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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8, 11-16 of copending Application No. 19176823 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Both sets of claims are identical and therefore rejected under provisional statuatory double patenting.
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 1-16 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 and 8 recites the limitation "the wheels" in line 7 and “the “first response curve” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3-10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St-Pierre (US PG Pub No. 2008/0133075) in view of Hammarberg et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0269845).
Regarding claim 1, St-Pierre teaches A motor vehicle comprising:
a frame;
a motor connected to the frame; (figure 6a-6e)
an accelerator pedal operable by a driver through a range of positions between a minimum throttle angle and a maximum throttle angle; (18 figure 1 actuator paragraph 37)
a drive system operably connected to the accelerator pedal, to the motor, and to a rudder;
the drive system operable to selectably drive the rudder in a forward direction in a drive mode and in a rearward direction in a reverse mode; (figure 10A slow mode)
the drive system including a direction controller operable to enact a direction change between a first one of the drive mode and the reverse mode and the other one of the drive mode and the reverse mode; (72 FNR figure 10a paragraph 64)
the drive system operable in a standard mode to drive the motor with a first response profile based on the accelerator position; and (paragraph 64 slow mode off)
the drive system operable in a safe mode immediately after the direction controller enacts a direction change to drive the drive motor with a second response profile having a reduced motor response for at least some throttle angles compared to a first response curve. (paragraph 64 slow mode on paragraph 65-69)
St-pierre does not explicitly teach however Hammarberg teaches a drive system connected to wheels (figure 1 paragraph 22-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify St-pierre based on the teachings of Hammarberg to teach a drive system connected to wheels. The motivation would be avoid overshoot or lugging in car when shifting (Hammarberg paragraph 20)
Regarding claim 3, St-pierre teaches wherein the direction controller includes an operator shifting input control. (figure 10a FNR 72)
Regarding claim 4, St-pierre teaches wherein the drive system is operable to drive the drive motor with the second response profile having a reduced motor response for a limited time interval. (paragraph 69)
Regarding claim 5, St-pierre teahes wherein the drive system is operable to drive the drive motor with the first response profile having a reduced motor response after the limited time interval. (paragraph 69)
Regarding claim 6, St-pierre teaches wherein at least a portion of the second response profile is flat, such that no additional acceleration is provided after a selected throttle angle. (paragraph 69 50% throttle yields 10% power)
Regarding claim 7, st-pierre teaches wherein the second response profile is sloped at a limited angle less than the angle of the first response curve. (paragraph 69)
Regarding claim 8, See the rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substainially similar.
Regarding claim 9, St-pierre teaches wherein the drive system is operable in the safe mode after initial application of the accelerator pedal following the event associated with a potential direction change. (paragraph 66-69)
Regarding claim 10, St-Pierre teaches wherein the event associated with a potential direction change includes an event selected from the group including a stop, a direction change between drive and reverse, a potential direction change, an unaccepted offer of a direction change, and a presumed intended direction change. (paragraph 65)
Regarding claim 12-16, see the rejection of claims 2-7 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights