CTNF 18/195,669 CTNF 90494 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statements The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 5/10/2023 has been acknowledged. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 12/8/2022. Status of Application Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 3 has been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 4-5 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims. Claims 1, 18, and 20 are the independent claims. This Non-Final Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 3/23/2026. Response to Arguments/Remarks With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3/23/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented. Office Note: Claim 2 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot. With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant remarks “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 18 were amended to clarify that the boarding state is determined after the vehicle enters the mode, and to define the specific criteria for determining each state. The amendments specify that the controller determines that boarding is started or leaving is started based on the vehicle being stopped and a door of the vehicle being open, and determines that boarding is completed or leaving is completed based on an accommodated state and weight information satisfying preset conditions. In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that since each boarding state occurs after mode entry, and the first mode (pick-up) and second mode ( drop-off) are mutually exclusive, the boarding started state and leaving started state cannot overlap because they are distinguished by which mode the vehicle has entered” and the Office respectfully disagrees. It remains the Office’s stance that the claims, as currently amended, are still indefinite. Even though applicant has added that “after the entering” which in itself is unclear, the boarding state varieties are still unclear, as to what each means. Applicant has now defined, based on the amendments, what is boarding started, leaving started, boarding completed, leaving completed, but again left out what are the metes and bounds of “before a boarding starts” and “before a leaving starts”. What is the difference between before leaving is started and before boarding is started? What are the metes and bounds for proper analysis and application of prior art? The issue that was raised previously, and again below, is the claims are requiring boarding states, based on data, but it is unclear what these states are, how they differ, and what would and would not be the metes and bounds. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) remains. Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action. With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application, which have necessitated new analysis with new application of prior art, and the Office has supplied the new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain . Non-Final Office Action 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al ., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II). A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer. A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim: the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that" the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The Office has found herein that claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 4-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 states “ after the entering ” and later again states “wherein the boarding state after the entering includes” and the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear, thus indefinite. Does this “after the entering” mean the user entering the vehicle or does this mean, “after entering the mode”? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. When looking into the specification, it appears that applicant means “after entering the mode” yet this appears to be a cyclical argument, since here it states, that the boarding state is AFTER the entering mode, yet the entering mode is based on the boarding state that must come first. Thus which comes first, which comes second? Is this a typo, a rational error, or is there a missing step or connection? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this any connection between the entering the modes and the boarding state. Appropriate action is required. Claim 1 states “wherein the boarding state includes a state before boarding starts , a state before leaving starts and the metes and bounds of these states are unclear thus indefinite. What are the metes and bounds of the before leaving and before starting? Would be walking towards a vehicle? Opening the door? Calling the taxi? Where would one start this process and what data is used to measure its boundaries? Further, when does leaving start? Would leaving start once you walked towards a taxi? Once you entered the taxi? Once a seatbelt was fastened? Could start boarding and start leaving overlap and be the same thing? Again, what are the boundaries for before starting boarding and before starting leaving? When would one know when one has begun or ended? Is this a known value in the art, or is this a relative term that means something different to each person? Finally, since the metes and bounds of when boarding and leaving starts is unclear, it is also unclear when these states are ended Does one begin when one ends? Do they overlap? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter as these states are ALL undefined, thus the claim is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any measuring of exiting states and entering states as reading on this. Appropriate action is required. Claim 1 further states “ a controller configured to determine , after the vehicle is started, a boarding state of a passenger based on whether the vehicle is stopped and at least one of l ocation information of the vehicle or internal information of the vehicle” thus the boarding state can be based on the vehicle being stopped, after it has been started, and either a location or internal information. This is all clear, however if the path of the boarding state being based on the location and the vehicle being stopped after it is started, how the does the definitions of boarding states add any metes and bounds? For example, later in Claim 1 , six possible boarding stated are defined, which, without any metes and bounds, are extremely broad and unclear as to what is considered each boarding state. This issue was brought up previously with 112b rejections and applicant amended Claim 1 to further define when four of the six boarding states but yet claims that the states are started and completed. This is confusing as it appears applicant is claiming a state, like a place or zone in time, and here is stating when they start or stop. But yet, now stating how these states start and stop, only defines the boundaries of four of the six boarding states, and the boarding states, as stated previously stated, are merely based on location the vehicle being stopped. So what is actually required for the claimed subject matter? There are three variables to determined either pick-up or drop off. Further of the three variables (location or internal information and the vehicle being stopped) four of the categories now have starting and stopping points, yet two of the boarding states are undefined. As currently presented, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear thus indefinite. As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office strongly suggests clarifying exactly what the boundary states are, what is required to be in each state, and what is not, for proper understanding of the metes and bounds, proper analysis, and proper application of prior art. The Office will interpret any boarding state based on location or internal information, and the vehicle being stopped as reading on this. Appropriate action is required. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1. Claims 6-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-20-02-fti This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0057006) in view of Ueda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0280368) . With respect to Claim 1: While Seki discloses “A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)” [Seki, ¶ 0024-0025 with Figure 1]; “comprising: an engine” [Seki, ¶ 0024-0025 with Figure 1]; “a drive motor” [Seki, ¶ 0024-0025 with Figure 1]; “and a controller configured to determine, after the vehicle is started, a boarding state of a passenger based on whether the vehicle is stopped and at least one of location information of the vehicle or internal information of the vehicle” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0057, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]; “to allow the vehicle to enter a mode among one of a first mode for pick-up driving and a second mode for drop-off driving based on the determined boarding state and time information” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]; “and to control the vehicle so that a start of the engine is suppressed based on the entered mode and the boarding state or the leaving state after the entering” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0025, 0057, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]; “wherein the boarding state after the entering includes a state before boarding starts, a state before leaving starts, a state in which the boarding is started, a state in which the leaving is started, a state in which the boarding is completed, and a state in which the leaving is completed” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0059, and 0060-0067]; “wherein the internal information of the vehicle includes weight information of the vehicle or an accommodated state and an open state or a closed state of a door in the vehicle” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0025, 0057, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]; “wherein the controller is configured to determine that the boarding is started or the leaving is started, based on the vehicle is stopped and the door of the vehicle is open” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0025, 0057, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]; “and to determine that the boarding is completed or the leaving is completed based an accommodated state or weight information of the vehicle satisfy preset conditions” [Seki, ¶ 0004, 0025, 0057, 0059, 0063, and 0065-0067]. However what the metes and bounds of two boarding states is still unclear, and further, since Seki discloses starting the vehicle to drive to a location, stopping the vehicle to pick up a user, and turning off an on the engines based on location, seat sensors and doors being opened, then any state such a before boarding, before leaving would read on this. Ueda, which is also taxi system that controls a vehicle during boarding and exiting a taxi teaches “wherein the boarding state includes a state before boarding starts, a state before leaving starts, a state in which the boarding is started, a state in which the leaving is started, a state in which the boarding is completed, and a state in which the leaving is completed” [Ueda, ¶ 0022 and 0033-0041 with Figures 3-7] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueda into the invention of Seki to not only disclose measuring when a user boards a vehicle for taxiing as Seki discloses but to measure when a user exits a taxi as taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ueda into Seki to create a more robust system can use simply configurations to detect when users enter and exit a vehicle [Ueda, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. With respect to Claim 6: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when the boarding state is a state in which the boarding is started after the vehicle enters the first mode, or the boarding state is a state in which the leaving is started after the vehicle enters the second mode, the controller is configured to control the vehicle so that at least one driving assistance function of the vehicle is activated” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]. With respect to Claim 7: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 6, wherein the at least one driving assistance function is at least one of a first driving assistance function for suspending a start of the engine and providing driving force through the drive motor while driving in a preset section, a second driving assistance function for limiting at least one of speed or acceleration of the vehicle, or a third driving assistance function for parking assistance” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]. With respect to Claim 8: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 7, wherein, when the third driving assistance function is activated, the controller is configured to control the vehicle so that a range to which the parking assistance is applicable is expanded” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]. Claim Construction Claim language reciting an alternative/optional limitations or paths presents the Office with a distinct choice of examining either option presented, but not both. For example, Claim 7 first states “at least one of a first driving assistance function for suspending a start of the engine and providing driving force through the drive motor while driving in a preset section, a second driving assistance function for limiting at least one of speed or acceleration of the vehicle, or a third driving assistance function for parking assistance” thus only one of these options must be followed. Thus in Claim 8 , when it further defines the parking assistance, this only has to be met if this option was taken and would not need to be met, if either the first or second assistance was chosen. Further all claims that depend on the not examined optional claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration as being not the option selected or path not taken or required. Appropriate action is required. Office Note: To avoid these interpretations, the Office suggests amending the claims to positively recite what is actually being carried out and what is actually required. With respect to Claim 9: While Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when a state is a state in which the leaving is completed after the vehicle enters the second mode, the controller is configured to control the vehicle so that a state in which the start of the engine is suspended is maintained until a preset condition is satisfied” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]; Seki does not specifically state leaving states, however what the metes and bounds of these states is still unclear, and further, since Seki discloses starting the vehicle to drive to a location, stopping the vehicle to pick up a user, then any state such a before boarding, before leaving, boarding started, boarding completed would read on this, however leaving or exiting is not specifically stated. Ueda, which is also taxi system that controls a vehicle during boarding and exiting a taxi teaches “leaving state” [Ueda, ¶ 0022 and 0033-0041 with Figures 3-7] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueda into the invention of Seki to not only disclose measuring when a user boards a vehicle for taxiing as Seki discloses but to measure when a user exits a taxi as taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ueda into Seki to create a more robust system can use simply configurations to detect when users enter and exit a vehicle [Ueda, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. With respect to Claim 10: While Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 9, wherein whether the preset condition is satisfied is determined based on at least one of whether a predetermined time period has elapsed because the boarding state or the leaving state becomes a state in which the leaving is started or whether an object is detected within a predetermined range from the vehicle” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]; Seki does not specifically state leaving states, however what the metes and bounds of these states is still unclear, and further, since Seki discloses starting the vehicle to drive to a location, stopping the vehicle to pick up a user, then any state such a before boarding, before leaving, boarding started, boarding completed would read on this, however leaving or exiting is not specifically stated. Ueda, which is also taxi system that controls a vehicle during boarding and exiting a taxi teaches “leaving state” [Ueda, ¶ 0022 and 0033-0041 with Figures 3-7] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueda into the invention of Seki to not only disclose measuring when a user boards a vehicle for taxiing as Seki discloses but to measure when a user exits a taxi as taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ueda into Seki to create a more robust system can use simply configurations to detect when users enter and exit a vehicle [Ueda, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. With respect to Claim 12: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when the vehicle arrives at a preset destination in a state in which the vehicle enters the first mode, the controller is configured to control the vehicle so that the start of the engine is suspended” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]. With respect to Claim 13: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when the vehicle arrives at a preset destination in a state in which the vehicle enters the first mode, the controller is configured to perform a control operation so that a state in which the start of the engine is suspended is maintained until a preset condition is satisfied” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0067]. With respect to Claim 14: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 13, wherein whether the preset condition is satisfied is determined based on at least one of whether a predetermined time period has elapsed because the vehicle arrives at the preset destination, or whether an object within a predetermined range from the vehicle is detected” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0065]. With respect to Claim 17: Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform a control operation so that the vehicle releases the first mode or the second mode based on at least one of the location information of the vehicle or the internal information of the vehicle and whether the vehicle is stopped” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0065]. With respect to Claims 18-19 : all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-14, and 17 . The method taught/disclosed in Claims 18-19 can clearly perform the apparatus of Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-14, and 17 . Therefore Claims 18-19 are rejected under the same rationale. With respect to Claim 20 : all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-14, and 17 . The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 20 can clearly perform the apparatus of Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-14, and 17 . Therefore Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0057006) in view of Ueda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0280368) and in further view of Levertu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0125484) . With respect to Claim 11: While Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when the state is a state in which the leaving is completed after the vehicle enters the first mode, the controller is configured to perform power control to charge a battery” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0065]; Seki does not specifically state leaving states, however what the metes and bounds of these states is still unclear, and further, since Seki discloses starting the vehicle to drive to a location, stopping the vehicle to pick up a user, then any state such a before boarding, before leaving, boarding started, boarding completed would read on this, however leaving or exiting is not specifically stated. Ueda, which is also taxi system that controls a vehicle during boarding and exiting a taxi teaches “leaving state” [Ueda, ¶ 0022 and 0033-0041 with Figures 3-7] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueda into the invention of Seki to not only disclose measuring when a user boards a vehicle for taxiing as Seki discloses but to measure when a user exits a taxi as taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ueda into Seki to create a more robust system can use simply configurations to detect when users enter and exit a vehicle [Ueda, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Further, Seki does not specifically state ensuring a charge for a preset destination. Levertu, which is also a hybrid control system, teaches “ensuring an SOC until arriving at a preset destination” [Levertu, ¶ 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Levertu into the invention of Seki to not only include charging the vehicle batter for hybrid vehicle control as Seki discloses but to also ensure charge is kept at certain levels as taught by Levertu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Levertu into Seki to create a more robust system that minimize fuel consumption [Levertu, ¶ 0032]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0057006) in view of Ueda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0280368) and in further view of Takata (United States Patent Publication 2019/0344750) . With respect to Claim 15: While Seki discloses “the vehicle has an air condition” [Seki, ¶ 0033]; Seki does not specifically state leaving states, however what the metes and bounds of these states is still unclear, and further, since Seki discloses starting the vehicle to drive to a location, stopping the vehicle to pick up a user, then any state such a before boarding, before leaving, boarding started, boarding completed would read on this, however leaving or exiting is not specifically stated. Ueda, which is also taxi system that controls a vehicle during boarding and exiting a taxi teaches “leaving state” [Ueda, ¶ 0022 and 0033-0041 with Figures 3-7] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueda into the invention of Seki to not only disclose measuring when a user boards a vehicle for taxiing as Seki discloses but to measure when a user exits a taxi as taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ueda into Seki to create a more robust system can use simply configurations to detect when users enter and exit a vehicle [Ueda, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Further, Seki does not specifically state ensuring a charge for a preset destination. Levertu, which is also a hybrid control system, teaches “ensuring an SOC until arriving at a preset destination” [Levertu, ¶ 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Levertu into the invention of Seki to not only include charging the vehicle batter for hybrid vehicle control as Seki discloses but to also ensure charge is kept at certain levels as taught by Levertu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Levertu into Seki to create a more robust system that minimize fuel consumption [Levertu, ¶ 0032]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Further, Seki does not disclose what happens when someone enters the vehicle when it arrives and its not a boarding mode. Takata, which is also a hybrid vehicle control system teaches “when the passenger is detected in the vehicle after the leaving state becomes a state in which the leaving is started after the vehicle enters the second mode the controller is configured to perform at least one of air conditioning control or alarm control” [Takata, ¶ 0060-0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takata into the invention of Seki to not only having vehicle modes of operation such as boarding and getting off as Seki discloses but to also has a mode after people have gotten off and unwanted people are in the vehicle, to sound an alarm as taught by Takata with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Takata into Seki to create a more robust system that alert the surroundings when an unwanted guest has gotten in a vehicle [Takata, ¶ 0060-0061]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements hybrid vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0057006) in view of Ueda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0280368) and in further of Myers et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0236975) . With respect to Claim 16: While Seki discloses “The HEV of claim 3, wherein, when the passenger boards the vehicle in a state in which the vehicle enters the second mode” [Seki, ¶ 0004 and 0060-0065]; Seki does not specifically state suspending engine control. Myers, which is also an autonomous vehicle with weight sensors in the seats teaches “wherein, when an item is in the vehicle in a state in which the vehicle enters the second mode, the controller is configured to perform a control operation so that the start of the engine is suspended” [Myers, ¶ 0015 and 0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Myers into the invention of Seki to not only include using weight sensors to measure when passengers enter the vehicle Seki discloses but to also disable the engine when an item is not supposed to be in the vehicle as taught by Myers with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Myers into Seki to create a more robust system that account for items not supposed to be in the autonomous vehicle [Myers, ¶ 0025]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control based on weight sensors and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Prior Art (Not relied upon) 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 11 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 14 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 15 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 16 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 17 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 18 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 19 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 20 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 21 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 22 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 23 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 24 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 18/195,669 Page 25 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights