DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/23/2025 is being entered. Claims 1, 16, and 18 are amended. Claim 4 and 9 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-20 are pending, and rejected as detailed below. This action is final as necessitated by amendment.
Drawing Objections
Replacement sheet for FIG. 1-6 are entered. Therefore the drawing objection for FIG. 1-6 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101 Claim Rejections
Amendment to claims 1, 16, and 18 are entered. Therefore 35 U.S.C. 101 Claim rejections for Claim 1-3, 7-12, 14, and 16-17 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Richter merely discloses the motorized wheelchair that maintains balance by shifting the position of the seat. Therefore, Richter fails to disclose the features of amended claim 1, "the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path, the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold value", and "The control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path, the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than the second threshold value". For each of these reasons the rejection of claims 1, 13-14, 16, 18 and 19 is overcome by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and persuasive as Evans does not explicitly teach “wherein the control unit causes a display device to display the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road” and “wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claims 1, 13-14, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is made in view of previously applied reference Evans (US 20180135987 A1), and further in view of Nishimura (US 20220254252 A1) and Richter (US 20180042797 A1). In particular, the amendments to claims 1, 16, 18 are addressed in the instant office action.
Applicant also argues that the dependent claims are allowable in view of the amendment to claims 1, 16, 18.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of dependent claims have been fully considered and not persuasive as claims 1, 16, and 18 are rejected upon the combination of Evans (US 20180135987 A1), Nishimura (US 20220254252 A1), and Richter (US 20180042797 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the control unit causes a display device to display a pedestrian crossing in a range including the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road.” Should read as “wherein the control unit causes the display device to display a pedestrian crossing in a range including the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center of gravity of the wheelchair" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a center of gravity of the wheelchair” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a center of gravity of the wheelchair” is not further defined by the claim, and it is unclear that the “a center of gravity of the wheelchair” of claim 8 is referring to “the center of gravity of the wheelchair” in claim 1 or completely different center of gravity of the wheelchair.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the center of gravity of the wheelchair" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the center of gravity of the wheelchair" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 merely states the same limitation of claim 1 (lines 7-8) and does not further narrow what is claimed in claim 1. In other words, claim 1 is narrower than claim 6. Following bold and underline features illustrate the similarities between the claim 1 and claim 8, and italic feature illustrates the narrower limitations present within claim 1.
Claim 1; wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
Claim 8; wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair further based on a position of a center of gravity of the wheelchair.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20180135987 A1), and further in view of Nishimura (US 20220254252 A1) and Richter (US 20180042797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Evans teaches (Currently Amended) An information processing device (Evans, at least one para. 0038; “cloud-based monitoring server 106”) comprising a control unit (Evans, at least one para. 0043; “The monitoring server 106 further includes one or more processors 166”) that determines a travel path of a wheelchair that crosses a road (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair based on information on undulations of a road surface of the road (Evans, at least one para. 0142; “At step 722, the monitoring server 106 analyses the map data 164 stored in the storage device 156 according the origin, destination, and/or predetermined route. The map data 164 contains geomatics data related to the terrain, paths, roads, sidewalks, wheelchair ramps including length of ramps and grade of ramps, and any elements that may be obstacles to a wheelchair traversing from the origin to the destination.”).
wherein the control unit causes a display device to display the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”) based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans does not explicitly teach
wherein the control unit causes a display device to display the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches wherein the control unit causes a display device (Nishimura, at least one para. 0054; “The crosswalk display region is a region in which the light emitting devices 30 display a crosswalk on the road. The crosswalk display region is determined based on information on a pedestrian, the position of the pedestrian, a direction in which the pedestrian is about to cross the road, or the like.”) to display the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair”);
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based the angle to the road and a scheduled course of a pedestrian (Nishimura; 0055).
The combination of Evans and Nishimura does not explicitly teach
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Richter, in the same field of endeavor (Richter, at least one para. 0027; “The presently disclosed technology relates generally to a stabilization system for a wheelchair. In particular, disclosed is a wheelchair employing one or more smart caster arms configured to stabilize a position and/or movement of the wheelchair, in response to one or more inputs from one or more sensors.”) teaches based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold (Richter, at least one para. 0062; “FIG. 9B shows a reaction to a forward acceleration, in which the seat 310 shifts the center of gravity forward in response. Similarly, FIG. 9C shows the seat 310 shifting the center of gravity rearward as the wheelchair 300 accelerates backward.”, wherein the forward acceleration teaches the traveling direction. Furthermore, it is inherent that the deviation of the center of mass is always will be less than the second threshold since the center of mass is not able to move in infinite distance in the traveling direction.).
The combination of Evans, Nishimura, and Richter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Richter. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the self-balancing vehicles can provide stability for the vehicle and user by balancing on the two wheels, during both operation and when in a stopped position. (Richter; 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Evans, at least one para. 0043; “The monitoring server 106 further includes one or more processors 166”) causes a display device to display a pedestrian crossing in a range including the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road.
Evans does not explicitly teach a display device to display a pedestrian crossing in a range including the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches a display device (Nishimura, at least one para. 0054; “The crosswalk display region is a region in which the light emitting devices 30 display a crosswalk on the road. The crosswalk display region is determined based on information on a pedestrian, the position of the pedestrian, a direction in which the pedestrian is about to cross the road, or the like.”) to display a pedestrian crossing in a range including the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair, the controlling portion 21 may determine that the width of the crosswalk display region is set to be wider than that in a case where the pedestrian is a physically unimpaired person.”, In other words, controlling portion 21 make sure that the wheelchair fits within the crosswalk region).
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based the angle to the road and a scheduled course of a pedestrian thus making sure that the wheelchair fits within the crosswalk (Nishimura; 0055).
Regarding claim 6, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the control unit (Evans, at least one para. 0043; “The monitoring server 106 further includes one or more processors 166”) causes the display device to display the pedestrian crossing along the travel path of the wheelchair.
Evans does not explicitly teach the display device to display the pedestrian crossing along the travel path of the wheelchair.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches causes the display device (Nishimura, at least one para. 0054; “The crosswalk display region is a region in which the light emitting devices 30 display a crosswalk on the road. The crosswalk display region is determined based on information on a pedestrian, the position of the pedestrian, a direction in which the pedestrian is about to cross the road, or the like.”) to display the pedestrian crossing (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair, the controlling portion 21 may determine that the width of the crosswalk display region is set to be wider than that in a case where the pedestrian is a physically unimpaired person.”) along the travel path of the wheelchair (Nishimura, at least one para. 0137; “The controlling portion 21 selects one or more light emitting devices 30 to be controlled from among the light emitting devices 30 provided in the road. The selection of the light emitting devices 30 is performed based on the shape, the size, or the like of the safety zone to be displayed.”, In other words, light emitting devices 30 can be a straight line or curve line”).
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based on a scheduled course of a pedestrian thus making sure that the wheelchair stays within the crosswalk (Nishimura; 0055).
Regarding claim 7, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the control unit (Evans, at least one para. 0043; “The monitoring server 106 further includes one or more processors 166”) changes a width of the pedestrian crossing to allow the wheelchair traveling along the travel path of the wheelchair to travel within the pedestrian crossing.
Evans does not explicitly teach changes a width of the pedestrian crossing to allow the wheelchair traveling along the travel path of the wheelchair to travel within the pedestrian crossing.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches changes a width of the pedestrian crossing to allow the wheelchair traveling along the travel path of the wheelchair to travel within the pedestrian crossing (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair, the controlling portion 21 may determine that the width of the crosswalk display region is set to be wider than that in a case where the pedestrian is a physically unimpaired person. Alternatively, in a case where the controlling portion 21 detects a plurality of pedestrians, the controlling portion 21 may determine that the width of the crosswalk display region is set to be wider than that in a case of one pedestrian.”).
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the width of the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based on one or more pedestrian information (Nishimura; 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”) further based on a position of a center of gravity of the wheelchair.
Evans does not explicitly teach based on a position of a center of gravity of the wheelchair.
However, Richter, in the same field of endeavor (Richter, at least one para. 0027; “The presently disclosed technology relates generally to a stabilization system for a wheelchair. In particular, disclosed is a wheelchair employing one or more smart caster arms configured to stabilize a position and/or movement of the wheelchair, in response to one or more inputs from one or more sensors.”) teaches based on a position of a center of gravity of the wheelchair (Richter, at least one para. 0061; “The wheelchair 300 maintains balance during acceleration by shifting the seat 310, and, thus, the user's weight, forward and backward relative to the drive wheels 320, as shown in FIGS. 9A to 9C, to maintain the center of gravity of the user and seat over the drive wheels.”).
Evans and Richter are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Richter. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the self-balancing vehicles can provide stability for the vehicle and user by balancing on the two wheels, during both operation and when in a stopped position. (Richter; 0060).
Regarding claim 12, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the travel path of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”) such that right and left wheels of the wheelchair are alternately moved to proceed.
Evans does not explicitly teach such that right and left wheels of the wheelchair are alternately moved to proceed.
However, Richter, in the same field of endeavor (Richter, at least one para. 0027; “The presently disclosed technology relates generally to a stabilization system for a wheelchair. In particular, disclosed is a wheelchair employing one or more smart caster arms configured to stabilize a position and/or movement of the wheelchair, in response to one or more inputs from one or more sensors.”) teaches such that right and left wheels of the wheelchair are alternately moved to proceed (Richter, at least one para. 0060; “the self-balancing operation causes rotation of the left and the right wheels, such as in opposite senses of rotation at a rate sufficient to prevent tipping of the vehicle.”).
Evans and Richter are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Richter. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the self-balancing vehicles can provide stability for the vehicle and user by balancing on the two wheels, during both operation and when in a stopped position. (Richter; 0060).
Regarding claim 13, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a detection unit that detects the information on the undulations of the road surface (Evans, at least one para. 0050; “Other or additional sensor(s) 122 may also be included in other embodiments. For instance, an integrated altimeter may be included within sensor system 102 to enable calculating the slope of a surface, rather than or in addition to the inclinometer 302.”).
Regarding claim 14, Evans teaches (Original) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit acquires the information on the undulations of the road surface from the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0050; “Other or additional sensor(s) 122 may also be included in other embodiments. For instance, an integrated altimeter may be included within sensor system 102 to enable calculating the slope of a surface, rather than or in addition to the inclinometer 302.”).
Regarding claim 16, Evans teaches (Currently Amended) An information processing method (Evans, at least one para. 0038; “The system 100 includes a sensor system 102 acting as a portable activity monitor wirelessly coupled to a mobile phone 104. The mobile phone 104 is coupled to a cloud-based monitoring server 106 via the computer network such as the Internet 108.”) for determining a travel path of a wheelchair that crosses a road (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), comprising determining the travel path of the wheelchair based on information on undulations of a road surface of the road (Evans, at least one para. 0142; “At step 722, the monitoring server 106 analyses the map data 164 stored in the storage device 156 according the origin, destination, and/or predetermined route. The map data 164 contains geomatics data related to the terrain, paths, roads, sidewalks, wheelchair ramps including length of ramps and grade of ramps, and any elements that may be obstacles to a wheelchair traversing from the origin to the destination.”);
displaying the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
determining the travel path of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”) based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
determining the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
determining the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans does not explicitly teach
displaying the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches displaying the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road (Nishimura, at least one para. 0054; “The crosswalk display region is a region in which the light emitting devices 30 display a crosswalk on the road. The crosswalk display region is determined based on information on a pedestrian, the position of the pedestrian, a direction in which the pedestrian is about to cross the road, or the like.”) and (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair”);
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based the angle to the road and a scheduled course of a pedestrian (Nishimura; 0055).
The combination of Evans and Nishimura does not explicitly teach
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Richter, in the same field of endeavor (Richter, at least one para. 0027; “The presently disclosed technology relates generally to a stabilization system for a wheelchair. In particular, disclosed is a wheelchair employing one or more smart caster arms configured to stabilize a position and/or movement of the wheelchair, in response to one or more inputs from one or more sensors.”) teaches based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold (Richter, at least one para. 0062; “FIG. 9B shows a reaction to a forward acceleration, in which the seat 310 shifts the center of gravity forward in response. Similarly, FIG. 9C shows the seat 310 shifting the center of gravity rearward as the wheelchair 300 accelerates backward.”, wherein the forward acceleration teaches the traveling direction. Furthermore, it is inherent that the deviation of the center of mass is always will be less than the second threshold since the center of mass is not able to move in infinite distance in the traveling direction.).
The combination of Evans, Nishimura, and Richter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Richter. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the self-balancing vehicles can provide stability for the vehicle and user by balancing on the two wheels, during both operation and when in a stopped position. (Richter; 0060).
Regarding claim 18, Evans teaches (Currently Amended) A terminal device mounted on a wheelchair that crosses a road or carried by a user of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0094; “as the user carries the mobile phone 104 on their person, the mobile phone 104 will at any time be able to receive updated sensor data 114.”), wherein the terminal device acquires from an information processing device (Evans, at least one para. 0038; “The mobile phone 104 is coupled to a cloud-based monitoring server 106 via the computer network such as the Internet 108.”) a travel path of the wheelchair that is determined by the information processing device based on information on undulations of a road surface of the road (Evans, at least one para. 0142; “At step 722, the monitoring server 106 analyses the map data 164 stored in the storage device 156 according the origin, destination, and/or predetermined route. The map data 164 contains geomatics data related to the terrain, paths, roads, sidewalks, wheelchair ramps including length of ramps and grade of ramps, and any elements that may be obstacles to a wheelchair traversing from the origin to the destination.”);
wherein the terminal device displays the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
wherein the information processing device determines the travel path of the wheelchair (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”) based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
wherein the information processing device determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
wherein the information processing device determines the travel path of the wheelchair so that when the wheelchair travels along the travel path (Evans, at least one para. 0144; “For each possible route from the origin to the destination, the monitoring server 106 tracks the number and intensity of obstacles 210 such as curbs, steps, difficult terrains such as grass, etc. that may be encountered on that route. The monitoring server 106 then chooses a particular path that is compliant with the wheelchair user's current RAP setting. For instance, if the user sensor data 114, 134 causes the neural network to recommend a RAP setting of P3, this recommendation will be sent to the user. The monitoring server 104 will then provide the user with the shortest available route from origin to the requested destination where no obstacles will be encountered that would exceed the user's current/recommended RAP setting of P3.”), the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans does not explicitly teach
wherein the terminal device displays the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road;
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor (Nishimura, at least one para. 0005; “An object of this disclosure is to improve convenience for pedestrians and safety for pedestrians during road crossing.”) teaches wherein the terminal device displays (Nishimura, at least one para. 0054; “The crosswalk display region is a region in which the light emitting devices 30 display a crosswalk on the road. The crosswalk display region is determined based on information on a pedestrian, the position of the pedestrian, a direction in which the pedestrian is about to cross the road, or the like.”) the travel path of the wheelchair on the road surface of the road (Nishimura, at least one para. 0055; “For example, in a case where the controlling portion 21 acquires information on a health condition of the pedestrian and determines that the pedestrian sits on a wheelchair”);
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
Evans and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the travel path of the Evans with teaching of Nishimura. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the displayed crosswalk can be adjusted based the angle to the road and a scheduled course of a pedestrian (Nishimura; 0055).
The combination of Evans and Nishimura does not explicitly teach
based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in an axle direction or in a traveling direction;
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the axle direction is less than a first threshold; and
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold.
However, Richter, in the same field of endeavor (Richter, at least one para. 0027; “The presently disclosed technology relates generally to a stabilization system for a wheelchair. In particular, disclosed is a wheelchair employing one or more smart caster arms configured to stabilize a position and/or movement of the wheelchair, in response to one or more inputs from one or more sensors.”) teaches based on a deviation of the center of gravity of the wheelchair in
the deviation of the center of gravity position of the wheelchair in the traveling direction is less than a second threshold (Richter, at least one para. 0062; “FIG. 9B shows a reaction to a forward acceleration, in which the seat 310 shifts the center of gravity forward in response. Similarly, FIG. 9C shows the seat 310 shifting the center of gravity rearward as the wheelchair 300 accelerates backward.”, wherein the forward acceleration teaches the traveling direction. Furthermore, it is inherent that the deviation of the center of mass is always will be less than the second threshold since the center of mass is not able to move in infinite distance in the traveling direction.).
The combination of Evans, Nishimura, and Richter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as the route generation for wheelchair as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, t