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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 12/29/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 3 “a clutch ;” should read --a clutch;--.
At claim 1 line 14 “electrical signal” should read --electrical signal,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the brake pressure build-up” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- brake pressure build-up--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “output a fourth signal to the hydraulic unit in the first state when the first operating element is actuated from the first end position to the second end position” in lines 2-3 (emphasis added). The claim already recites outputting a first signal to the hydraulic unit under this condition to cause brake slippage to be generated on the rear wheel axle (claim 1 line 20-21), and the specification details that the fourth signal SIG4 is output to the hydraulic pump to increase pumping power (0041 lines 1-end) rather than the hydraulic unit as claimed. When interpreted in light of the disclosure, it is therefore unclear whether the fourth signal in claim 13 is output to the hydraulic unit or the hydraulic pump. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as output to the hydraulic pump.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because none of the claims recite a judicial exception.
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 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.
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, 4-6, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331).
Regarding claim 1, PETTERSSON discloses an apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a rear wheel axle (24, Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 32-33);
a clutch (25, Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 34-37);
a brake assembly (52,104, Figs. 1-2, col. 5 lines 13-20);
a first operating element (drift-stick 402, Fig. 3, col. 5 lines 50-51); and
a controller (50),
wherein the clutch is configured to:
connect the rear wheel axle to a powertrain in a closed state (col. 3 lines 34-37); and
disconnect the rear wheel axle from the powertrain in an open state (col. 3 lines 34-37),
wherein the first operating element is configured to be operated with one hand and is configured to be moved back and forth between a first end position and a second end position (hand-operated lever, col. 5 lines 50-51, Fig. 3),
wherein the controller comprises a first state (drift mode, col. 6 lines 10-11 and 59-61) and a second state (implied non-drift mode, i.a. col. 2 lines 61-64),
wherein the controller is configured to: move the clutch into the open state (S844, Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 32-37) in the first state (i.e., drift mode, col. 6 lines 60-61) when the first operating element is actuated from the first end position to the second end position (end positions implied/inherent, i.a. col. 6 lines 17-20; S842, Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 29-32); and output a first electrical signal (electrical signal implied/inherent, col. 3 line 43 - col. 4 line 18) to the brake assembly and thereby cause a brake slippage to be generated on the rear wheel axle (create tire skidding, col. 8 lines 49-50),
wherein the controller is further configured to: move the clutch to the closed state (S856, col. 9 lines 42-43) in the first state (i.e., drift mode, col. 6 lines 60-61) when the first operating element is actuated from the second end position to the first end position (end positions implied/inherent, i.a. col. 6 lines 17-20; S842, Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 29-32, col. 9 lines 38-39); and to output a second electrical signal (electrical signal implied/inherent, col. 3 line 43 - col. 4 line 18) to the brake assembly and as a result terminate the brake slippage generated at the rear wheel axle (S854, Fig. 5, col. 9 lines 40-41), and
wherein the controller is further configured not to output the first electrical signal and not to influence the clutch in the second state (implied non-drift mode, i.a. col. 2 lines 61-64) when the first operating element is actuated from the first end position to the second end position (i.e., don’t perform drift control based on performance lever, i.a. col. 2 lines 59-64, col. 6 lines 9-11).
PETTERSSON discloses the brake assembly (52,104, Figs. 1-2, col. 5 lines 13-20) comprises an ABS system (52, Fig. 1; 320, Fig. 3) used to significantly brake and/or lock at least one wheel of the vehicle (col. 2 lines 51-55).
PETTERSSON is silent regarding further details of the disclosed ABS system.
BARBER teaches a brake assembly (braking system 38, Fig. 1) is an electro-hydraulic brake assembly that comprises a hydraulic pump (fluid pumps 56, 0031 lines 6-8, 0036 lines 5-8, Figs. 1 and 4), an hydraulic unit (ABS valve block 68, 0036 lines 12-21, Fig. 5) and two hydraulic brakes for the rear wheel axle (40-1, 0025 lines 3-4, Fig. 1),
wherein the hydraulic pump is configured to generate a hydraulic pressure (0031 lines 11-13),
wherein the hydraulic unit comprises electrically actuatable valves (0036 lines 13-21), which are configured to be controlled via an electrical signal and is configured to influence the hydraulic pressure at the hydraulic brakes via the valves as a function of the electrical signal (0036 lines 22-28) to provide a braking system configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels to stop rotation and generate a slide of the rear road wheels (0005 lines 1-6) via a controller (46).
Absent any specific structure in PETTERSSON for the brake assembly beyond ABS 52 and friction brakes 104, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake assembly of PETTERSSON as taught by BARBER to provide a braking assembly configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels.
PETTERSSON as modified teaches wherein the controller is configured to: move the clutch into the open state in the first state when the first operating element is actuated from the first end position to the second end position; and output a first electrical signal to the hydraulic unit and thereby cause a brake slippage to be generated on the rear wheel axle, wherein the controller is further configured to: move the clutch to the closed state in the first state when the first operating element is actuated from the second end position to the first end position; and to output a second electrical signal to the hydraulic unit and as a result terminate the brake slippage generated at the rear wheel axle.
Regarding claim 4, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON further discloses wherein the first operating element (402, Fig. 3) comprises a sensor (404, Fig. 3, col. 5 lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 5, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to sense intermediate positions of the first operating element (402, Fig. 3) between the first end position and the second end position (col. 6 lines 17-20 and 25-28).
Regarding claim 6, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 5.
PETTERSSON further discloses the controller is further configured to adjust different braking forces via a third signal (implied/inherent) and thereby different brake slippages (how much the wheels are prevented from rotating, col. 6 lines 26-27) and their build-up speed as a function of different intermediate positions (degree to which the lever is rotated, col. 6 lines 25-26) and operating speeds (at least within the response time of the system, col. 6 lines 24-28) of the first operating element (col. 6 lines 12-28).
BARBER is relied upon to teach the brake assembly (braking system 38, Fig. 1) is an electro-hydraulic brake assembly that comprises a hydraulic pump (fluid pumps 56, 0031 lines 6-8, 0036 lines 5-8, Figs. 1 and 4), an hydraulic unit (ABS valve block 68, 0036 lines 12-21, Fig. 5) and two hydraulic brakes for the rear wheel axle (40-1, 0025 lines 3-4, Fig. 1). Therefore, PETTERSSON as currently modified adjusts different braking forces by hydraulic pressures.
PETTERSSON as modified teaches wherein the controller is further configured to adjust different hydraulic pressures via a third signal and thereby different brake slippages and their build-up speed as a function of different intermediate positions and operating speeds of the first operating element.
Regarding claim 11, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
BARBER is relied upon to teach details of the brake assembly.
BARBER further teaches the brake assembly comprises a brake pedal (36, Fig. 1) and a brake booster (52, Fig. 1, 0031 lines 5-6), wherein the brake booster is configured to boost a hydraulic pressure (implied/inherent, 0031 lines 13-17) and is configured to be influenced by both the brake pedal (0031 lines 9-11) and the controller (0032 lines 1-6), and wherein the brake booster is configured to deliver the generated hydraulic pressure to the hydraulic unit (0036 lines 10-12), thereby allowing the hydraulic brakes to be influenced (0036 lines 12-27).
Absent any specific structure in PETTERSSON for the brake assembly beyond ABS 52 and friction brakes 104, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake assembly of PETTERSSON as taught by BARBER to provide a braking assembly configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels.
Regarding claim 13, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
BARBER is relied upon to teach details of the brake assembly (braking system 38, Fig. 1) to provide a braking system configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels to stop rotation and generate a slide of the rear road wheels (0005 lines 1-6) via a controller (46).
BARBER further teaches the controller (6) is configured to output a fourth signal to the hydraulic pump (signal implied/inherent, 0034 lines 8-15) in a first state configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels to stop rotation and generate a slide of the rear road wheels (0034 lines 13-15).
Absent any specific structure in PETTERSSON for the brake assembly beyond ABS 52 and friction brakes 104, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake assembly of PETTERSSON as taught by BARBER to provide a braking assembly configured to apply braking force at respective first and second road wheels.
PETTERSSON as modified teaches the controller is further configured to output a fourth signal to the hydraulic pump in the first state when the first operating element is actuated from the first end position to the second end position.
See rejection under 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 16, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON further discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1).
PETTERSSON as modified teaches a vehicle comprising the apparatus according to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and ESCHLER (DE 10 2007 009 563).
Regarding claim 2, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
The operating element (402, Fig. 3) of PETTERSSON is a hand brake lever that forms a setpoint generator for a brake system that is actuated by external energy and not by muscle power (col. 6 lines 12-17).
ESCHLER teaches a hand brake lever (0002 line 4, 0004 line 16) comprising a lever with a dampener that is configured to dampen movement of the lever (0004 lines 1-3) that creates a travel simulator that conveys a familiar hand brake lever feel when the brake lever arrangement forms a setpoint generator and the brake system is actuated by external energy and not by muscle power (0004 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a dampener as taught by ESCHLER to the lever of PETTERSSON to create a travel simulator that conveys a familiar hand brake lever feel when the brake lever arrangement forms a setpoint generator and the brake system is actuated by external energy and not by muscle power.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and ONALLCYLINDERS (NPL, “Ford Performance Releases New ‘Drift Stick’ Electronic Handbrake for Focus RS”).
Regarding claim 3, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSON is silent regarding where the first operating element is placed within the vehicle.
ONALLCYLINDERS teaches a first operating element (drift stick, title) is arranged between front seats of a vehicle comprising the brake assembly (photo p. 1; the drift stick is between the driver’s seat and manual transmission to provide clutch-free drift turns very similar to the experience of a real rally car, bottom paragraph p. 2).
Absent guidance from PETTERSON on where the first operating element is placed within the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the first operating element of PETTERSSON between the driver’s seat and transmission as taught by ONALLCYLINDERS to provide clutch-free drift turns very similar to the experience of a real rally car.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and HATA (US 9,758,161).
Regarding claim 7, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to move the clutch to the closed state (S856, Fig. 5, col. 9 lines 42-43) in the first state when the first operating element is actuated from the second end position to the first end position (implied, S852, Fig. 5, col. 9 lines 38-39).
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach smoothly moving the clutch as claimed.
HATA teaches a controller configured to smoothly move a clutch to a closed state (col. 8 lines 57-58) to avoid or suppress a shock, a feeling of strangeness, or the like (col. 8 lines 55-56).
It would have been an obvious matter of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the clutch of PETTERSSON smoothly as taught by HATA to avoid or suppress a shock, a feeling of strangeness, or the like.
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and AUTOMOTIVE GURU (NPL, “Drift Mode | 2021 Mercedes Benz AMG | How to Activate”).
Regarding claim 8, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON discloses the first state is a driver-selected drift mode (col. 6 lines 10-11 and 59-61).
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
AUTOMOTIVE GURU teaches an apparatus comprising a second operating element and a third operating element (paddle shifters on steering wheel at 1:12), wherein a controller is configured to require actuation of the second operating element and the third operating element to activate a first state (drift mode in the 2021 AMG; “we’ll pull both of these paddle shifters towards us and hold for approximately three seconds then we’ll pull on the right paddle to confirm now we are in drift mode,” lines 86-96 of appended transcript)(n.b. the drift state of Automotive Guru is a power-over drift rather than the “handbrake” drift as in Pettersson and Applicant’s invention; for the purposes of teaching a technique to activate a driver-selected driving mode, the teaching of Automotive Guru is still considered relevant).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize paddle shifters already provided on a vehicle as taught by AUTOMOTIVE GURU to activate selection of the drift mode in PETTERSSON in order to avoid increased costs associated with a separate interface for the selection of the drift mode. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in activating the drift mode in this manner (c.f. Applicant’s 0022 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 8.
AUTOMOTIVE GURU is relied upon to teach the second and third operating elements (paddle shifters on steering wheel, 1:12 of video).
PETTERSSON as modified teaches wherein the second operating element and the third operating element are arranged on an instrument panel or on a steering wheel.
Regarding claim 14, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON discloses the first state is a driver-selected drift mode (col. 6 lines 10-11 and 59-61).
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
AUTOMOTIVE GURU teaches an apparatus comprising an output element (instrument panel display, Fig. A below), wherein the output element is configured to output first optical information (display shows “DRIFT” icon, bright circle around icon added in production of video and is not displayed on the display, see video at 1:29, also herein appended transcript at lines 98 and 104) when a controller is in a first state (drift mode, i.a. line 96)(n.b. the drift state of Automotive Guru is a power-over drift rather than the “handbrake” drift as in Pettersson and Applicant’s invention; for the purposes of teaching the indication of activation of a drift mode the teaching of Automotive Guru is still considered relevant).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure an instrument panel display to display a drift icon as taught by AUTOMOTIVE GURU in the apparatus of PETTERSSON to unambiguously identify that the controller is in the drift mode. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in outputting the first optical information in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
991
1760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A Annotations of AUTOMOTIVE GURU video at 1:29.
Regarding claim 15, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 14.
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BARBER further teaches fully coupling an electronic limited-slip differential (eLSD 72) when an operating element (48) is activated such that rear wheels may apply braking forces to the road surface substantially synchronously and evenly (0039 lines 3-9), wherein an output element (visual indicator on the vehicle instrument cluster, 0039 lines 13-14) is configured to output second optical information when the first operating element is operated in the first state (the controller may inform the driver via a visual indicator when eLSD has been disabled [0039 lines 14-15] when the switch 48 is activated, such that the rear wheels apply braking forces to the road [0039 lines 6-8]), wherein the second optical information is different from the first optical information (i.e., the second optical information indicates the eLSD is disabled while the operating element 48 is operated while the first optical information indicates the first state is activated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of PETTERSSON to fully activate an eLSD when the operating element is activated and inform the driver via a visual indicator as taught by BARBER such that rear wheels may apply braking forces to the road surface substantially synchronously and evenly and to inform the driver that eLSD is disabled.
PETTERSSON as modified teaches wherein the output element is configured to output second optical information when the first operating element is operated in the first state, wherein the second optical information is different from the first optical information.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and LIU (CN 109291898).
Regarding claim 10, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
PETTERSSON discloses the first state (drift mode, col. 6 lines 10-11 and 59-61) and the second state (implied non-drift mode, i.a. col. 2 lines 61-64).
PETTERSSON further discloses the apparatus further comprising a brake pedal (46).
PETTERSSON does not explicitly disclose braking via the brake pedal is configured in the first state as claimed.
LIU teaches a first state (second operating mode, 0010 lines 3-4 and 6-8; parking brake operating mode, i.e., a drift mode, 0033 lines 2-3) and a second state (first operating mode, 0010 line 3; normal operating mode, 0033 lines 2-3), wherein a controller (6) is configured to enable braking via the brake pedal in both the first state (0011 lines 1-5) and the second state (conventional braking function is provided in the first operating mode, 0012 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of PETTERSSON to enable braking by the brake pedal in both the first and second states as taught by LIU so that in the first state the vehicle may still be safely decelerated by the driver without risk of locking up the rear wheels if undesired or in an emergency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and JB TOOLS (NPL, “What are Brake Boosters And How Do They Work?”).
Regarding claim 12, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 11.
BARBER is relied upon to teach details of the brake assembly.
BARBER further teaches the controller (56) is further configured to generate the brake pressure build-up for generating brake slippage on the rear wheel axle (0036 lines 25-28) at least temporarily via both the brake booster (brake booster 52 supplies the brake fluid to ABS module, 0036 lines 10-12) and the hydraulic pump (provides pressurized fluid, 0036 lines 5-8).
BARBER is silent regarding how the controller 56 controls the brake booster 52.
JB TOOLS teaches electro-hydraulic brake boosters offers more precise control of braking power and can be integrated into advanced braking system like anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control (p. 2 at 4.).
Absent specific disclosure in BARBER as to how the controller controls the brake booster, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake booster of BARBER as an electro-hydraulic brake booster as taught by JB TOOLS to provide a brake booster that offers more precise control of braking power and can be integrated into advanced braking system like anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control.
The limitation “wherein the brake pressure build-up is configured to be initially carried out via the brake booster” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I.
Applicant discloses the brake pressure is built-up initially by the brake booster due to the fast response time innate in electrical brake boosters (…and as a result, 0045 line 1 - 0046 line 2; n.b. Applicant’s brake booster is an electro-hydraulic brake booster in that it outputs hydraulic pressure). In the instant case, as the prior art shares the same structure as Applicant’s disclosed invention it is also considered operable to perform the same function.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (US 11,833,909) in view of BARBER (US 2018/0170331) and ARÁNYI (US 12,668,302).
Regarding claim 17, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
PETTERSSON discloses the sensor (angular rotation sensor 404, col. 5 line 54).
PETTERSSON is not relied upon to teach the further limitation of the claim.
ARÁNYI teaches a rotational angle sensor (col. 4 line 24) is configured to send data according to a SENT protocol (col. 4 lines 24-26) to provide a simple way of transmitting sensor data between sensors and control devices with high precision (col. 4 lines 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor of PETTERSSON to send data according to the SENT protocol as taught by ARÁNYI to provide a simple way of transmitting sensor data between sensors and control devices with high precision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
