DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 19/205830 filed 5/12/2025.
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 statements filed 7/1/25 and 1/22/26 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the abbreviations “PT”, “HS2”, “LSO” and “PWR” as shown in Figures 2 and 3 don’t seem to be described in the specification for one of skill in the art to verify what each is referring to, i.e., is the abbreviation PT referring to “power train”, is the abbreviation PWR referring to “power”, etc.. Further, in Figure 4, the second occurrence of the ampersand symbol “&” should be deleted and the examiner is assuming that the term/abbreviation “van” should be changed to “CAN”. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the implied phrase “The present invention relates to” in line 1 should be deleted. Also the legal phraseology “comprising” in line 2 should also be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Note: the examiner has recognized that applicant is using British English spelling (i.e., summarizing) in the disclosure which is acceptable via MPEP 608.01 which states “that there is no additional requirement that the English must be American English”.
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 10 and 11 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 10 and 11 recite “an input configured to receive a gear selection control signal……” and “an output configured to send the modified gear selection control signal to the gears…….”. Per MPEP 2173.05(g): “examiners should consider whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous.” The examiner doesn’t consider the limitations themselves to be “ambiguous”; however, the examiner would like further clarification as to what “structure” is being considered the “input” and “output” for performing the functions as recited. The specification describes that the input may be a rotary knob position on page 5, line 10; however, it is unclear how a “rotary knob position” can receive a gear selection control signal as recited in claims 10 and 11”. Further, the specification describes that the output may be a plurality of control signals for controlling the AV systems on page 5, lines 19-20; however, it is unclear as to which of the plurality of signals sends the modified gear selection control signal to the gears as recited in claims 10 and 11, please clarify and/or amend accordingly.
Note: Claims 6, 8 and 9 recite the limitations “around 0.1. seconds”, “between about 0.5 seconds and 1 second” and “about 0.6 seconds”. Per MPEP 2173.05(b), section III, A.: “in determining the range encompassed by the term "about," (“around” is being considered a relative term as well), one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Based on the context described in the specification, it is clear as to what the range using the terms encompass and is therefore not considered indefinite by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 1) a method of controlling gears in a vehicle by an electronic control unit associated with an autonomy stack of vehicle receiving a gear selection control signal sent by a gear selection module to select from a plurality of gears; modifying the gear selection based on a target trajectory of vehicle generated by stack; sending the modified selection signal through a controller area network; then sending a power cycling signal to the gear selection module to turn a power of module off then subsequently back on after a predetermining power cycling time and in combination with the limitations exactly as written in claim 1.
(as to claim 10) reasons will be not indicated at this time due to 112(b) rejection above.
(as to claim 11) reasons will be not indicated at this time due to 112(b) rejection above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Uthaicharoenpong et al 20220075338 ([0113]-[0116]); Maxon et al 20050079952 ([0025]) and DE 10312396 (Figure 25 description in machine translation) all show that it is well known in the art to power cycle (reset or restart) electronic control units associated with gear selection. However, none of the above meet the limitations as recited in claims 1, 10 and 11.
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 March 7, 2026