the operability when no corrective action is taken by the driver in response to a warning.
Aitidis being one of the closest prior art discloses a control system for an emergency braking system that transitions between a first, inactive state and a second, active state, wherein vehicle functions can be fully or partially inhibited depending on the state.
However, Duo’, Mays, or Aitidis do not provide an obvious combination or teaching pertaining to the claimed combination of disabling inputs from a pseudo shifting operation member of a battery electric vehicle, while notifying a driver when an object approaching the battery electric vehicle is detected, by vibrating the pseudo shifting operation member or an interior member of the battery electric vehicle.
Therefore, the allowable subject matter found in the claims that has not been found to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art found at this time is all the claimed limitations of independent Claims 1 and 11. All the dependent claims, Claims 2-7 and 9-10, also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on their base claim.
Therefore, Claims 2-7 are allowable and 9-10 would be allowable, by dependency on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference A, Kopp, PG Pub US-2021/0316660-A1, discusses a device and a method for warning a driver of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle includes sensors for detecting the vehicle surroundings and identifying an object and haptic warning devices for notifying the driver.
Reference C, Modarres et al., PG Pub US-20160/107570-A1, discusses a system for detecting information associated with a vehicle’s surroundings, environment, or condition and outputting a haptic signal to a haptic device, where the devices are placed on interior surfaces or components that the user interacts with our touches, such as a floor mat or a door.
Reference E, Baur et al., PG Pub US-2008/0060861-A1, discusses an electric entertainment vehicle that simulates a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and multiple gear ratios using a motor output torque, a gear selector such as a standard shifter or a paddle shifter, a clutch pedal, and sensors.
Reference F, Nelson et al., US-2014/0318293-A1, discusses a vehicle safety system for detecting driving conditions and providing a driver a warning, such as through vibration of the steering wheel or shifting device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights