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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 6, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (CN 109720213 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a vehicle acceleration control method, comprising:
obtaining a change rate of an accelerator pedal opening degree of an accelerator pedal and a remaining energy value of a vehicle in a racetrack mode ([0044] and [0047], in a rapid acceleration mode, collecting accelerator pedal opening information and vehicle state information, wherein the vehicle state coefficients include a vehicle speed influence coefficient and a battery system SOC influence coefficient);
determining a target torque compensation value based on the change rate of the accelerator pedal opening degree and the remaining energy value of the vehicle ([0013], obtaining the vehicle accelerator pedal opening change rate influence coefficient and the vehicle state coefficient that effects the vehicle’s compensation torque, thereby obtaining the vehicle’s compensation torque); and
controlling the vehicle to accelerate based on a sum of the target torque compensation value and a maximum output torque value ([0073], adding the vehicle’s compensation torque to the vehicle’s reference torque to obtain the vehicle’s output torque and obtaining the vehicle’s reference torque by collecting the vehicle’s accelerator pedal opening information; [0067], when the pedal opening is at its maximum, it is obvious that the output torque is the maximum torque).
Regarding claim 6, Chu discloses the vehicle acceleration control method according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the remaining energy value comprises a remaining capacity value of a power battery in the vehicle or a remaining fuel value of the vehicle ([0024]).
Regarding claim 12, the elements contained in claim 12 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a vehicle rather than a method and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claim 17, the elements contained in claim 17 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 6, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a vehicle rather than a method and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claim 20, the elements contained in claim 20 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium rather than a method and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Liang (CN 113135097 A).
Regarding claim 2, Chu discloses the vehicle acceleration control method according to claim 1, as stated above, except for “the method further comprises: obtaining a current accelerator pedal value; and determining whether the current accelerator pedal value meets an instant acceleration condition or the vehicle is not in a steering state, wherein the instant acceleration condition comprises that the current accelerator pedal value is greater than an opening degree threshold and a duration of the current accelerator pedal value is greater than a duration threshold”.
Liang teaches such claimed subject matter. Liang teaches that “a rapid acceleration control method, wherein the accelerator pedal change rate continuously meets a calibrated accelerator pedal change rate within a first preset duration, and when the current accelerator pedal opening is greater than a first threshold, a second rapid acceleration intention recognition result is obtained, indicating that the driver’s intention is a rapid acceleration intention” ([0009], [0014], [0099] – [0100], and [0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle acceleration control method of Chu to include first and second rapid acceleration intention recognition results based on an accelerator pedal change rate, as taught by Liang, to recognize the driver’s intention to accelerate rapidly. Such a modification would result in sufficient motor response torque for an electric vehicle to satisfy the driver’s demand for rapid acceleration.
Regarding claim 13, the elements contained in claim 13 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 2, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a vehicle rather than a method and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-11, 14-16, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 3-5, 7-11, 14-16, and 18-19 recite, inter alia, “wherein the determining whether the vehicle is not in the steering state comprises: obtaining a steering wheel rotation angle value of the vehicle, and in response to that the steering wheel rotation angle value is less than or equal to a rotation angle threshold, determining that the vehicle is not in the steering state; wherein the rotation angle threshold is about 5º; and wherein the current accelerator pedal value indicates a depth by which a driver steps on the accelerator pedal at a current moment”.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights