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
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/954,800 filed on 11/21/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/954,800 filed on 11/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5-6, 15-16 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 5-6, 15-16 are rejected because the claim limitations reciting “a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link dividing a driving path based on a preset reference”, but neither the claims nor the specification clearly identify what the “detailed links” and “preset reference” are, and how it is used to divide the road and how the range of the first section is set based on the detailed links, such that the metes and bounds of claims 5-6, 15-16 are unclear. Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any teaching regarding a driving path disclosed by the references.
Claim Rejections - 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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 11 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 11 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites when existence of at least one of a first section and a second section where exhaust gas emissions are limited is determined based on the received information, determining whether driving is possible in a first mode of driving using only an electric motor in the section determined as existing. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected information about a current driving road and performing a simple judgement to determine whether driving in EV only mode is possible. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. claim 1 recites additional elements of receiving, by an information collector, information about a current driving road; and outputting information about the section determined as existing when driving is possible in the first mode. The acquiring steps from the one or more of the mobilities and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “information collector” merely describes how to generally collect data of road conditions and is recited at a high level of generality. The outputting information step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outing results from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 14 are eligible because controlling a driving source of the vehicle to drive in the first mode in the section determined as existing is directed to more than the abstract idea itself.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20230048181A) in view of Blasinski (US20170232952A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 11:
Kim teaches:
A method of controlling driving of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, by an information collector, information about a current driving road; (Kim, para[01], “a vehicle and a driving mode control method”, para[25], “an AVN (402, Audio/Video/Navigation) system”, para[29], “the AVN system (402) obtains route information”)
determining whether driving is possible in a first mode of driving using only an electric motor in the section determined as existing; (Kim, Fig.8 and para[29], “generating a recommended EV mode section…determining a final EV mode section by having the driver approve or modify the recommended EV mode section through the AVN system”)
and outputting information about the section determined as existing when driving is possible in the first mode; (Kim, Fig.8 and para[29], “determining a final EV mode section by having the driver approve or modify the recommended EV mode section through the AVN system”)
wherein the first section is set by a driver (Kim, Fig.8 and para[29], “determining a final EV mode section by having the driver approve or modify the recommended EV mode section through the AVN system”)
Kim does not explicitly teach, but Blasinski teaches:
when existence of at least one of a first section and a second section where exhaust gas emissions are limited is determined based on the received information, (Blasinski, para[03], “determine the most efficient route, in particular with regard to… its pollutant emissions”, para[15], “an efficiency route is discovered in which a drive time of 33 minutes is required for a route of 38 km, but driving exclusively with the electric motor, consequently a maximum electric driving experience on the part of the driver, is enabled over the entire route and 100% of the route is driven without emissions.”)
and the second section is set in advance based on information set in advance in an external server or a memory of the vehicle. (Blasinski, abstract, “an efficiency route enabling a maximum utilization of the electric motor is determined by the navigation system”, and para [01], “a navigation system of a hybrid motor vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a Hybrid Electric Vehicle and control device from Kim to include these above teachings from Blasinski in order to include when existence of at least one of a first section and a second section where exhaust gas emissions are limited is determined based on the received information and the second section is set in advance based on information set in advance in an external server or a memory of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the carbon dioxide emissions or also the emission of other pollutants in driving operation may also be decreased” (Blasinski, Description).
Regarding claims 2, and 12:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein when driving is possible in the first mode, applying different visual effects to the first section and the second section in the outputting of information. (Kim, Fig.8 depicts different applying different visual effects to the first section and the second section in the outputting of information when vehicle is in EV mode.)
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3, and 13:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein when driving is not possible in the first mode, (Kim, para[05], “when the remaining battery level reaches the HEV mode transition SOC, the vehicle is controlled by switching the driving mode to HEV mode”)
applying same visual effects corresponding to the driving not being in the first mode to both of the first section and the second section in the outputting of information. (Kim, Fig.8 depicts both the first section (7 KM) and the second section (12 KM) have same visual effects.)
Regarding claims 4, and 14:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 13. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising controlling a driving source of the vehicle to drive in the first mode in the section determined as existing. (Kim, para[15], “the controller performs mode switching control while driving a route according to the route information based on the final EV mode section”)
Regarding claims 5, and 15:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim does not explicitly teach, but Blasinski teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link dividing a driving path based on a preset reference. (Blasinski, para[23], “an adaptation request information including at least one starting point for increasing the portion drivable solely with the electric motor is determined as efficiency information via a route analysis depending on the predictive operating strategy, and is provided to the navigation system”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a Hybrid Electric Vehicle and control device from Kim to include these above teachings from Blasinski in order to include wherein a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link dividing a driving path based on a preset reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the carbon dioxide emissions or also the emission of other pollutants in driving operation may also be decreased” (Blasinski, Description).
Regarding claims 6, and 16:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 15. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein a start point and an end point of the first section are set based on distances from the start point of the detailed link. (Kim, Fig.8 depicts a start point and an end point of the first section are set based on distances from the start point of the detailed link)
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7, and 17:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein whether driving is possible in the first mode in the first section is determined based on powertrain information. (Kim, para[05], “the PHEV vehicle maintains EV mode until the HEV mode entry SOC (HEV mode transition SOC)), and when the remaining battery level reaches the HEV mode transition SOC, the vehicle is controlled by switching the driving mode to HEV mode, thereby adopting an energy management strategy to maintain the SOC of the battery at a certain level”)
Regarding claims 8, and 18:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 7 and 17. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the powertrain information comprises at least one of a state of charge of a battery, requested power of the vehicle, or available output power of a motor, or one or more of combinations thereof. (Kim, para[05], “the PHEV vehicle maintains EV mode until the HEV mode entry SOC (HEV mode transition SOC)), and when the remaining battery level reaches the HEV mode transition SOC, the vehicle is controlled by switching the driving mode to HEV mode, thereby adopting an energy management strategy to maintain the SOC of the battery at a certain level”)
Regarding claims 9, and 19:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving information for setting the first section; storing a start point of the first section when a setting request for the first section is received; storing an end point of the first section when a setting end request for the first section is received; and transmitting information about the first section to the external server or the memory.( Kim, para[35], “the navigation system receives information on whether the current driving area is a special area such as a school zone, a children's protection zone, or near a destination, and reflects this when controlling the vehicle in EV mode according to the settings made by the specific driver.”)
Regarding claims 10, and 20:
Kim in view of Blasinski, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 9 and 19. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the setting request for the first section and the setting end request for the first section are received through a physical button or a display screen installed adjacent to a driver seat. (Kim, Fig.8 depicts a start point and an end point of the first section are set based on a display screen)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uyeki (US8942919B2) teaches navigation systems for providing routing selections based on user-entered destination information.
Sugiyama (US20160304080A1) teaches a vehicle energy management device, and more particularly to a vehicle energy management device which performs a management of energy of a hybrid vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Shin (US10435008B2) teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle using a predetermined driving mode of a driving route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664