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 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 06/09/2026.
• The amendments have overcome U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
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 § 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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20230048181A) in view of Blasinski (US20170232952A1), further in view of Cha (US20190390970A1).
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”)
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”)
and 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”)
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).
Kim does not explicitly teach, but Cha teaches:
and wherein the first section and the second section each corresponds to a zone in which exhaust gas emission is restricted based on an environmental regulation or policy. (Cha, para[38], “a specific area 30 (e.g., a green zone; an exhaust gas restricted area) in which it is desired to reduce or prevent the discharge of exhaust gases may be present between a point of departure 10 and a destination 20 (namely, a driving route). This specific area 30 (e.g., exhaust gas restricted area) may be a preset area, or may be variably set according to a current/recent situation. Here, for example, the preset area may be an area that is set by regulations, government policies, or the like (e.g. an exhaust gas management area in Seoul, London, or the like)”)
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 Cha in order to include wherein the first section and the second section each corresponds to a zone in which exhaust gas emission is restricted based on an environmental regulation or policy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make eco-driving more personalized and easier to understand.
Regarding claims 2, and 12:
Kim in view of Blasinski, Cha, 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, Cha, 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 5, and 15:
Kim in view of Blasinski, Cha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Kim does not explicitly teach, but Cha teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link, the detailed link being a unit segment obtained by dividing a driving path according to a preset reference including a preset distance unit, and the start point of the detailed link being a point of the detailed link closest to a current position of the vehicle. (Cha, Fig. 6 depict wherein a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link, the detailed link being a unit segment obtained by dividing a driving path according to a preset reference including a preset distance unit and para[67], “In FIG. 6, there are three different routes A, B and C between the current location and a green zone. Specifically, the route A is assumed to have a length of 1 km”)Examiner note: Cha teaches a range of the first section (section A, B, C as depicted in Fig. 6) is set based on a start point (point 610) of a detailed link, the detailed link being a unit segment (the route A is assumed to have a length of 1 km) obtained by dividing a driving path according to a preset reference including a preset distance unit (1km), and the start point (point 610) of the detailed link being a point of the detailed link closest to a current position of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
294
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Cha in order to include wherein a range of the first section is set based on a start point of a detailed link, the detailed link being a unit segment obtained by dividing a driving path according to a preset reference including a preset distance unit, and the start point of the detailed link being a point of the detailed link closest to a current position of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make eco-driving more personalized and easier to understand.
Regarding claims 6, and 16:
Kim in view of Blasinski, Cha, 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, Cha, 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, Cha, 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, Cha, 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, Cha, 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)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. The amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections because the amended claim limitation of “controlling a driving source of the vehicle to drive in the first mode in the section determined as existing” is not an abstract idea of mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 8, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights