DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 19/217695 filed 5/23/2025.
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 5/23/25 has been considered.
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 legal phraseology “comprises” in line 1 should be deleted. Further, the term “press” should be changed to “presses” in line 3. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-On page 7, paragraph [52], “S21” should be changed to “S17”.
-On page 9, paragraphs [68] and [69], the term “theatrical” should be changed to “theoretical”.
-On page 9, paragraph [69], the second occurrence of the term “dynamics” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limit……..the propulsion force provided by the driveline…..(function)” in claim 1.
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 1-15 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.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation “a control unit configured to limit, at standstill…..”. This limitation is considered to be incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “a control unit configured to limit, when the vehicle is at standstill…..” as described in specification, please amend accordingly.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the control unit is configured to adapt,……”. Please clarify what the phrase “to adapt” is referring to, i.e., to control or to store or to memorize, etc. Similar clarification needed in claim 6 pertaining to limitation “adapts” and in claim 13 pertaining to the limitation “an adapted” and “an adaptation step”.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation “the control unit is configured to adapt, at standstill, the pedal mapping so that each position of the pedal corresponds to a predefined percentage of the maximal force threshold value, independently of the maximal force threshold value.”. It is unclear as to what the limitation “independently of the maximal force threshold value” is covering in scope or referring to, please clarify.
-Claim 2 recites the limitation "the road" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reference acceleration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to the limitation being recited (introduced) in claim 2 and not claim 1 from which this claim depends from.
-Claim 6 recites the limitation "the journey" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, please clarify what the term “journey” is covering in scope or referring to (travel, distance, etc.).
-Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the relationship between the “control unit configured to limit….” limitation as recited in claim 1 and “the method for limiting….” as recited in claim 7. There should be scope coverage in claim 7 limiting the method steps to being performed during standstill of vehicle as described in specification paragraphs [52], [65], etc..
-Claim 8 recites the limitation "the maximal power of the motor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites the limitation "the speed of the vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 15 recites the limitation "the minimum between the propulsion force………and the theoretical maximal propulsion force" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 12 recites the limitation “the percentage associated to the position of the pedal is scaled before determining the propulsion force…..”. It is unclear as to what the limitation “is scaled” is covering in scope or referring to, please clarify.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable (via prior art purposes only) 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. Reasons for allowance will not be indicated at this time based on applicant’s response to the 112(b) rejections above. Examiner may withdraw allowability indication based on applicant’s response/amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-FR 3135687 (IDS cited art, [0010]-[0036]); Laine et al 20220126801 ([0013]); Rajala 20240208497 (Figures 5A, 5B, [0010]); Wolf et al 20230415742 (Figure 15) and EP 3251888 (Figure 3) all disclose vehicles that show that it is well known in the art to map different propulsion pedal positions to correspond to torque and/or speed. However, each lacks a control unit pedal mapping at standstill of vehicle in which the each pedal position mapped corresponds to a predefined percentage of a maximal force threshold value, independent of that value as recited in claim 1.
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 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights