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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 2-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant asserts on pages 12-16 of the remarks that it would be improper to maintain the current prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0221571 to Chen et al. in view of the amendments to the claims. Applicant first supports this assertion by stating on page 13 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II). Also, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I).
In claim 1: because when the traveling environment information meets a preset condition and when the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives. Also, in claim 1: because a torque, an output power, and a torque change of the power end are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives. In claim 1, the step “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” as “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when neither of the conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method” (e.g., when the traveling environment information does not meet the preset condition and/or when the traveling parameter information does not meet the preset condition), such that “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the examiner respectfully cannot agree that claim 1 requires “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode.” Applicant’s remarks filed 06/26/2026 ignore the interpretation of contingent limitations throughout claim 1 (and claims dependent therefrom), such that it can only be understood that Applicant agrees with the interpretation of “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” as a contingent limitation.
Next, Applicant asserts on page 13 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image2.png
254
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” of claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Chen does, in fact, fully teach “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. As noted in the prior art rejection of claim 1, Chen teaches that, for example, switching from an electrical-economical (EV-eco) mode (e.g., “first mode”) to a hybrid electrical-economical (HEV-eco) mode (e.g., “second mode”) occurs at times including when a current slope (e.g., “traveling environment information” OR “traveling parameter information”) of a hybrid electrical vehicle (e.g., “vehicle”) exceeds an upper threshold iup (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), where: an output torque at an apparent power end of an engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or an output power at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or an output power at an apparent power end of an electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or a combined output power at an apparent combined power end of the engine 3 and the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0050-0053, 0059-0062, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 of Chen).
Additionally or alternatively, as also noted in the prior art rejection of claim 1, Chen teaches that, for example, switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode occurs at times including when a current state of charge (SOC) (or a current electric quantity) (e.g., “traveling parameter information”) of a power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle is less than a lower threshold SOCdown (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), where: the output torque at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or the output power at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or, the output power at the apparent power end of the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or, a combined output power at the apparent combined power end of the engine 3 and the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0050-0053, 0059-0062, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 of Chen).
Applicant goes on to assert on page 16 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image3.png
430
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail above, Chen fully teaches that the output torque at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or the output power at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or, the output power at the apparent power end of the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; and/or, a combined output power at the apparent combined power end of the engine 3 and the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode.
Applicant’s remark that “[the] output power [of the electric motor 5] is never adjusted from a first value to a second value” is unsupported and baseless. The examiner also cannot agree that adjusting the engine from a zero torque output state to a non-zero torque output state, or from a zero power output state to a non-zero power output state, is excluded from the broad scope of “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
The examiner also cannot agree with Applicant’s assertion that “[any] changes that the electric motor undergoes are a consequence of the internal combustion engine starting, not the mechanism of the mode switch,” in view of the mode switch from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode causing the internal combustion engine starting.
The examiner also cannot agree with Applicant’s assertion that “[Chen’s EV-eco and HEV-eco modes] are not sub-modes within a single power-saving mode,” as, for example, each of the EV-eco mode and the HEV-eco mode is necessarily included by a definable “power-saving mode,” especially in comparison to at least one of a mode in which the hybrid electrical vehicle is solely driven by an internal combustion engine OR a hybrid electrical-sport (HEV-s) mode (as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169 of Chen). The examiner further notes that the claim recitation “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” neither necessarily introduces additional step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” nor necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” especially since “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not require further inclusion of the “first mode” or the “second mode” by a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” and especially because the “power-saving mode” in “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily correspond to any claim element(s) which carry out the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above).
Also, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “adjusting the output parameters of an already-operating power end”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the prior art rejection of the “acceleration compensation method” of claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order to address the amendments to the claim. As acknowledged by page 13 of Applicant’s remarks, independent claims 9 and 17, as amended, “contain similar limitations” with respect to claim 1. Thus, the prior art rejections of the “acceleration compensation apparatus” of claim 9 and the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” of claim 17 have also been maintained for at least the same reasons that the prior art rejection of claim 1 has been maintained, the prior art rejections have been updated in order to address the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be amended to recite --and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode comprises-- in line 3 for clarity.
Claim 4 recites “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” in lines 3-5, which should be amended to instead recite --wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition-- consistency and proper antecedent basis with “switching from the first mode to the second mode […] when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” in lines 4-7 of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the acceleration capability in the second mode” in lines 6-7, which should be amended to instead recite --the first acceleration capability in the second mode-- consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a first acceleration capability in the second mode” in lines 11-12 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” in lines 1-3, which should be amended to instead recite --wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition-- consistency and proper antecedent basis with “switching from the first mode to the second mode […] when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” in lines 4-7 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” in lines 1-3, which should be amended to instead recite --wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition-- consistency and proper antecedent basis with “switching from the first mode to the second mode […] when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” in lines 4-7 of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “the acceleration capability in the second mode” in lines 4-5, which should be amended to instead recite --the first acceleration capability in the second mode-- consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a first acceleration capability in the second mode” in lines 11-12 of claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0221571 to Chen et al. (hereinafter: “Chen”).
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches an acceleration compensation method comprising: obtaining traveling environment information and/or traveling parameter information of a vehicle running in a first mode [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 (especially at least ¶ 0036, 0043-0044 & 0072-0073), a current slope (e.g., “traveling environment information” OR “traveling parameter information”) of a hybrid electrical vehicle (e.g., “vehicle”) is obtained at times including when the hybrid electrical vehicle operates in an electrical-economical (EV-eco) mode (e.g., “first mode”); additionally or alternatively, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 (especially at least ¶ 0036, 0043-0044 & 0072-0073), a current state of charge (SOC) (or a current electric quantity) (e.g., “traveling parameter information”) of a power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle is obtained at times including when the hybrid electrical vehicle operates in the EV-eco mode; because obtaining traveling environment information and obtaining traveling parameter information are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives]; and switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition, wherein the at least one output parameter is one or more of a torque, an output power, and a torque change of the power end [because when the traveling environment information meets a preset condition and when the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; also, because a torque, an output power, and a torque change of the power end are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and because performing of “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when neither of the conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method” (e.g., when the traveling environment information does not meet the preset condition and/or when the traveling parameter information does not meet the preset condition), such that “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0050-0053, 0059-0062, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 (especially at least ¶ 0036, 0042-0044 & 0072-0074), switching from the EV-eco mode to a hybrid electrical-economical (HEV-eco) mode (e.g., “second mode”) occurs at times including when the current slope of the hybrid electrical vehicle exceeds an upper threshold iup (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), and an output torque at an apparent power end of an engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode (additionally or alternatively, an output power at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; additionally or alternatively, an output power at an apparent power end of an electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; additionally or alternatively, a combined output power at an apparent combined power end of the engine 3 and the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode); additionally or alternatively, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 0050-0053, 0059-0062, 0065-0077 & 0168-0169 (especially at least ¶ 0036, 0042-0044 & 0072-0074), switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode occurs at times including when the current SOC (or the current electric quantity) of the power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle is less than a lower threshold SOCdown (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), and the output torque at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode (additionally or alternatively, the output power at the apparent power end of the engine 3 is, at least at times, adjusted by virtue of the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; additionally or alternatively, the output power at the apparent power end of the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode; additionally or alternatively, the combined output power at the apparent combined power end of the engine 3 and the electric motor 5 is, at least at times, adjusted resulting from the switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode)], wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode [because in a case of a steady speed and in a case of an accelerator pedal input are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; “wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode” neither necessarily introduces additional step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” nor necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” because performing of “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when neither of the conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets a preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method” (e.g., when the traveling environment information does not meet the preset condition and/or when the traveling parameter information does not meet the preset condition), especially since neither of the conditions “a case of a steady speed” and “a case of … an accelerator pedal input” is necessarily met during performing of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, a first accelerating ability (e.g., “first acceleration capability”) of the hybrid electrical vehicle in a first acceleration condition, corresponding to a first throttle signal, in the HEV-eco mode exceeds a second accelerating ability (e.g., “second acceleration capability”) of the hybrid electrical vehicle in a second acceleration condition, corresponding to a second throttle signal, in the EV-eco mode], and wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode [“wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” neither necessarily introduces additional step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” nor necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” especially since “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not require further inclusion of the “first mode” or the “second mode” by a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” and especially because the “power-saving mode” in “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily correspond to any claim element(s) which carry out the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, each of the EV-eco mode and the HEV-eco mode is necessarily included by a definable “power-saving mode,” especially in comparison to at least one of a mode in which the hybrid electrical vehicle is solely driven by an internal combustion engine OR a hybrid electrical-sport (HEV-s) mode].
With respect to claim 2, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein the traveling environment information comprises a road slope (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0048), and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode comprises switching from the first mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold [because performing of “switching from the first mode to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition,” “the road slope is greater than a first threshold,” and “the road slope is equal to a first threshold” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when none of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition,” “the road slope is greater than a first threshold,” and “the road slope is equal to a first threshold” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode comprises switching from the first mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0048].
With respect to claim 3, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein the traveling environment information comprises road type information (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0048), switching from the first mode to the second mode comprises switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode when a road slope corresponding to the road type information is greater than or equal to a first threshold and when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition [because performing of “switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the road type information is greater than a first threshold,” “the road type information is equal to a first threshold,” “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” and “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when none of conditions “the road type information is greater than a first threshold,” “the road type information is equal to a first threshold,” “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” and “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “switching from the first mode to the second mode comprises switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode when a road slope corresponding to the road type information is greater than or equal to a first threshold and when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0048].
With respect to claim 4, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises: switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment [because an average speed, an acceleration, and the accelerator pedal input are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives—also, note that “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input” refers to the “traveling parameter information” which is recited in the alternative to the “traveling environment information” in claim 1; because switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment, switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment, and switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; because performing of “switching the first mode to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meet the preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when neither of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meet the preset condition” and “the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises: switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 5, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold [note that “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration” refers to the “traveling parameter information” which is recited in the alternative to the “traveling environment information” in claim 1; because performing of “switching from the first mode to the second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon at least one of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition,” “the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than a second threshold,” and “the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is equal to a second threshold” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to the second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when none of conditions “the traveling environment information […] meets the preset condition,” “the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition,” “the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than a second threshold,” and “the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is equal to a second threshold” is met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 6, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a state of charge of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), and wherein the acceleration compensation method further comprises: determining, based on the state of charge, a third mode in which the vehicle travels [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 4 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0048, 0065-0069, 0078-0085 & 0167-0169 (especially at least ¶ 0036, 0043-0044 & 0081-0085), an electrical-sport (EV-s) mode (e.g., “third mode”) is determined at times including when the current SOC of the power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle exceeds the lower threshold SOCdown], wherein the power-saving mode comprises the third mode [“wherein the power-saving mode comprises the third mode” neither necessarily introduces additional step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” nor necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” especially since “wherein the power-saving mode comprises the third mode” does not require further inclusion of the “third mode” by a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” and especially because the “power-saving mode” in “wherein the power-saving mode comprises the third mode” does not necessarily correspond to any claim element(s) which carry out the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” such that “wherein the power-saving mode comprises the third mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0048, 0056, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, the EV-s mode is necessarily included by the definable “power-saving mode,” especially in comparison to at least the mode in which the hybrid electrical vehicle is solely driven by the internal combustion engine]; and determining, before switching from the first mode to the second mode, that the acceleration capability in the second mode is less than a third acceleration capability in the third mode (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 4 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0048, 0056, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, a third accelerating ability (e.g., “third acceleration capability”) of the hybrid electrical vehicle in a third acceleration condition, corresponding to a third throttle signal, in the EV-s mode is predetermined and exceeds the second accelerating ability of the hybrid electrical vehicle in the second acceleration condition, corresponding to the second throttle signal, in the EV-eco mode, including when the hybrid electrical vehicle operates in the EV-s mode at a first time which precedes a second time when the hybrid electrical vehicle switches from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode).
With respect to claim 7, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises adjusting a first torque of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second torque of the vehicle traveling in the second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition, and wherein in the case of steady speed and/or accelerator pedal input, the second torque is greater than the first torque [because performing of “switching from the first mode to a second mode” (and therefore “adjusting a first torque of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second torque of the vehicle traveling in the second mode”) as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon the condition “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to the second mode” (and therefore “adjusting a first torque of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second torque of the vehicle traveling in the second mode”) would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when the condition “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” is not met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method” (e.g., when the traveling environment information does not meet the preset condition and/or when the traveling parameter information does not meet the preset condition), such that “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises adjusting a first torque of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second torque of the vehicle traveling in the second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, for example, for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode occurs at times including when the current slope of the hybrid electrical vehicle exceeds the upper threshold iup and the current SOC (or the current electric quantity) of the power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle is less than the lower threshold SOCdown, and, as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, an internal combustion engine torque is, at least at times, greater in the HEV-eco as compared to in the EV-eco mode].
With respect to claim 8, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation method of claim 1, wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises adjusting a first power of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second power of the vehicle traveling in the second mode, and wherein in the case of the steady speed and/or the accelerator pedal input, the second power is greater than the first power [because performing of “switching from the first mode to the second mode” (and therefore “adjusting a first power of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second power of the vehicle traveling in the second mode”) as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon the condition “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to he second mode” (and therefore “adjusting a first power of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second power of the vehicle traveling in the second mode”) would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when the condition “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” is not met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method” (e.g., when the traveling environment information does not meet the preset condition and/or when the traveling parameter information does not meet the preset condition), such that “wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises adjusting a first power of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second power of the vehicle traveling in the second mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, for example, for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, switching from the EV-eco mode to the HEV-eco mode occurs at times including when the current slope of the hybrid electrical vehicle exceeds the upper threshold iup and the current SOC (or the current electric quantity) of the power battery of the hybrid electrical vehicle is less than the lower threshold SOCdown, and, as discussed by at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0046, 0058, 0061, 0076-0077, 0084-0085 & 0167-0169, an internal combustion engine power is, at least at times, greater in the HEV-eco as compared to in the EV-eco mode].
With respect to claim 9, Chen teaches an acceleration compensation apparatus (apparent from at least Fig. 1), comprising: a communication interface (e.g., via 40) configured to obtain traveling environment information and traveling parameter information of a vehicle running in a first mode (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0036, 0041 & 0050); and at least one processor (e.g., via 40) configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to switch from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle form a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets a preset condition, wherein the at least one output parameter is one or more of a torque, an output power, and a torque rate of change of the power end (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0036 & 0041-0044), wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode [because in a case of a steady speed and in a case of an accelerator pedal input are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode” does not necessarily further define structure of the claimed “acceleration compensation apparatus” and instead only necessarily further defines the “vehicle” intended to be used together with the claimed “acceleration compensation apparatus,” such that “wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode” only necessarily further defines the manner in which the claimed “acceleration compensation apparatus” is intended to be employed, such that “wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “acceleration compensation device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1], and wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode [“wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” neither necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “acceleration compensation device” nor necessarily further defines previously introduced function of the claimed “acceleration compensation device,” especially because the “power-saving mode” in “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily correspond to any aspect of the claimed “acceleration compensation device” and instead appears to only necessarily further define the “vehicle” intended to be used together with the claimed “acceleration compensation apparatus,” such that “wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode” does not necessarily limit the claimed “acceleration compensation device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1].
With respect to claim 10, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the traveling environment information comprises a road slope, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode by switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 9).
With respect to claim 11, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the traveling environment information comprises road type information, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode by switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode when a road slope corresponding to the road type information is greater than or equal to a first threshold and when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 3 and 9).
With respect to claim 14, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine, based on a state of charge, a third mode in which the vehicle travels, wherein the power-saving mode of the vehicle comprises the third mode, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the acceleration capability in the second mode is less than a third acceleration capability in the third mode (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 6 and 9).
With respect to claim 15, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to adjust a first torque of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second torque of the vehicle traveling in the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets the preset condition, wherein in the case of the steady speed and/or the accelerator pedal input, the second torque is greater than the first torque (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 7 and 9).
With respect to claim 16, Chen teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to adjust a first power of the vehicle traveling in the first mode to a second power of the vehicle traveling in the second mode, wherein in the case of the steady speed and/or the accelerator pedal input, the second power is greater than the first power (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 8 and 9).
With respect to claim 17, Chen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to: obtain traveling environment information and/or traveling parameter information of a vehicle running in a first mode; and switch from the first mode to a second mode by adjusting at least one output parameter of a power end of the vehicle from a first value corresponding to the first mode to a second value corresponding to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets a preset condition, wherein the at least one output parameter is one or more of a torque, an output power, and a torque change rate of the power end, wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, a first acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than a second acceleration capability in the first mode, and wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 9).
With respect to claim 18, Chen teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the traveling environment information comprises a road slope, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode by switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 2 and 17).
With respect to claim 19, Chen teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the traveling environment information further comprises road type information, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode by switching, based on the road type information, from the first mode to the second mode when a road slope corresponding to the road type information is greater than or equal to a first threshold and when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 3 and 17).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0082965 to Jeon (hereinafter: “Jeon”), in the alternative to under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen.
With respect to claim 4, as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, Chen teaches each and every limitation of the acceleration compensation method of claim 4 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that at least part of “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises: switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment” is necessarily performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method under a broadest reasonable interpretation and/or in such a case where “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises: switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment” is differently interpreted as being performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method, it is also noted that Jeon teaches an analogous method including switching from a first mode to a second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a same traveling environment [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0007, 0033, 0037, 0043-0045, 0047, 0051-0053 & 0055-0056, a driving mode of a vehicle is switched from a non-sport mode (e.g., “first mode”) to a sport mode (e.g., “second mode”) based on a current short term driving tendency index (which corresponds to a one-time rapid acceleration) (e.g., “current acceleration”) exceeding an entrance condition SI_SPO_ON at times including when the current short term driving tendency index is greater than a long term driving tendency index calculated by cumulative averaging of the short term driving tendency index for a long term predetermined time (e.g., a historical average acceleration for a same traveling environment)].
Therefore, even if “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet the preset condition comprises: switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switching from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment” is differently interpreted as being performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the acceleration compensation method of Chen with the teachings of Jeon, if even necessary, to further include switching from the first mode to the second mode at times including when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment because Jeon further teaches that such operations beneficially provide customer satisfaction of driving performance of the vehicle by changing running of the vehicle according to a driving tendency of a driver (as discussed by at least ¶ 0003-0008 of Jeon).
With respect to claim 5, as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, Chen teaches each and every limitation of the acceleration compensation method of claim 5 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that at least part of “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” is necessarily performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method under a broadest reasonable interpretation and/or in such a case where “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” is differently interpreted as being performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method, it is also noted that Jeon teaches an analogous method including switching from a first mode to a second mode when a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0007, 0033, 0036, 0043-0045, 0047, 0051-0053 & 0055-0056, a driving mode of a vehicle is switched from a non-sport mode (e.g., “first mode”) to a sport mode (e.g., “second mode”) based on a current short term driving tendency index (which corresponds to at least one accelerator pedal input for a one-time rapid acceleration) exceeding an entrance condition SI_SPO_ON at times including when a quantity of the at least one accelerator pedal input for a one-time rapid acceleration exceeds zero (e.g., “second threshold”) during a short term predetermined time].
Therefore, even if “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and wherein switching from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” is differently interpreted as being performed as part of the claimed acceleration compensation method, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the acceleration compensation method of Chen with the teachings of Jeon, if even necessary, to further include switching from the first mode to the second mode at times including when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold because Jeon further teaches that such operations beneficially provide customer satisfaction of driving performance of the vehicle by changing running of the vehicle according to a driving tendency of a driver (as discussed by at least ¶ 0003-0008 of Jeon).
With respect to claim 12, Chen modified supra teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, and the accelerator pedal input, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to: switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 9).
With respect to claim 13, Chen modified supra teaches the acceleration compensation apparatus of claim 9, wherein the traveling parameter information further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within preset duration, and the at least one processor is further configured to cause the acceleration compensation apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode further comprises switching from the first mode to the second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets the preset condition and when the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 9).
With respect to claim 20, Chen modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or the accelerator pedal input, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current average speed is greater than or equal to a historical average speed for a first same traveling environment; switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current acceleration is greater than or equal to a historical average acceleration for a second same traveling environment; and/or switch from the first mode to the second mode when a current average accelerator pedal input is greater than or equal to a historical average accelerator pedal input for a third same traveling environment (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 4 and 17).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights