DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 19/301188 filed 8/15/2025.
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 8/15/25 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 phrase “comprising” in line 1 and the implied phrase “is provided” in line 2 should 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).
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 1-13 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, 9, 10 and 11 recite the limitation “adapted to”. Please clarify where in the written description it is made clear that adapted to has a narrower meaning outside of just being an “optional” or “suggestive” type of limitation. See MPEP 2111.04.
-Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 13 recite the term “assume” followed by limitations. For example, claim 9 recites, “issuing transmission ratio shift preparation information to the vehicle indicative of that the vehicle should assume a transmission ratio engagement enabling condition in which engagement of the selected transmission ratio is enabled but the selected transmission ratio remains disengaged”). It is unclear as to what the term is referring to in scope of claims.
-Claims 3, 9 and 13 recite the term “preferably” followed by limitations. The term renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
-Claim 8 recites the limitation “or a combination thereof”. Please clarify if the limitation is covering all the limitations recited or just “the characteristics of the vehicle or the transmission” limitations.
-Claim 9 recites the phrase “as well as” followed by limitations. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
-Claim 10 recites the limitation “the vehicle comprising and/or is configured to be controlled by the computer system of claim 1.”. The scope of the invention covers the vehicle comprising the computer system and configured to be controlled by computer system, there seems to be no “alternative” for one or the other within scope of invention for the use of the term “or”, please clarify or amend accordingly.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 4467375 (IDS cited art with machine translation). As to claim 1, JP discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to issue information to a vehicle (obvious based on use of fuzzy inference, page 4, lines 35-36) comprising a transmission adapted to assume each one of a plurality of different transmission ratios (stages), the processing circuitry being configured to: receive a first request for a transmission ratio shift operation indicative of a selected transmission ratio (Figure2 via 21); issue transmission ratio shift preparation information to the vehicle indicative of that the vehicle should assume a transmission ratio engagement enabling condition in which engagement of the selected transmission ratio is enabled (Figure 2 via 21 is when downshift control is started) but wherein the selected transmission ratio remains disengaged (shift isn’t performed unit 28 or 29 in Figure 2); select a target transmission ratio on the basis of the selected transmission ratio and any set of second requests for a transmission ratio shift operation received during a transmission ratio shift request time range after the issuance of the transmission ratio shift preparation information (Figure 2 via 23, select between first or second speed shift based on delay time control), and after the transmission ratio shift request time range (delay time control), issue transmission ratio engagement information to the vehicle to engage the target transmission ratio (Figure 2 via 28 or 29).
As to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry further is configured to :in response to receiving one or more requests for a transmission ratio shift operation during the transmission ratio shift request time range, extend the transmission ratio shift request time range (page 4, lines 13-17 and page 14, lines 41-42).
As to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, after the transmission ratio shift request time range and in response to determining that the vehicle is not correctly configured to engage the target transmission ratio, issue re-adjustment information to the vehicle indicative of that the vehicle should assume a transmission ratio engagement enabling condition in which engagement of the target transmission ratio is enabled (Figure 3, page 5, lines 10-32; describes multiple parameters that determine if shift will be performed).
As to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the requests for a transmission shift operation by detecting an input to a user interface (Figure 19).
As to claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the requests for a transmission shift operation by detecting an input to a user interface comprising one or more buttons for incrementing or decrementing a current transmission ratio of the transmission, and where the processing circuitry is configured to receive a respective request for a respective transmission ratio shift operation indicative of a selected transmission ratio by receiving a signal from one of the one or more buttons (Figure 19).
As to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine at least part of the transmission ratio shift preparation information based on any one of: a preset configuration indicative of preparatory operations to be performed by the vehicle (Figures 3 and 4), the request for a transmission shift operation indicative of a selected transmission ratio (Figure 2 via 21, a current transmission ratio (gear engaged during shift request), characteristics of the vehicle or the transmission, or a combination thereof (Figures 3 and 4).
As to claim 9, JP discloses a control assembly (Figure 1) configured to issue information to a vehicle comprising a transmission adapted to assume each one of a plurality of different transmission ratios, the control assembly comprising a computer system of claim 1 as well as a user interface preferably comprising one or more buttons (Figure 19) for incrementing or decrementing a current transmission ratio of the transmission, the control assembly being adapted to issue a transmission ratio shift operation to the computer system in response to a detected operation of the user interface.
As to claim 10, JP discloses a vehicle comprising a transmission adapted to assume each one of a plurality of different transmission ratios, the vehicle comprising and/or is configured to be controlled by the computer system of claim 1 (page 2, lines 38-39).
As to claim 11, JP discloses a computer-implemented method for issuing information to a vehicle (obvious based on use of fuzzy inference, page 4, lines 35-36) comprising a transmission adapted to assume each one of a plurality of different transmission ratios, the method comprising: by processing circuitry of a computer system, receiving a first request for a transmission ratio shift operation indicative of a selected transmission ratio (Figure 2 via 21); by the processing circuitry, issuing transmission ratio shift preparation information to the vehicle indicative of that the vehicle should assume a transmission ratio engagement enabling condition in which engagement of the selected transmission ratio is enabled (Figure 2 via 21) but the selected transmission ratio remains disengaged (shift isn’t performed unit 28 or 29 in Figure 2); by the processing circuitry, selecting a target transmission ratio on the basis of the selected transmission ratio and any set of second requests for a transmission ratio shift operation received during a transmission ratio shift request time range after the issuance of the transmission ratio shift preparation information (Figure 2 via 23, select between first or second speed shift based on delay time control), and by the processing circuitry, after the transmission ratio shift request time range (delay time control), issuing transmission ratio engagement information to the vehicle to engage the target transmission ratio (Figure 2 via 28 or 29).
As to claim 12, further comprising: by the processing circuitry, in response to receiving one or more requests for a transmission ratio shift operation during the transmission ratio shift request time range, extending the transmission ratio shift request time range (page 4, lines 13-17 and page 14, lines 41-42).
As to claim 14, JP discloses a computer program product (obvious based on use of fuzzy inference, page 4, lines 35-36) comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 11.
As to claim 15, JP discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (obvious based on use of fuzzy inference, page 4, lines 35-36), which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11.
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) 3, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP in view of Tabata et al 20090029819. JP discloses a gearbox, but doesn’t disclose the gearbox having two or more portions with further limitations as recited in claims 3 and 13 and preparation information pertaining to a clutch and engine torque as recited in claim 7.
Tabata discloses a computer system (54) for a transmission (similar automatic and manual mode type as in JP) and shows that it is well known in the art to have a gearbox (10) and wherein each one of the different transmission ratios corresponds to a gear of the gearbox, and preferably wherein the gearbox comprises two or more gearbox portions (16, 20) together achieving the gear of the gearbox and the transmission ratio shift preparation information comprises information indicative of that at least one gearbox portion should assume a gearbox portion gear ([0167], lines 9-20 describe preparing shifting maps), and preferably wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to predict the gearbox portion gear of said at least one gearbox portion gear based on a current gear of the gearbox and based on the first request (via prepared shifting maps). Tabata further shows that it is well known in the art to provide transmission preparation information indicative of that ([0167]): the vehicle should disengage a clutch connected to a gearbox of the transmission (via released side coupling), and/or the vehicle should adjust a torque of an engine of the vehicle for allowing to shift a transmission ratio of the transmission (via different torque values).
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 JP with the gearbox having two or more portions and preparation information pertaining to a clutch and engine torque in view of Tabata to avoid engine drag and provide high power transmitting efficiency during shifting operation of vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The EPO office action has been considered and the examiner agrees that the prior art cited meets the limitations of at least claim 1 and 9-11.
- Kim 20020087246 discloses a transmission control system and shows that it is well known in the art to hold a current gear shift operation for a time period to determine if another gear shift is performed during the current gear shift (abstract and Figure 2).
-Ore 6327529 discloses a transmission system and shows that it is well known in the art to use delay time shifting to prevent further shifting in a gearbox having two or more gearbox portions (claims 11 and 12).
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 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights