DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/042,508. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 7, 12-13, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 7, the word ‘type’ in the phrase “a spring-return type switch” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what type was intended to convey (MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US Patent Publication 20060108956).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses a utility vehicle (abstract, “utility vehicle”) comprising: a) a chassis (Fig. 1) supported by a plurality of ground engaging members (198); b) a power supply; c) a drive arrangement including an electric motor (e.g. 110) coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engaging members; d) an electromagnetic parking brake mechanism (“parking brake” 180); and e) a controller (controller 120) for selectively operating the utility vehicle in one of three modes, including: i) a park mode, wherein the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism is engaged (e.g. paragraph [0060]); ii) an operation mode, wherein the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism is disengaged and the drive arrangement is controllable to drive the utility vehicle (e.g. paragraph [0060]); and iii) a tow mode, wherein the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism is disengaged to enable the utility vehicle to be manually rolled (paragraphs [0036-0038], [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein the drive arrangement includes a transmission (e.g. 194 and paragraph [0079]) coupled to the electric motor and the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism.
Regarding claim 4, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein when the controller is in the park mode, the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism is engaged to inhibit rotation of one or more driven ground engaging members (e.g. paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 4, wherein when the controller is in the operation mode, the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism is disengaged to enable the electric motor to drive the one or more driven ground engaging members upon pressing an accelerator pedal (e.g. paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller transitions to the tow mode only when a speed of the utility vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined speed (e.g. paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 1, wherein when the controller is in the tow mode, electrical power from the power supply is applied to the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism to disengage the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism (e.g. paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a user interface to visually indicate when the controller is in the tow mode (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Patent Publication 20060108956).
Regarding claim 9, Clark discloses the utility vehicle of claim 2, wherein the transmission is located between the electric motor.
Clark does not disclose the transmission between the electric motor and the electromagnetic parking brake mechanism. However, it is well-known modification to have the parking brake at the wheels or output of the transmission.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clark to incorporate the location of the transmission between the motor and brake with a reasonable expectation of success of using the parking brake closer to the output of the wheels. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, 14-15, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7, 12-13, and 16 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.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harris (US Patent Publication 20070181355) discloses a spring-return key switch, but does fairly suggest it being associated with a tow mode and therefore does not a predetermined length of time associated with the tow/transport mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655