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
The preliminary amendments filed 02/14/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-17 have been amended; claims 18-20 have been added; no claims have been canceled or withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are now pending and under consideration.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the method comprises” in lines 4-5, which appears to be a misstating of --wherein the method further comprises--.
Claim 2 recites “the method” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation method-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation method” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the traveling environment information further comprises” in line 2, which appears to be a misstating of --wherein the traveling environment information
Claim 3 recites “the method” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation method-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation method” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a second mode” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the second mode-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a second mode” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the traveling parameter information further comprises” in line 2, which appears to be a misstating of --wherein the traveling parameter information
Claim 5 recites “the method” in line 3, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation method-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation method” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration” in lines 6-7, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration” in lines 2-3 of the claim.
Claim 5 recites “a second mode” in lines 7-8, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the second mode-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a second mode” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the method” in line 3, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation method-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation method” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a second mode” in line 6, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the second mode-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a second mode” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “a second mode” in line 2, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the second mode-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a second mode” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “accelerator pedal input” in line 8, which should be amended to instead recite --the accelerator pedal input -- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an accelerator pedal input” in line 8 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “a second mode” in line 2, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the second mode-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a second mode” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “accelerator pedal input” in line 7, which should be amended to instead recite --the accelerator pedal input -- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an accelerator pedal input” in line 8 of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the apparatus” in line 5, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the apparatus” in line 3, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “the apparatus” in lines 3-4, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the traveling environment information further comprises” in line 2, which appears to be a misstating of --wherein the traveling environment information
Claim 12 recites “the apparatus” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 13 recites “preset duration” in line 3, which appears to be a misstating of --a preset duration--.
Claim 13 recites “the apparatus” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 15 recites “the apparatus” in lines 2-3, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 15 recites “accelerator pedal input” in line 7, which should be amended to instead recite --the accelerator pedal input -- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an accelerator pedal input” in line 8 of claim 9.
Claim 16 recites “the apparatus” in lines 2-3, which should be amended to instead recite --the acceleration compensation apparatus-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An acceleration compensation apparatus” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 16 recites “accelerator pedal input” in line 6, which should be amended to instead recite --the accelerator pedal input -- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an accelerator pedal input” in line 8 of claim 9.
Claim 18 recites “The computer program product” in line 1, which should be amended to instead recite --The computer-program product-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “A computer-program product” in line 1 of claim 17.
Claim 19 recites “The computer program product” in line 1, which should be amended to instead recite --The computer-program product-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “A computer-program product” in line 1 of claim 17.
Claim 20 recites “The computer program product” in line 1, which should be amended to instead recite --The computer-program product-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “A computer-program product” in line 1 of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “wherein the traveling environment information comprises a road slope, and wherein the method comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold” in lines 2-6. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in lines 5-7. Specifically, it is unclear whether “further switching from the first mode to the second mode when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold” in claim 2 is intended to require a second (additional) act of “switching from the first mode to the second mode” occurring at a time before or after a first act of “switching from the first mode to a second mode” via “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in claim 1, or whether “further switching from the first mode to the second mode when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold” in claim 2 is instead differently intended to further define “when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in claim 1.
Claim 4, as amended, now recites “wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” (emphasis added) in lines 3-5. Claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” (emphasis added) in lines 5-7. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “preset condition” introduced in line 5 of claim 4 is intended to be the same as or different from the “preset condition” previously introduced in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, as amended, now also alternatively recites each of “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 6-8, “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 9-11, 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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 12-14. Specifically, the term “similar” as used in “similar traveling environment” in each of line 8, line 11, and line 14 of claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither the term “similar” nor the term “similar traveling environment” is defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between a first traveling environment and a second traveling environment would define the first traveling environment and the second traveling environment as a “similar traveling environment,” and it is unclear how said persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between the first traveling environment and a third traveling environment would differentiate the first traveling environment and the third traveling environment from being defined as the “similar traveling environment.” Also, it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in line 14 of claim 4 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 8 of claim 4 and/or in line 11 of claim 4, and it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in line 11 of claim 4 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 8 of claim 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, now recites “wherein the traveling parameter information further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and the method further comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” in lines 2-8. Claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in lines 5-7. Specifically, it is unclear whether “further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” in claim 5 is intended to require a second (additional) act of “switching from the first mode to the second mode” occurring at a time before or after a first act of “switching from the first mode to a second mode” via “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in claim 1, or whether “further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” in claim 5 is instead differently intended to further define “when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” in claim 1.
Claim 7, as amended, now recites “wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition comprises:” (emphasis added) in lines 2-4. Claim 7 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” (emphasis added) in lines 5-7. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “preset condition” introduced in lines 3-4 of claim 7 is intended to be the same as or different from the “preset condition” previously introduced in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, as amended, now recites “wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition comprises:” (emphasis added) in lines 2-4. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “switching from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” (emphasis added) in lines 5-7. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “preset condition” introduced in lines 3-4 of claim 8 is intended to be the same as or different from the “preset condition” previously introduced in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, as amended, now also alternatively recites each of “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 5-7, “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 8-10, and “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 11-13. Specifically, the term “similar” as used in “similar traveling environment” in each of line 7, line 10, and line 13 of claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither the term “similar” nor the term “similar traveling environment” is defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between a first traveling environment and a second traveling environment would define the first traveling environment and the second traveling environment as a “similar traveling environment,” and it is unclear how said persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between the first traveling environment and a third traveling environment would differentiate the first traveling environment and the third traveling environment from being defined as the “similar traveling environment.” Also, it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in line 13 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 7 of claim 12 and/or in line 10 of claim 12, and it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in line 10 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 7 of claim 12. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 20, as amended, now also alternatively recites each of “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 4-5, “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 6-7, and “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 same or similar traveling environment” in lines 8-10. Specifically, the term “similar” as used in “similar traveling environment” in each of line 5, line 7, and lines 9-10 of claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither the term “similar” nor the term “similar traveling environment” is defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between a first traveling environment and a second traveling environment would define the first traveling environment and the second traveling environment as a “similar traveling environment,” and it is unclear how said persons having ordinary skill in the art would be able to consistently and accurately understand which difference(s) between the first traveling environment and a third traveling environment would differentiate the first traveling environment and the third traveling environment from being defined as the “similar traveling environment.” Also, it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in lines 9-10 of claim 20 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 5 of claim 20 and/or in line 7 of claim 20, and it is unclear whether the “same or similar traveling environment” introduced in line 7 of claim 20 is intended to be the same as or different from the “same or similar traveling environment” previously introduced in line 5 of claim 20. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 17 recites “A computer-program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory medium and 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 when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets a preset condition, wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an acceleration capability in the first mode, and wherein a power-saving mode comprises the first mode and the second mode.” A claim to nothing more than a computer program (e.g., software) is a claim that is directed to a product that does not have a physical or tangible form, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim to a “computer-program product” includes a non-statutory embodiment (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.03_I). Note that the recitation “that are stored on a non-transitory medium” defines the manner in which the claimed “instructions” are intended to employed rather than necessarily further defining at least on structural limitation of the claimed “computer-program product.” Because claim 17 is directed to nothing more than a computer program (i.e., “instructions”) under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 17 is not directed to any of the statutory categories. Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and are also directed to the “computer-program product.”
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 when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition [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; 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” 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” 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 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, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 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”); additionally or alternatively, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3 & 11 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034-0044, 0047-0048, 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”)], wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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” 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” 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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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., “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 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, and wherein the method comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when the road slope is greater than or equal to a first threshold (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 further comprises road type information, the method further comprises further 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 (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 an accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar traveling environment [because an average speed, an acceleration, and an 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 an 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar traveling environment are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; because performing of “switching from the first mode to a second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon a non-required alternative condition “the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” (emphasis added) included by “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” (emphasis added) of claim 1 which is not necessarily met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” and because “switching from the first mode to a second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when the non-required alternative condition “the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” (emphasis added) 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), no part(s) of “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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar traveling environment” necessarily further 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 further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and the method further comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a 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 further 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 a second mode” as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” is contingent upon a non-required alternative condition “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” included by “the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” (emphasis added) of claim 1 which is not necessarily met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” and because “switching from the first mode to a second mode” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “acceleration compensation method” at times including when the non-required alternative condition “the traveling parameter information meets a preset condition” and/or the condition “a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” is/are not met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” no part of “further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within the preset duration is greater than or equal to a second threshold” necessarily further limits 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 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 a second mode, that the acceleration capability in the second mode is less than an 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 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 a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “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”) 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 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 a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), 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 a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 accelerator pedal input, the second power is greater than the first power [because performing of “switching from the first mode to a 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 the traveling parameter information meet a preset condition” being met during performing the claimed “acceleration compensation method,” “switching from the first mode to a 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 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 a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 (e.g., “meets a preset condition”), 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 apparatus to switch from the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets a preset condition (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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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 apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode 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 further comprises road type information, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to switch, 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 (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 an 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 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 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 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 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 computer-program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory medium and 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 when the traveling environment information and/or the traveling parameter information meet/meets a preset condition, wherein in a case of a steady speed and/or an accelerator pedal input, an acceleration capability of the vehicle in the second mode is greater than an 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 computer program product 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 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 computer program product of claim 17, wherein the traveling environment information further comprises road type information, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to switch, 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 (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 an accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 an accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 or similar 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 or similar traveling environment”)].
Therefore, even if “wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or an accelerator pedal input, and wherein switching the first mode to a second mode when the traveling environment information and the traveling parameter information meet a 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and the method further comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a 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 further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and the method further comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a 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 further comprises a quantity of accelerator pedal inputs within a preset duration, and the method further comprises further switching from the first mode to the second mode when a 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 a 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 an accelerator pedal input, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode 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 computer program product of claim 17, wherein the traveling parameter information comprises one or more of an average speed, an acceleration, or an 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 same or similar 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 same or similar 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 same or similar traveling environment (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 4 and 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
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