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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 08/11/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-26 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 1 and 6 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant asserts on pages 6-8 of the remarks that it would be improper to maintain the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0262347 to Murota et al. in view of the amendments to the claim. The examiner does not disagree that Murota fails to fully teach the amendments to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon consideration of the amendments to claim 1, the claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0337497 to Scheuerell et al.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each of (1) “a user interface […] configured to […] receive a selected drivetrain configuration” in lines 6-7 of amended claim 1, (2) “a hydraulic and electric controller unit […] configured to receive a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate and control the braking system based on a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate and the selected drivetrain configuration” (emphasis added) in lines 8-11 of amended claim 1, and (3) the “transfer case” of “wherein the all-terrain vehicle includes a transfer case” in lines 1-2 of amended claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “a user interface […] configured to […] receive a selected drivetrain configuration” in lines 6-7; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification discloses that the user interface of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to receive a “selected drivetrain configuration.” Additionally, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s drawings show that the user interface of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to receive a “selected drivetrain configuration.” As best understood by the examiner, the instant application merely discloses a user interface is configured to receive a selected “drivetrain configuration” of the all-terrain vehicle. Applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2026 neither provides any indication as to where or how supporting disclosure can be found in Applicant’s specification nor asserts that no “new matter” has been included by the amendments to the claim. Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claim, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1, as amended, also now recites “a hydraulic and electric controller unit […] configured to receive a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate and control the braking system based on a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate and the selected drivetrain configuration” (emphasis added) in lines 8-11; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification discloses that the HECU of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to receive more than one yaw rate (e.g., “a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate,” emphasis added), it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification discloses that the HECU of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to control the braking system based on a “selected drivetrain configuration.” Additionally, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s drawings show that the HECU of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to receive more than one yaw rate, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification discloses that the HECU of the all-terrain vehicle is configured to control the braking system based on a “selected drivetrain configuration.” As best understood by the examiner, the instant application differently discloses an HECU 60 that only receives a single yaw rate [i.e., an IMU measured yaw rate (e.g., “first yaw rate”], as the HECU 60 determines another yaw rate [i.e., a target yaw rate (e.g., “second yaw rate”)]. As best understood by the examiner, the instant application differently discloses that the HECU 60 controls a brake caliper 52 (e.g., “braking system”) based on a comparison (e.g., “difference”) between the received IMU measured yaw rate and the HECU-determined target yaw rate and a selected brake configuration mode; however, Applicant’s disclosure does not redefine a selected brake configuration mode as a selected drivetrain configuration, and it is unclear how disclosure of a selected brake configuration mode would constitute disclosure of a selected drivetrain configuration. Applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2026 neither provides any indication as to where or how supporting disclosure can be found in Applicant’s specification nor asserts that no “new matter” has been included by the amendments to the claim. Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claim, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-26 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-26 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 7, as amended, now recites “wherein the all-terrain vehicle includes a transfer case” in lines 1-2; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification discloses that the all-terrain vehicle includes a “transfer case.” Additionally, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s drawings show the all-terrain vehicle as including a “transfer case.” As best understood by the examiner, the instant application merely discloses a user interface is configured to display a “transfer case status” of the all-terrain vehicle, with a user interface 204 including one or more icons 1506, 1507 that include an indicia 1512, 1513 of a transfer case status, without disclosing that the all-terrain vehicle” includes a “transfer case.” Applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2026 neither provides any indication as to where or how supporting disclosure can be found in Applicant’s specification nor asserts that no “new matter” has been included by the amendments to the claim. Therefore, the amendments to claim 7 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claim, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7, such that claims 8-12 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 7 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 7 is rejected.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0262347 to Murota et al. (hereinafter: “Murota”) in view of in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0337497 to Scheuerell et al. (hereinafter: “Scheuerell”).
With respect to claim 1, Murota teaches an all-terrain vehicle (100), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (7, 8, 12 & 13); a frame (e.g., 101) supported by the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3); a powertrain assembly (apparent from at least Figs. 4 & 9; e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 & together) supported by the frame and operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4); a user interface (e.g., 62) supported by the frame (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 17, 24 & 25), the user interface configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 5-8 in view of at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and in view of at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164; e.g., via 63 & 73) and receive a selected drive train configuration (apparent from at least Figs. 5, 7, 8, 19, 24 & 25); however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the all-terrain vehicle further includes a hydraulic and electric controller unit (HECU) operatively coupled with a braking system of the all-terrain vehicle. Therefore, Murota also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the HECU is configured to receive a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate and control the braking system based on a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate and the selected drivetrain configuration.
Scheuerell teaches an analogous all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-11) including an HECU (60) operatively coupled with a braking system (e.g., 40) of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 2-5 & 11 in view of at least ¶ 0065-0070 & 0076-0080) and configured to receive a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate and control the braking system based on a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate and a selected drivetrain configuration [as depicted by at least Figs. 11-15 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0090-0100, 0195, 0205, 0216-0217 & 0220-0223, the HECU 60 is structured to perform functions to receive a yaw rate (e.g., “first yaw rate”) and a yaw rate threshold (e.g., “second yaw”) rate, and to control the braking assembly 40 based on whether the yaw rate is greater than (and therefore differs from) the yaw rate threshold (e.g., “a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate”), based on whether differential lock(s) are on (e.g., “selected drivetrain configuration”) and/or based on a selected brake mode (e.g., “selected drivetrain configuration”), including whether the selected brake mode is a cutter brake mode].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Scheuerell to further include a hydraulic and electric controller unit (HECU) operatively coupled with a braking system of the all-terrain vehicle to beneficially provide control of braking of the all-terrain vehicle, including control of non-driver requested braking operations of the braking system of the all-terrain vehicle, such as anti-lock braking system (ABS) braking operations.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Scheuerell such that the HECU is configured to receive a first yaw rate and a second yaw rate and control the braking system based on a difference between the first yaw rate and the second yaw rate and the selected drivetrain configuration to beneficially determine whether to implement a user-selectable cutter brake mode for the all-terrain vehicle in which non-driver requested braking operations of the braking system of the all-terrain vehicle are controlled by the HECU to reduce a turn radius of the all-terrain vehicle.
With respect to claim 2, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1, wherein the all-terrain vehicle includes a front differential (2) and a rear differential (3) and to display the driveline configuration, the user interface is configured to display the at least one of a front differential status or a rear differential status of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 5-8 in view of at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and in view of at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164 of Murota; because a front differential status and a rear differential status are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 3, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status is indicated by at least one of a color or an opacity corresponding to the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0129 of Murota, an LED of the drive mode indicator 73 is caused to display light (e.g., “color”) to indicate that the front differential 2 is in a differential locked state; because a color and an opacity are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 4, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 3, wherein at least one of the color or the opacity changes in response to a change of the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0129 of Murota, the LED of the drive mode indicator 73 is caused to light up from a turned off state (e.g., “the color … changes”) to indicate that the front differential 2 has transitioned to a differential locked state from a differential state; because the color changes and the opacity changes are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; because a change of the front differential status and a change of the rear differential status are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 5, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status is indicated by a lock symbol or an unlock symbol [for example, apparent from at least Fig. 12D compared to at least Figs. 12A-12C and in view of at least ¶ 0091-0096 of Murota; e.g., via 73c of Murota; because a lock symbol and an unlock symbol are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 7, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1, wherein the all-terrain vehicle includes a transfer case (e.g., 32) (apparent from at least Figs. 18-23 in view of at least ¶ 0125-0128 & 0156-0161 of Murota) and to display the driveline configuration, the user interface is configured to display a transfer case status of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 5-8 in view of at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and in view of at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164 of Murota).
With respect to claim 8, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 7, wherein the transfer case status is indicated by at least one of a color or an opacity corresponding to the transfer case status [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164 of Murota, an LED of the drive mode indicator 73 is caused to display no light (e.g., “color”) to indicate that the front differential 2 and the rear differential 3 are in a 4WD mode (e.g., “transfer case status”) and/or circles 73a & 73b and cross 73d are displayed (e.g., “color”) and cross 73c is not displayed (e.g., “color”) to indicate that the front differential 2 and the rear differential 3 are in the 4WD mode; because a color and an opacity are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 9, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 8, wherein at least one of the color or the opacity changes in response to a change of the transfer case status [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164 of Murota, an LED of the drive mode indicator 73 is caused to switch off to display no light (e.g., “the color … changes”) to indicate that the front differential 2 and the rear differential 3 have changed to the 4WD mode from a differential locked state and/or the cross 73c is caused to switch to not being displayed (e.g., “the color … changes”) to indicate that the front differential 2 and the rear differential 3 have changed to the 4WD mode from the differential locked state; because the color changes and the opacity changes are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 23, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises an icon corresponding to the driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 6, 12A-12D, 20 & 24 of Murota; e.g., via 73 of Murota).
With respect to claim 24, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 23, wherein the icon comprises an indicator within the icon corresponding to a status of the driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 6, 12A-12D, 20 & 24 of Murota; e.g., via 73 of Murota).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0030572 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter: “Takahashi”).
With respect to claim 6, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status of the all-terrain vehicle corresponds to a locked configuration or an unlocked configuration for the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential (apparent from at least Figs. 5-8 in view of at least Figs. 12A-12D, 20, 24 & 25 and in view of at least ¶ 0047-0049, 0088-0098, 0129, 0146 & 0162-0164 of Murota); however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential status of the all-terrain vehicle corresponds to a smart-locked configuration for the at least one of the front differential status or the rear differential (note that Applicant’s specification expressly defines “smart locking” as “controlled slip” with respect to differential status).
Takahashi teaches a four-wheel drive vehicle (1), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (4R, 4L, 5R & 5L); a powertrain assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0022-0037), and a user interface (e.g., 25, 26 & 30 together) configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 3-8F, e.g., via 30), wherein to display the driveline configuration, the user interface is configured to display a differential status of the vehicle corresponding to a limited slip differential (LSD) (apparent from at least Figs. 3-8F in view of at least ¶ 0002-0004, 0018-0019, 0023, 0027-0028 & 0036-0079).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Takahashi such that, for example, the front differential status or the rear differential status of the all-terrain vehicle corresponds to a smart-locked configuration for the front differential status to beneficially enable a driver of the all-terrain vehicle to visually ascertain a turning force status in an intuitive manner, thereby instantaneously perceiving control conditions of a turning behavior.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229405 to Shimizu et al. (hereinafter: “Shimizu”).
With respect to claim 10, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 7; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the transfer case status is indicated by a line corresponding to the transfer case status.
Shimizu teaches a four-wheel drive vehicle (8), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (12L, 12R, 14L & 14R); a powertrain assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Fig. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0044-0063), and a user interface (e.g., 95) configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 2-14B, 17A-19 & 21), wherein to display the driveline configuration, the user interface is configured to display a transfer case status of the all-terrain vehicle, wherein the transfer case status is indicated by a line corresponding to the transfer case status, such as a solid line or a dotted line (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 9-10C in view of at least ¶ 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Shimizu such that the transfer case status is indicated by a line, such as a solid line or a dotted line, corresponding to the transfer case status to beneficially enable a driver of the all-terrain vehicle to clearly inform a driver of the all-terrain vehicle of the transfer case status at any time, including whether the all-terrain vehicle is in a 4WD mode or a 2WD mode. Additionally, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_I & 2144.04_IV_B), such that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the displayed indication of the transfer case status by whatever form or shape was desired or expedient (e.g., via a line, such as a solid line or a dotted line).
With respect to claim 11, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 10, wherein the line is a dotted line (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 10).
With respect to claim 12, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 10; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether a weight of the line changes in response to a change in power or torque to at least one of the ground-engaging members (because a change in power and a change in torque are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Shimizu further teaches that a weight of the line changes in response to a change in power or torque to at least one of the ground-engaging members (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 7-8B in view of at least ¶ 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Shimizu such that a weight of the line changes in response to a change in power or torque to at least one of the ground-engaging members to beneficially enable a driver of the all-terrain vehicle to clearly inform a driver of the all-terrain vehicle of the transfer case status at any time, including whether the all-terrain vehicle is in a 4WD mode or a 2WD mode. Additionally, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_I & 2144.04_IV_B), such that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the displayed indication of a change in power or torque to at least one of the ground-engaging members corresponding to a transfer case status by whatever form or shape was desired or expedient (e.g., via a weight of a line).
Claims 13-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, and in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,442 to Wai (hereinafter: “Wai”).
With respect to claim 13, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the user interface further configured to display a brake status of the all-terrain vehicle.
Wai teaches a four-wheel drive vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 8A), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (1, 2, 3 & 4); a powertrain assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Fig. 8A); and a user interface (e.g., 11 & 75 together) configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8A, 13, 15 & 16), wherein the user interface further configured to display a brake status of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C, 15 & 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Wai such that the user interface further configured to display a brake status of the all-terrain vehicle to beneficially display to a driver of the all-terrain vehicle real-time brake status of the all-terrain vehicle.
With respect to claim 14, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 13, wherein the brake status is indicated by at least one of a color or an opacity corresponding to the brake status [apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C, 15 & 16 of Wai in view of at least: e.g., “The preferred images used in said display to convey said operating parameters are meaningful, symbolic, easily understood and spare in style. The presentation is in either black and white or color and the variety of types of display devices enumerated all generally serve to adequately display the needed information. Audible signals and/or warnings can be used to augment these visual presentations. The preferred displays are time-variant, concise and appropriate for the information presented and include a proportional symbolic display, bar charts, a segmented bar chart and variable-size or variable-shape icons or images. Time-variant changes in color, hue, shading, density of cross hatching, contrast, content, shape, orientation, pattern and/or illumination of an image as a function of one or more of said operational parameters are defined as a time-variant highlighted image (which are not limited to these variants)” (emphasis added); because a color and an opacity are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 15, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 14, wherein at least one of the color or the opacity changes in response to a change of the brake status [apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C, 15 & 16 of Wai in view of at least: e.g., “The preferred images used in said display to convey said operating parameters are meaningful, symbolic, easily understood and spare in style. The presentation is in either black and white or color and the variety of types of display devices enumerated all generally serve to adequately display the needed information. Audible signals and/or warnings can be used to augment these visual presentations. The preferred displays are time-variant, concise and appropriate for the information presented and include a proportional symbolic display, bar charts, a segmented bar chart and variable-size or variable-shape icons or images. Time-variant changes in color, hue, shading, density of cross hatching, contrast, content, shape, orientation, pattern and/or illumination of an image as a function of one or more of said operational parameters are defined as a time-variant highlighted image (which are not limited to these variants)” (emphasis added); because the color changes and the opacity changes are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 16, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the user interface further configured to display a force on at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members.
Wai teaches a four-wheel drive vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 8A), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (1, 2, 3 & 4); a powertrain assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Fig. 8A); and a user interface (e.g., 11 & 75 together) configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8A, 13, 15 & 16), wherein the user interface further configured to display a force (e.g., braking force and/or driving force) on at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Wai such that the user interface further configured to display a force on at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members to beneficially display to a driver of the all-terrain vehicle real-time braking force and/or driving force of the all-terrain vehicle.
With respect to claim 18, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 16, wherein the force is indicated by at least one of a color or an opacity corresponding to the force [apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C of Wai in view of at least: e.g., “The preferred images used in said display to convey said operating parameters are meaningful, symbolic, easily understood and spare in style. The presentation is in either black and white or color and the variety of types of display devices enumerated all generally serve to adequately display the needed information. Audible signals and/or warnings can be used to augment these visual presentations. The preferred displays are time-variant, concise and appropriate for the information presented and include a proportional symbolic display, bar charts, a segmented bar chart and variable-size or variable-shape icons or images. Time-variant changes in color, hue, shading, density of cross hatching, contrast, content, shape, orientation, pattern and/or illumination of an image as a function of one or more of said operational parameters are defined as a time-variant highlighted image (which are not limited to these variants)” (emphasis added); because a color and an opacity are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 19, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 18, wherein at least one of the color or the opacity changes in response to a change of the force [apparent from at least Figs. 1-5C of Wai in view of at least: e.g., “The preferred images used in said display to convey said operating parameters are meaningful, symbolic, easily understood and spare in style. The presentation is in either black and white or color and the variety of types of display devices enumerated all generally serve to adequately display the needed information. Audible signals and/or warnings can be used to augment these visual presentations. The preferred displays are time-variant, concise and appropriate for the information presented and include a proportional symbolic display, bar charts, a segmented bar chart and variable-size or variable-shape icons or images. Time-variant changes in color, hue, shading, density of cross hatching, contrast, content, shape, orientation, pattern and/or illumination of an image as a function of one or more of said operational parameters are defined as a time-variant highlighted image (which are not limited to these variants)” (emphasis added); because the color changes and the opacity changes are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, in view of Wai, and in view of DE 19842808 A1 to Arai et al. (hereinafter: “Arai”).
With respect to claim 17, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 16, wherein Murota and Wai further teaches that the force is indicated by a direction displayed on an image of at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Figs. 5A-5C; for example: “In like manner FIG. 5B presents a display 11,49 with delivered torque 38 extending upward from the middle of said outline 41,42,43,44 and FIG. 5C presents a display indicating the braking force in the same bar chart 41,42,43,44 by an increase in amplitude 38 in the downward direction from the middle of said outline 41,42,43,44.”); however, Murota and Wai appear to lack a clear teaching as to whether the direction is displayed on the image of the at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members via an arrow shape.
Arai teaches configuring a displayed image with an arrow shape representing a direction of increase (apparent from at least Fig. 3; 25L and/or 25M and/or 25R).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota modified supra with the teachings of Arai such that the direction of the indicated force is displayed on the image of the at least one of the plurality of ground-engaging members via an arrow shape to further convey to a driver the direction of the indicated force via the displayed image. Additionally, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_I & 2144.04_IV_B), such that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the displayed indication of the transfer case status by whatever form or shape was desired or expedient (e.g., via an arrow shape).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0144083 to Seitz et al. (hereinafter: “Seitz”).
With respect to claim 20, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 1; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the user interface comprises a line corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the all-terrain vehicle.
Seitz teaches a vehicle (1), comprising a user interface (e.g., 4) comprises a line (e.g., 32a or 32b) corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0124-0136).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Seitz such that the user interface comprises a line corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the all-terrain vehicle to beneficially visually notify a driver of the all-terrain vehicle of a necessarily manual intervention by displaying, via said line, a reproduction of an upcoming curve area of a road while the all-terrain vehicle is traveling in a straight line area along the road.
With respect to claim 21, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 20, wherein a direction of the line changes in response to a change of the predicted trajectory of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0128-0130 & 0134 of Seitz).
With respect to claim 22, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 20, wherein at least one of a color or weight of the line is based upon the driveline configuration [as discussed by at least ¶ 0120-0122 & 0129-0130 of Seitz, a color of the line changes based on a determined criticality for the curve ahead, where the criticality is determined based on (1) a radius of curvature of the curve ahead and (2) a speed of the vehicle (e.g., “driveline configuration”) and/or steering of the vehicle (e.g., “driveline configuration”); because a color and a weight are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota in view of Scheuerell, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0179313 to Hartl et al. (hereinafter: “Hartl”).
With respect to claim 25, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 24; however, Murota appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the indicator displays a time remaining the driveline configuration is available before the driveline configuration switches to another driveline configuration.
Hartl teaches a vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members (36); a powertrain assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members (apparent from at least Fig. 1); a user interface (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0023, 0026-0028, 0036-0037 & 0053-0058) configured to display a driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0040-0043 & 0053-0058), wherein the user interface comprises an icon corresponding to the driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0040-0043 & 0053-0058), wherein the icon comprises an indicator within the icon corresponding to a status of the driveline configuration of the all-terrain vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0040-0043 & 0053-0058), and where the indicator displays a time remaining the driveline configuration is available before the driveline configuration switches to another driveline configuration [via 303; as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0057 (also, claims 10 and 14)], including to display the time remaining by a bar that changes in response to the time remaining [via 301 & 302, in view of 303 & 306; as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0041, 0053 & 0056-0057 (also, claims 8, 10, and 14)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the all-terrain vehicle of Murota with the teachings of Hartl such that the indicator displays a time remaining the driveline configuration is available before the driveline configuration switches to another driveline configuration, such as to display the time remaining by a bar that changes in response to the time remaining, to beneficially visually communicate to a driver of the all-terrain how long the all-terrain vehicle can continue to travel at the current driveline configuration based on current vehicle conditions.
With respect to claim 26, Murota modified supra teaches the all-terrain vehicle of claim 25, wherein the time remaining is displayed by a bar that changes in response to the time remaining (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights