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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/29/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-4 are amended.
No Claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No Claims are cancelled.
Claim 5 is added.
Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claims 1-5 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks,” and “Amended Claims,” dated 05/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to claims 1-4, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Specification, the applicant’s response with amended specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Specification is withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response with amended title has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b, the applicant’s response with amended claims has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, ““ Nakashima et al. and Higuchi et al., even when considered together, do not disclose or render obvious the claim 1 combination “a driving mode selection switch that is configured to be operated by driver of the hybrid vehicle is operated by the driver,”” the Office respectfully disagrees. The combination of Nakashima et al. and Higuchi et al., disclose and teach these limitations. Prior art Nakashima et al. discloses switching the driving mode while in driving in “area driving support control,” as rejected in the non-final rejection lines 118 through 146. Prior art Higuchi et al., teaches the amended portion of claim 1, “switch to the hybrid driving mode operated by a driver of the hybrid vehicle,” see paragraph [0028], mode selection switch (mode SW) 15 is a switch for mode selection (switching) provided to allow a driver or an occupant to alternatively select from multiple running modes, and paragraph [0062], running-mode selection switch (the mode SW 15) through which normal mode or charge mode can be selected, (see also claim 4). Furthermore, the Applicant argues, “none of the applied references discloses prioritizing the intention of the vehicle driver to operate the vehicle in the hybrid driving mode.” There are no claims which state a “prioritizing” function or “the driving mode selection switch takes priority over the area driving support control,” (¶ [0009] of US 20260116369) Therefore, this argument is considered moot.
It remains the Offices stance that the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant' s arguments.
Therefore, it remains the Office’s stance that prior art of record discloses and/or teaches the claimed subject matter as presented in the grounds for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKASHIMA et al., US 20210253080, herein further known as Nakashima, in view of HIGUCHI et al., US 20210155218, herein further known as Higuchi.
Regarding claim 1, Nakashima discloses a hybrid vehicle (¶ [0017]) comprising: an engine configured to output power for driving (¶ [0018]); a motor configured to output power for driving (¶ [0019]): a power storage device configured to exchange electric power with the motor (¶¶ [0018-0020]); a controller (¶¶ [0021], [0033], see also FIG. 4) that is programmed (i) to control the engine and the motor by switching between a motor driving mode (¶ [0048]) in which the engine is stopped and the hybrid vehicle is driven by the power from the motor (¶¶ [0029-0031]), and a hybrid driving mode in which the hybrid vehicle is driven by the power from the engine (¶¶ [0017-0020], perform engine travelling in which the hybrid vehicle 100 uses the engine 112, drive shaft is rotated by power of the engine 112) and the power from the motor as necessary (¶¶ [0017-0020], non-engine travelling may be a travelling method in which the hybrid vehicle 100 travels by driving the motor 122), and (ii) to perform an area driving support control (¶¶ [0023-0027], [0029-0032], [0036-0055], [0059-0060] engine travelling restricted section, engine requiring section, see also FIG. 7, see also claim 1, wherein the section is the area) that switches to the motor driving mode and performs motor driving when driving in a motor driving area (¶¶ [0018-20], hybrid vehicle 100 travels by power of the motor 122, [0023-0027], [0029-0032], [0036-0055], [0059-0060] engine travelling restricted section) that has been set in advance as an area (¶¶ [0020], receive map data, [0023], [0037], [0040], [0079], map data may be associated with information indicating an engine travelling restricted section, see also claims 14-18) where the motor alone should supply the power for driving the hybrid vehicle (¶ [0020], hybrid vehicle 100 travels by driving the motor 122 with the electrical power of the battery 120 without operating the engine 112), wherein the controller (¶¶ [0021], [0033], see also FIG. 4) is programmed to stop the area driving support control (¶ [0029], hybrid vehicle needs to stop the engine) and to switch to the hybrid mode (¶¶ [0029], hybrid vehicle needs to stop the engine, [0041-0044], control unit 208, [0023-0027], [0029-0032], [0036-0055], [0059-0060], switching from engine required section to engine travelling restricted section).
However, Nakashima does not explicitly state selection switch that is configured to be operated by a driver of the hybrid vehicle is operated by the driver of the hybrid vehicle during execution of driving support control.
Higuchi teaches selection switch that is configured to be operated by a driver of the hybrid vehicle is operated by the driver of the hybrid vehicle during execution of driving support control (¶[0028], mode selection switch (mode SW) 15 is a switch for mode selection (switching) provided to allow a driver or an occupant to alternatively select from multiple running modes, and paragraph ¶ [0062], running-mode selection switch (the mode SW 15) through which normal mode or charge mode can be selected, (see also claim 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Nakashima the normal driving mode as taught by Higuchi.
One would be motivated to modify Nakashima in view of Higuchi for the reasons stated in Higuchi paragraph [0051], more robust method and system wherein running distance in silent mode (i.e. motor mode) selected subsequently can be improved regardless of timing to select charge mode, and it is possible to improve the drivable distance in silent mode.
Furthermore, Higuchi teaches, hybrid vehicle (¶ [0014]), see also FIG. 1), driving mode selection switch (¶¶ [0003], driver wants a vehicle running silently (a vehicle running in silent mode) by means of driving of a motor [0062], running-mode selection switch, SW 15, and claim 4, supplying a motor as a drive source with driving electric power from the battery, running-mode selection switch).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Nakashima the hybrid vehicle, and the driving mode selection switch as taught by Higuchi.
One would be motivated to modify Nakashima in view of Higuchi for the reasons stated in Higuchi paragraph [0051], more robust method and system wherein running distance in silent mode (i.e. motor mode) selected subsequently can be improved regardless of timing to select charge mode, and it is possible to improve the drivable distance in silent mode.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nakashima and Higuchi, in view of THOMPSON et al., US 20230070435, herein further known as Thompson.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nakashima and Higuchi disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Nakashima discloses hybrid vehicle (¶ [0017])
However, Nakashima does not explicitly state continue to stop the execution of the area driving support control until the hybrid vehicle is shut off when the execution of the area driving support control has been stopped and the hybrid vehicle is driven in the hybrid driving mode as a result of the driving mode selection switch being operated while the area driving support control is being executed.
Thompson teaches continue to stop the execution of the area driving support control until the hybrid vehicle is shut off when the execution of the area driving support control has been stopped and the hybrid vehicle is driven in the hybrid driving mode as a result of the driving mode selection switch being operated while the area driving support control is being executed (¶¶ [0002], internal combustion engine may be temporarily deactivated, only allow an electrically driven propulsion source, if the vehicle is driven into an enclosed area (i.e. area driving support control) [0027], start or stop the engine or vehicle (i.e. stop the execution) may be generated via a human and input to the human/machine interface, [0035], hybrid driving operation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Nakashima the continue to stop the execution of the area driving support control until the hybrid vehicle is shut off when the execution of the area driving support control has been stopped and the hybrid vehicle is driven in the hybrid driving mode as a result of the driving mode selection switch being operated while the area driving support control is being executed as taught by Thompson.
One would be motivated to modify Nakashima in view of Thompson for the reasons stated in Thompson paragraph [0003], more robust methods and systems which eliminate time consuming and costly updates or enhance features when features are configured to directly operate and control actuators to save time and money.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nakashima, Higuchi, and Thompson, in view of ANG, US 8285433, herein further known as Ang.
Nakashima discloses hybrid vehicle (¶ [0017])
However, Nakashima does not explicitly state hybrid vehicle includes an indicator that displays when the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving mode, and the controller is programmed to stop the execution of the area driving support control and hybrid driving mode when (a) the driving mode selection switch is operated while the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving area by the motor driving during the execution of the area driving support control and (b) the indicator displays that the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving mode.
Thompson teaches stop the execution of the area driving support control and hybrid driving mode when (a) the driving mode selection switch is operated while the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving area by the motor driving during the execution of the area driving support control (¶¶ [0002], internal combustion engine may be temporarily deactivated, only allow an electrically driven propulsion source, if the vehicle is driven into an enclosed area (i.e. area driving support control) [0027], start or stop the engine or vehicle may be generated via a human and input to the human/machine interface, [0035], hybrid driving operation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Nakashima the continue to stop the execution of the area driving support control until the hybrid vehicle is shut off when the execution of the area driving support control has been stopped and the hybrid vehicle is driven in the hybrid driving mode as a result of the driving mode selection switch being operated while the area driving support control is being executed as taught by Thompson.
One would be motivated to modify Nakashima in view of Thompson for the reasons stated in Thompson paragraph [0003], more robust methods and systems which eliminate time consuming and costly updates or enhance features when features are configured to directly operate and control actuators to save time and money.
Ang teaches an indicator that displays when the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving mode, and (b) the indicator displays that the hybrid vehicle is being driven in the motor driving mode (column 7, lines 40-45, column 7, line 65 through column 8, line 30, see also FIGS. 4-7).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Nakashima the an indicator that displays when the vehicle is driven in the motor driving mode, and the indicator displays that the vehicle is driven in the motor driving mode as taught by Ang.
One would be motivated to modify Nakashima in view of Ang for the reasons stated in Ang paragraph [0002], more robust method and system to improve awareness of fuel-efficient driving using the indicators of the display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights