CTNF 19/005,179 CTNF 87464 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 and 06/24/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Status of the Claims Claims 1-11 have been examined. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation ( BRI ) of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) 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; (B) 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”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (“ unit ”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquisition unit, a specifying unit and a control unit in claim 1-10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis - Step 1 Claims 11 recite a method/process, therefore claims 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1 Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recites mental processes and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites: A control method for controlling an operation of a moving object that can move by unmanned driving comprising: an acquisition step of acquiring process information indicating a manufacturing process that is being executed with respect to the moving object; a specifying step of specifying using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control step of causing the moving object to move in the specified movement mode. These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mathematical concepts. For example, " an acquisition step of acquiring process information …" and " a specifying step of specifying using the process ...", and “ a control step of causing the moving object …” encompass subject matter that a human can reasonably perform in the human mind with or without paper and pencil. 101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2 Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application." In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"): A control method for controlling an operation of a moving object that can move by unmanned driving comprising: an acquisition step of acquiring process information indicating a manufacturing process that is being executed with respect to the moving object; a specifying step of specifying using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control step of causing the moving object to move in the specified movement mode. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of no additional element. The generic components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic processor and memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The examiner submits that these limitations are merely applying the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general controller to perform the process (MPEP §2106.05). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis - Step 2B Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (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. 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch (US20170320529A1) , and further in view of Yamada (US20080319597A1) . Claim.1 Nordbruch discloses a control device that controls an operation of a moving object that can move by unmanned driving (see at least abstract, operating a vehicle, the vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system, p12, driving a vehicle autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system) comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires process information indicating a manufacturing process that is being executed with respect to the moving object (see at least fig.4-5, p15, AVP stands for “automatic valet parking” and may be referred to as an “automatic parking process”. Vehicles which do not have this AVP functionality are referred to as normal vehicles, p66, an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacture). Nordbruch does not discloses a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode. However, Yamada discloses a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4) ; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode (see at least fig.1-4, p12, A scheduling control unit is configured to (i) determine a schedule about whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and to charge the battery along an estimated route to a destination and (ii) estimate transition of a remaining quantity of the battery along the estimated route based on the schedule. A scheduled running control unit is configured, when the hybrid vehicle runs along the estimated route, to perform a control over whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and whether or not to charge the battery in accordance with the schedule, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.2 Nordbruch discloses wherein, in the manufacturing process specified using the process information, when it is assumed that there are a predetermined number of people or more within a predetermined distance range from the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode (see at least fig.4-5, p15, AVP stands for “automatic valet parking” and may be referred to as an “automatic parking process”. Vehicles which do not have this AVP functionality are referred to as normal vehicles, p66, an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacture, p46, a route of the vehicle is blocked to people or other vehicles. This therefore means that the route of the vehicle, at least sections of the route, is/are blocked. A blocking may take place with the aid of one or multiple barrier(s), for example. In particular signal systems, in particular light signal systems, may be controlled in such a way that they emit red or green signals for the purpose of blocking or unblocking the route, in particular sections of the route. This therefore means that preferably a route from an end of the conveyor belt, i.e., an end of an assembly line, to the parking facility is particularly secured. According to one specific embodiment, this route is preferably devoid of people) . Claim.3 Nordbruch discloses wherein, in the manufacturing process specified using the process information, when it is assumed that there are less than a predetermined number of people within a predetermined distance range from the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode (see at least fig.4-5, p15, AVP stands for “automatic valet parking” and may be referred to as an “automatic parking process”. Vehicles which do not have this AVP functionality are referred to as normal vehicles, p66, an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacture, p46, a route of the vehicle is blocked to people or other vehicles. This therefore means that the route of the vehicle, at least sections of the route, is/are blocked. A blocking may take place with the aid of one or multiple barrier(s), for example. In particular signal systems, in particular light signal systems, may be controlled in such a way that they emit red or green signals for the purpose of blocking or unblocking the route, in particular sections of the route. This therefore means that preferably a route from an end of the conveyor belt, i.e., an end of an assembly line, to the parking facility is particularly secured. According to one specific embodiment, this route is preferably devoid of people) . Claim.6 Nordbruch does not discloses wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is less than a predetermined speed, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode. However, Yamada discloses wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is less than a predetermined speed, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is less than a predetermined speed, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.7 Nordbruch does not discloses wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is a predetermined speed or more, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode. However, Yamada discloses wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is a predetermined speed or more, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode (see at least p15, a vehicle behavior (for example, speed, power consumption, fuel consumption) in the driving-time, p49, the direction sensor 12, and the vehicle speed sensor 13 are known sensors that are used to respectively detect a position, a driving direction, and a driving speed of the hybrid vehicle, p63, an engine load increases as the road inclination becomes steep uphill and the vehicle speed increases) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include wherein, when a target value of a moving speed of the moving object in the manufacturing process specified using the process information is a predetermined speed or more, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.8 Nordbruch does not discloses wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode. However, Yamada discloses wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4, p94, the control section 24 functions as an example of a learning means or a learning control unit by executing the learning control process 100) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.9 Nordbruch does not discloses wherein the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine is at least one of: an engine inspection process of inspecting a function of the engine; a preprocessing process of executing preprocessing for correctly evaluating the function of the engine in the engine inspection process; a processing device inspection process of inspecting a function of an exhaust gas processing device; and a liquid leakage inspection process of inspecting liquid leakage caused when the engine is driven. However, Yamada discloses wherein the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine is at least one of: an engine inspection process of inspecting a function of the engine; a preprocessing process of executing preprocessing for correctly evaluating the function of the engine in the engine inspection process; a processing device inspection process of inspecting a function of an exhaust gas processing device; and a liquid leakage inspection process of inspecting liquid leakage caused when the engine is driven (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4, p94, the control section 24 functions as an example of a learning means or a learning control unit by executing the learning control process 100) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include wherein the manufacturing process that needs to drive the engine is at least one of: an engine inspection process of inspecting a function of the engine; a preprocessing process of executing preprocessing for correctly evaluating the function of the engine in the engine inspection process; a processing device inspection process of inspecting a function of an exhaust gas processing device; and a liquid leakage inspection process of inspecting liquid leakage caused when the engine is driven by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.10 Nordbruch discloses a control system comprising: a moving object that can move by unmanned driving (see at least abstract, operating a vehicle, the vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system, p12, driving a vehicle autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system) ; an acquisition unit that acquires process information indicating a manufacturing process that is being executed with respect to the moving object (see at least fig.4-5, p15, AVP stands for “automatic valet parking” and may be referred to as an “automatic parking process”. Vehicles which do not have this AVP functionality are referred to as normal vehicles, p66, an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacture). Nordbruch does not discloses a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using and engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode. However, Yamada discloses a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using and engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4) ; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode (see at least fig.1-4, p12, A scheduling control unit is configured to (i) determine a schedule about whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and to charge the battery along an estimated route to a destination and (ii) estimate transition of a remaining quantity of the battery along the estimated route based on the schedule. A scheduled running control unit is configured, when the hybrid vehicle runs along the estimated route, to perform a control over whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and whether or not to charge the battery in accordance with the schedule, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include a specifying unit that specifies using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using and engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control unit that causes the moving object to move in the specified movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17). Claim.11 Nordbruch discloses a control method for controlling an operation of a moving object that can move by unmanned driving (see at least abstract, operating a vehicle, the vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system, p12, driving a vehicle autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system) comprising: an acquisition step of acquiring process information indicating a manufacturing process that is being executed with respect to the moving object (see at least fig.4-5, p15, AVP stands for “automatic valet parking” and may be referred to as an “automatic parking process”. Vehicles which do not have this AVP functionality are referred to as normal vehicles, p66, an automatic parking functionality, may be used for supporting the production or manufacturing process in the course of the production at a manufacture). Nordbruch does not discloses a specifying step of specifying using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control step of causing the moving object to move in the specified movement mode. However, Yamada discloses a specifying step of specifying using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move (see at least fig.4, p9, the internal combustion engine and the motor and to charge the battery, p12, an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p65-69, the control section 24 requests the HV control section 10 for information about the present SOC, p72, the driving-time process 400, the control section 24 reads the target SOC corresponding to the present position from the SOC management schedule and transmits the read target SOC to the HV control section 10, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running, p35, the hybrid vehicle runs using the engine 1 and the motor 3 as a power source. When the engine 1 is used as the power source, a rotation of the engine 1 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via an unshown clutch mechanism and the differential gear unit 4. When the motor 3 is used as the power source, a direct current of the battery 9 is converted into an alternating power via the DC link 7 and the inverter 8. The motor 3 operates on the alternating power. A rotation of the motor 3 is transmitted to the tires 5a and 5b via the differential gear unit 4) ; and a control step of causing the moving object to move in the specified movement mode (see at least fig.1-4, p12, A scheduling control unit is configured to (i) determine a schedule about whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and to charge the battery along an estimated route to a destination and (ii) estimate transition of a remaining quantity of the battery along the estimated route based on the schedule. A scheduled running control unit is configured, when the hybrid vehicle runs along the estimated route, to perform a control over whether or not to drive the hybrid vehicle using the motor and whether or not to charge the battery in accordance with the schedule, p20, a computer-implemented method for managing a battery of a hybrid vehicle, which uses an internal combustion engine driven by fuel combustion and a motor driven by the battery as a power source for running) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch to include a specifying step of specifying using the process information which one movement mode of an engine movement mode of moving using an engine and a motor movement mode of moving using a motor to use to cause the moving object to move; and a control step of causing the moving object to move in the specified movement mode by Yamada in order to operate in the autonomous control mode based on receiving from the hybrid control apparatus a predetermined signal indicating that the passive control mode be inappropriate (see Yamada’s p17) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch (US20170320529A1) , and Yamada (US20080319597A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio (US20180111670A1) . Claim.4 Nordbruch and Yamada discloses wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed before the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode. However, Nishio discloses wherein , when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed before the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode (see at least fig.6-7, p3, in manufacturing engines mounted to a vehicle and an outboard motor, the engines having identical basic specifications are sometimes modified to have maximum horsepower and output characteristics so as to meet regulations on exhaust gas and maximum speed in destinations) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch and Yamada to include wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed before the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the motor movement mode by Nishio in order to control unit gives a warning to a user when the determining unit determines that the model information is not matched and controls the engine corresponding to the stored model information (see Nishio’s abstract) . Claim.5 Nordbruch and Yamada discloses wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed after the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode. However, Nishio discloses wherein , wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed after the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode (see at least fig.6-7, p3, in manufacturing engines mounted to a vehicle and an outboard motor, the engines having identical basic specifications are sometimes modified to have maximum horsepower and output characteristics so as to meet regulations on exhaust gas and maximum speed in destinations) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Nordbruch and Yamada to include wherein, when the manufacturing process specified using the process information is the manufacturing process executed after the manufacturing process of mounting an exhaust gas processing device on the moving object, the specifying unit specifies that the moving object is caused to move in the engine movement mode by Nishio in order to control unit gives a warning to a user when the determining unit determines that the model information is not matched and controls the engine corresponding to the stored model information (see Nishio’s abstract) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARDUL D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm (IFP). 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, KITO ROBINSON can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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. /SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 21 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/005,179 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights