In the patent application process, particularly for complex inventions, effectively responding to examination opinions is a critical skill for applicants and agents. This article uses the case study of the invention patent "Method and System for Evaluating Vehicle Re-acceleration Performance" to share strategies and techniques for addressing three rounds of examination opinions, offering insights for patent applicants.
Case Background
The patent "Method and System for Evaluating Vehicle Re-acceleration Performance" relates to automotive performance evaluation. The invention objectively quantifies a vehicle's partial-load re-acceleration dynamics by acquiring accelerator pedal stroke increments, controlling uniform vehicle speed, and collecting acceleration data. This method aligns with real-world driving conditions and enables accurate comparisons of dynamic performance across vehicles or under varying operating conditions.
First Examination Opinion & Response Strategy
Examination Opinion: Claims 1–10 were deemed non-inventive. Prior art documents (D1: driving feel evaluation based on pedal position/speed ranges; D2: acceleration gain as a metric) allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
Response Strategy:
1. Highlight Technical Differences: Emphasized the unique control variable accelerator pedal stroke increment (vs. D1's "throttle opening"), ensuring objective and comparable evaluations.
2. Stress Technical Effects: Demonstrated the method's ability to standardize evaluations across vehicles and operating conditions, resolving inconsistencies in existing approaches.
3. Challenge "Common Knowledge" Assertions: Cited patent examination guidelines to request evidence for the examiner's claim that the solution was common knowledge.
Second Examination Opinion & Response Strategy
Examination Opinion: Claims 1–10 remained non-inventive. The examiner argued that combining D1 and D2 disclosed the core features, and visualizing speed-acceleration relationships was routine.
Response Strategy:
1. Analyze Prior Art Limitations: Clarified that neither D1 nor D2 disclosed accelerator pedal stroke increments as a control variable, a key innovation enabling accurate comparisons.
2. Emphasize Holistic Technical Scheme: Argued that the invention's synergistic steps (variable control, data collection, visualization) formed an indivisible technical solution not obvious from prior art.
3. Amend Claims: Integrated critical features into independent claims to strengthen inventiveness.
Third Examination Opinion & Response Strategy
Examination Opinion: Claims 1–8 were still deemed non-inventive, dismissed as a trivial combination of existing techniques.
Final Response Strategy:
1. Clarify Fundamental Differences: D1 used fixed throttle openings, leading to incomparable results across vehicles, while D2 lacked application to re-acceleration testing. The invention’s accelerator pedal stroke increment eliminated vehicle-specific calibration biases.
2. Reinforce Holistic Innovation: Detailed how coordinated steps (variable selection, gain calculation, visualization) achieved objective quantification, a breakthrough untaught in prior art.
3. Submit Supporting Evidence: Provided experimental data showing superior accuracy and consistency in cross-vehicle comparisons.
4. Final Claim Amendments: Specified control variables, refined calculation methods, and strengthened technical effect descriptions.
Key Takeaways
Prior Art Analysis: Deeply dissect differences to underscore novelty.
Technical Impact: Clearly articulate how the invention solves existing problems.
Claim Refinement: Strategically amend claims to enhance stability without overstepping original disclosures.
Evidence-Based Advocacy: Use technical literature or experimental data to validate effectiveness.
The successful authorization of this patent underscores the importance of rigorous analysis, persuasive argumentation, and adaptive claim drafting. This case serves as a valuable reference for navigating complex patent prosecution processes.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号