DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 19053788 filed 2/14/2025.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/14/25 has been considered.
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.
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 unit (generic placeholder) configured to determine an aspect of operation…..(function)” in claims 1 and 2.
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.
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 1-7 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.
-Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitations “determine an aspect of operation”, “when determined aspect of the operation is a first aspect……is a second aspect……is a third aspect”. Based on description in specification in paragraph [0028] and what is shown in Figures 2 and 4 of drawings, the examiner just wants to clarify that the term “aspect” is just referring to the actual operation of operator (or lever) operated by driver. Examiner needs to understand why the term “aspect” is being used to refer to “operation of operator or lever”, please clarify. The term seems to suggest that there should be other parameters/conditions determined when the operator/lever is in the auto, manual or non-control modes. There is no need to remove term itself, but maybe amend claims just clarify its meaning within limitations as recited (of course according to what is disclosed in original disclosure as filed avoiding new matter).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tambo et al 20250033689. As to claim 1, Tambo discloses a control mode switching apparatus for a vehicle that switches a control mode among a non-control mode (Figure 2, preparation mode; or [0067], cancel mode or abstract, [0057], non-controlling state) in which a control amount is not changed, an auto mode (automatic steering mode) in which the control amount is automatically changed, and a manual mode (manual steering mode) in which the control amount is manually changed, the control mode switching apparatus comprising: an operator to be operated by a driver (3 and 37); and a control unit (1) configured to determine an aspect of operation when the operator is operated and switch the control mode based on the determined aspect of the operation, wherein the control unit is configured to perform switching between the non-control mode and the auto mode ([0058]-[0063]), switching between the non-control mode and the manual mode (Figure 2, via operation 01; [0055]), and switching between the auto mode and the manual mode in accordance with the determined aspect of the operation ([0071]).
As to claim 2, Tambo discloses a control mode switching apparatus for a vehicle that switches a control mode among a non-control mode in which a control amount is not changed (Figure 2, preparation mode; or [0067], cancel mode or abstract, [0057], non-controlling state), an auto mode (automatic steering mode) in which the control amount is automatically changed, and a manual mode (manual steering mode) in which the control amount is manually changed, the control mode switching apparatus comprising: an operator to be operated by a driver (3 and 37); and a control unit (1) configured to determine an aspect of operation when the operator is operated by a driver and switch the control mode based on the determined aspect of the operation, wherein the control unit is configured to switch a current control mode to the auto mode when the determined aspect of the operation is a first aspect ([0060]-[0063]), switch the current control mode to the manual mode when the determined aspect of the operation is a second aspect ([0071]), and switch the current control mode to the non-control mode when the determined aspect of the operation is a third aspect ([0067]-[0069]).
As to claim 3, wherein at least the first ([0060]) and the second aspects ([0071]) are different from each other.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tambo in view of JP 2008051300 (with machine translation). As to claims 4 and 5, Tambo discloses the operator (3) provided at a steering wheel and is used to change a shift position (between forward and backward movement of vehicle, [0048], lines 11-14; [0060], lines 3-4), however, Tambo doesn’t explicitly disclose the use of a paddle shift at least one of a left or right lever of steering wheel as recited.
JP discloses a control mode switching apparatus for a vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an operator at least one of a left or right lever (3a, 3b) of a paddle shift that is provided at a steering wheel (5) and is to be used to change a shift position (abstract).
It would have been obvious (design choice) to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the steering wheel in Tambo with a paddle shift in view of JP to provide a secure operating component for shifting in close proximity to steering wheel versus having to remove hand to a different area away from steering wheel for shifting which gives driver more comfort during operation of vehicle.
As to claims 6 and 7, Tambo discloses the operator is a shift lever ([0118]) of automatic steering having a manual steering mode, but doesn’t disclose the lever being for an automatic transmission having a manual steering mode as recited.
JP discloses a control mode switching apparatus for a vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an operator is a shift lever (2) of an automatic transmission having a manual transmission mode (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shift lever in Tambo with an automatic transmission control having a manual transmission mode in view of JP to provide control of transmission ratios within vehicle during the multiple modes (as shown in Figure 2 in Tambo) which increases operating efficiency of vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-WO 2024075672 discloses a control mode switching apparatus and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an auto mode, manual mode and standby mode having a control unit switch between the modes as selected by operator (abstract and as shown on page 1). This prior art does meet the limitations as recited in at least claims 1 and 2.
-Ehrmaier et al 6260432 discloses a control mode switching apparatus and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an auto mode (is considered holding of constant speed mode), manual mode and cruise mode, but lacks describing that a control unit switches between the modes as selected by operator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 7, 2026