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. Priority Acknowledgement is made to Applicant's claim to priority to KR10-2022-0064827 filed 5/26/2022. Claim Objections Claim 9 and 19, and claims 10 and 20 by dependency, are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “the preset reference difference”, ln 13-14. This should read --the preset reference distance--. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the preset reference difference”, ln 11. This should read --the preset reference distance--. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 9 and 19, and claims 10 and 20 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 introduces the limitation “a reliability metric” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Additionally, t he specification makes no reference to a “metric”. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a reliability of the user switching configuration leading to successful user switching, in light of Applicant’s specification (par. 0118). Claim 19 introduces the limitation “a reliability metric” in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Additionally, the specification makes no reference to a “metric”. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a reliability of the user switching configuration leading to successful user switching, in light of Applicant’s specification (par. 0118). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a) Each of Claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for positioning a mobility device and a mobility assistance robot , which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) . The claimed limitations involve a process that a person should follow when positioning a mobility device and /or a mobility assistance robot which is a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) . Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, independent Claim 1 recites : A control device comprising: one or more processors ; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors , cause the control device to: cause, by controlling at least one of a first drive of a mobility device or a second drive of a mobility assistance robot, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined relative orientation with each other (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) ; cause, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined spatial alignment with each other (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) ; and cause, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, a distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be a preset reference distance (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . Independent claim 11 recites: A method comprising: causing, by controlling at least one of a first drive of a mobility device or a second drive of a mobility assistance robot, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined relative orientation with each other (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) ; causing, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined spatial alignment with each other (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) ; and causing, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, a distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be a preset reference distance (managing personal behavior, namely, humans following rules or instructions, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and observation and judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . Further, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed . Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d) The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 ) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 ), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a control device comprising one or more processors and memory, as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims, are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more processors and memory, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05 None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a control device comprising one or more processors and memory, as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, a processor and a memory are known. More specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide structure or detailed drawings of the processor or memory. These elements are not depicted and are only identified as being part of a generic controller (controller 130; Fig. 1 and 3, par. 0029). Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term s “processor” and “memory” are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor and memory . This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) ). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the device and method of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer w ithout (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a) , or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). W hen viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner notes : to help overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant is encouraged to add claim language pertaining to the use of a structural component to perform the movements of the mobility device and mobility assistance robot . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomura et al. (EP 3050549 A1), hereafter Nomura . Regarding claim 1, Nomura discloses a control device comprising: one or more processors (control device 27 has a microcomputer provided with a CPU, par. 0056; control device 49 has a microcomputer provided with a CPU, par. 0066 ) ; and memory storing instructions (storage device 26; Fig. 2, 16, par. 0052) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause, by controlling at least one of a first drive of a mobility device (wheelchair 40 with drive motors 44a1 and 44b1; Fig. 17, par. 0060) or a second drive of a mobility assistance robot (care robot 20 with drive motors 21g and 21h; Fig. 3, par. 0056) , the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined relative orientation with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer ; Fig. 22 , par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the relative orientation of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052 ) ; cause, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined spatial alignment with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the spatial alignment of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052) ; and cause, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, a distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be a preset reference distance (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the distance between electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052) . Regarding claim 2, Nomura discloses the control device of claim 1 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in the predefined relative orientation with each other by causing adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) , wherein the causing the adjustment causes a first reference line that connects opposite ends of the mobility device and a second reference line that connects opposite ground surface support parts of the mobility assistance robot to be parallel to each other (Fig. 15 shows the electric wheelchair 40 and the care robot 20 are parallel to each other in the transfer position, par. 0052) . Regarding claim 4, Nomura discloses the control device of claim 1 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in the predefined spatial alignment with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) by causing adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot such that a line defined by a first center reference point, between opposite ends of the mobility device, and a second center reference point, between opposite ground surface support parts of the mobility assistance robot, is perpendicular to a reference line defined by opposite ends of the mobility device (Fig. 15 shows a center reference point of the electric wheelchair 40 and a center reference point of the care robot 20 would be perpendicular to a reference line defined by opposite ends of the electric wheelchair 40 when in position for a transfer, par. 0052) . Regarding claim 11, Nomura discloses a method comprising: causing, by controlling at least one of a first drive of a mobility device (wheelchair 40 with drive motors 44a1 and 44b1; Fig. 17, par. 0060) or a second drive of a mobility assistance robot (care robot 20 with drive motors 21g and 21h; Fig. 3, par. 0056) , the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined relative orientation with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the relative orientation of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052) ; causing, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in a predefined spatial alignment with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the spatial alignment of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052) ; and causing, by controlling at least one of the first drive or the second drive, a distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be a preset reference distance (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089; Fig. 15 shows the distance between electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer, par. 0052) . Regarding claim 12, Nomura discloses the method of claim 11 (shown above) , wherein the caus ing the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in the predefined relative orientation with each other comprises: causing adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) , wherein the causing the adjustment causes a first reference line that connects opposite ends of the mobility device and a second reference line that connects opposite ground surface support parts of the mobility assistance robot to be parallel to each other (Fig. 15 shows the electric wheelchair 40 and the care robot 20 are parallel to each other in the transfer position, par. 0052) . Regarding claim 14, Nomura discloses the method of claim 11 (shown above) , wherein the causing the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot to be in the predefined spatial alignment with each other (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) comprises: causing adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot such that a line defined by a first center reference point, between opposite ends of the mobility device, and a second center reference point, between opposite ground surface support parts of the mobility assistance robot, is perpendicular to a reference line defined by opposite ends of the mobility device (Fig. 15 shows a center reference point of the electric wheelchair 40 and a center reference point of the care robot 20 would be perpendicular to a reference line defined by opposite ends of the electric wheelchair 40 when in position for a transfer, par. 0052) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Park (US 20200298405 A1). Regarding claim 3, Nomura discloses the control device of claim 2 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) and causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations such that the first detection distance is the same as the second detection distance (Fig. 15 shows the electric wheelchair 40 and the care robot 20 are parallel to each other in the transfer position such that a first detection distance and a second detection distance, as claimed, would be the same; par. 0052). Nomura does not explicitly disclose causing the adjustment by: monitoring a first detection distance between a first distance detection transmitter located on the first reference line and a first distance detection receiver located on the second reference line; monitoring a second detection distance between a second distance detection transmitter, spaced apart from the first distance detection transmitter by a reference width on the first reference line, and a second distance detection receiver, spaced apart from the first distance detection transmitter by the reference width on the second reference line . Park teaches a method of align ing a robot to be parallel to an object (abstract) which uses two distance detection sensors (220a and 220b; Fig. 5) and positions the robot such that the two distances measured by the two distance detection sensors are substantially equal (par. 0098; Fig. 4 depicts the robot in a parallel alignment at position C wherein the distances “A” and “B”, seen in Fig. 5, are equal). The only difference in the prior art and the claimed device is the substitution of how the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot achieve a parallel alignment . The substituted steps and their functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Nomura’s method of achieving a predetermined positional relationship by imaging (Nomura par. 0092) with the distance detection sensors taught by Park and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nomura to cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on distance detection sensors as taught by Park as the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . Regarding claim 13, Nomura discloses the method of claim 12 (shown above) , wherein the causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) comprises: causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations such that the first detection distance is the same as the second detection distance (Fig. 15 shows the electric wheelchair 40 and the care robot 20 are parallel to each other in the transfer position such that a first detection distance and a second detection distance, as claimed, would be the same; par. 0052). Nomura does not explicitly disclose causing the adjustment by: monitoring a first detection distance between a first distance detection transmitter located on the first reference line and a first distance detection receiver located on the second reference line; monitoring a second detection distance between a second distance detection transmitter, spaced apart from the first distance detection transmitter by a reference width on the first reference line, and a second distance detection receiver, spaced apart from the first distance detection transmitter by the reference width on the second reference line . Park teaches a method of aligning a robot to be parallel to an object (abstract) which uses two distance detection sensors (220a and 220b; Fig. 5) and positions the robot such that the two distances measured by the two distance detection sensors are substantially equal (par. 0098; Fig. 4 depicts the robot in a parallel alignment at position C wherein the distances “A” and “B”, seen in Fig. 5, are equal). The only difference in the prior art and the claimed device is the substitution of how the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot achieve a parallel alignment . The substituted steps and their functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Nomura’s method of achieving a predetermined positional relationship by imaging (Nomura par. 0092) with the distance detection sensors taught by Park and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nomura to cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on distance detection sensors as taught by Park as the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Huang (CN 113081525 A, machine translation accessed March 27, 2026 relied upon herein) . Regarding claim 5, Nomura discloses the control device of claim 4 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) such that a horizontal center of the mobility assistance robot and a horizontal center of the mobility device coincide with each other (Fig. 15 shows the horizontal center of the electric wheelchair 40 and the horizontal center of the care robot 20 coincide with each other when in the transfer position, par. 0052) . Nomura does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: receive an image via a camera associated with the mobility device; perform object recognition on the image; and based on recognizing the mobility assistance robot in the image at a recognized position and comparing the recognized mobility assistance robot to a predefined position in the image, cause the adjustment . Huang teaches a mobility device (Fig. 7) that receive s an image via a camera associated with the mobility device (depth camera 2; Fig. 3, 5, 7) ; perform object recognition on the image (a door is identified in the image; par. n0074) ; and based on recognizing the object in the image at a recognized position and comparing the recognized mobility assistance robot to a predefined position in the image (a horizontal deflection position of the mobility device and door is determined from the image; par. n0074), cause adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device such that a horizontal center of the object and a horizontal center of the mobility device coincide with each other (instructions are given to the mobility device to adjust its position until it is aligned with the center of the door; par. n0074) for the purpose of providing a low-cost system for achieving a desired alignment of a mobility device (par. n0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to cause adjustment by performing object recognition on an image as taught by Huang for the purpose of providing a low-cost system for achieving a desired alignment of a mobility device (Huang par. n0074). Regarding claim 6, the modified Nomura discloses the control device of claim 5 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations by: determining a horizontal center of the recognized mobility assistance robot in the image (a horizontal deflection from center of the mobility device is determined from the image; Huang par. n0074) ; and adjusting the at least one of the locations such that the horizontal center of the recognized mobility assistance robot in the image coincides with a preset center position indicated by the predefined position in the image (mobility device adjusts position until it is aligned with center of the door; Huang par. n0074) . Regarding claim 8, the modified Nomura discloses the control device of claim 5 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations by controlling movement of at least one of the mobility device or the mobility assistance robot to avoid an obstacle corresponding to an obstacle detected by a sensor ( collision prevention sensors 21k and 21l of the care robot 20 detect obstacles, Fig. 3, par. 0017; collision prevention sensor 45 of wheelchair 40 detects obstacles, par. 0063). Nomura does not disclose identifying an obstacle object recognized in the image . Huang teaches a mobility device that detects obstacles ( par. n0046) using sensors as well as a camera (par. n0046) for the purpose of providing auxiliary detection to overcome the limitations of using a single method (par. n0046, n0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to recognize obstacles in an image as taught by Huang for the purpose of providing auxiliary detection to overcome the limitations of using a single method (Huang par. n0046, n0071). Regarding claim 15, Nomura discloses the method of claim 14 (shown above) , further comprising: causing adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device or a location of the mobility assistance robot (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Fig. 22, par. 0089) such that a horizontal center of the mobility assistance robot and a horizontal center of the mobility device coincide with each other (Fig. 15 shows the horizontal center of the electric wheelchair 40 and the horizontal center of the care robot 20 coincide with each other when in the transfer position, par. 0052). Nomura does not disclose receiving an image via a camera associated with the mobility device; perform ing object recognition on the image; and based on recognizing the mobility assistance robot in the image at a recognized position and comparing the recognized mobility assistance robot to a predefined position in the image, causing the adjustment . Huang teaches a mobility device (Fig. 7) that receive s an image via a camera associated with the mobility device (depth camera 2; Fig. 3, 5, 7) ; perform object recognition on the image (a door is identified in the image; par. n0074) ; and based on recognizing the object in the image at a recognized position and comparing the recognized mobility assistance robot to a predefined position in the image (a horizontal deflection position of the mobility device and door is determined from the image; par. n0074), cause adjustment of at least one of a location of the mobility device such that a horizontal center of the object and a horizontal center of the mobility device coincide with each other (instructions are given to the mobility device to adjust its position until it is aligned with the center of the door; par. n0074) for the purpose of providing a low-cost system for achieving a desired alignment of a mobility device (par. n0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to cause adjustment by performing object recognition on an image as taught by Huang for the purpose of providing a low-cost system for achieving a desired alignment of a mobility device (Huang par. n0074). Regarding claim 16, the modified Nomura discloses the method of claim 15 (shown above) , wherein the causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations comprises: determining a horizontal center of the recognized mobility assistance robot in the image (a horizontal deflection from center of the mobility device is determined from the image; Huang par. n0074) ; and adjusting the at least one of the locations such that the horizontal center of the recognized mobility assistance robot in the image coincides with a preset center position indicated by the predefined position in the image (mobility device adjusts position until it is aligned with center of the door; Huang par. n0074) . Regarding claim 18, the modified Nomura discloses the method of claim 15 (shown above) , wherein the causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations comprises: controlling movement of the mobility device or the mobility assistance robot to avoid an obstacle corresponding to an obstacle detected by a sensor (collision prevention sensors 21k and 21l of the care robot 20 detect obstacles, Fig. 3, par. 0017; collision prevention sensor 45 of wheelchair 40 detects obstacles, par. 0063). Nomura does not disclose identifying an obstacle object recognized in the image . Huang teaches a mobility device that detects obstacles (par. n0046) using sensors as well as a camera (par. n0046) for the purpose of providing auxiliary detection to overcome the limitations of using a single method (par. n0046, n0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to recognize obstacles in an image as taught by Huang for the purpose of providing auxiliary detection to overcome the limitations of using a single method (Huang par. n0046, n0071). Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Huang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (US 20190096069 A1), hereafter Qian . Regarding claim 7, the modified Nomura discloses the control device of claim 5 (shown above) , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Nomura Fig. 22, par. 0089). The modified Nomura does not explicitly disclose causing the adjustment by: determining information indicating a labeling box of the recognized mobility assistance robot; and causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box . Qian teaches a method for visually tracking a target (abstract) by : determining information indicating a labeling box of the object (bounding box 1316-1 and 1316-2; Fig. 13) ; and causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box (controller adjusts movement of imaging device based on change in size of the bounding box; par. 0047) for the purpose of determining a distance of the target object from the imaging device (distance can be determined from a change in bounding box size from 1316-1 to 1316-2; Fig. 13, par. 0178). The only difference in the prior art and the claimed device is the substitution of how the distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot is detected . The substituted steps and their functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Nomura’s method of measuring the distance using an image (Nomura par. 0092) with the labeling boxes taught by Qian and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nomura to cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box as taught by Qian as the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . Regarding claim 17, the modified Nomura discloses the method of claim 15 (shown above) , wherein the causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations (control device 27 finely adjusts the position of electric wheelchair 40 and care robot 20 for a transfer; Nomura Fig. 22, par. 0089). The modified Nomura does not explicitly disclose causing the adjustment by determining information indicating a labeling box of the recognized mobility assistance robot; and causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box . Qian teaches a method for visually tracking a target (abstract) by: determining information indicating a labeling box of the object (bounding box 1316-1 and 1316-2; Fig. 13); and causing adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box (controller adjusts movement of imaging device based on change in size of the bounding box; par. 0047) for the purpose of determining a distance of the target object from the imaging device (distance can be determined from a change in bounding box size from 1316-1 to 1316-2; Fig. 13, par. 0178). The only difference in the prior art and the claimed device is the substitution of how the distance between the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot is detected . The substituted steps and their functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Nomura’s method of measuring the distance using an image (Nomura par. 0092) with the labeling boxes taught by Qian and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nomura to cause adjustment of the at least one of the locations based on a size of the labeling box as taught by Qian as the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura. Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nomura discloses the control device of claim 1 (shown above) . Nomura does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to: receive information indicating that a user switched between using the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot; determine a user switching time indicated by the information; calculate a reliability metric based on the user switching time; and update, based on the calculated reliability metric, at least one of the predefined relative orientation, the predefined spatial alignment, or the preset reference difference . However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to perform these steps since they can be performed by hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these steps are naturally performed by a human during a transfer between a mobility device and a mobility assistance robot. If the transfer took a longer time than expected, one would naturally adjust the relative positions of the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot and seek to reduce this transfer time for the comfort of the user. Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Nomura discloses the control device of claim 9 (shown above). Nomura does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control device to calculate the reliability metric further based on an indication of a user manipulation of one or more of the mobility device or the mobility assistance robot . However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nomura to perform this step since it can be performed by hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this step is naturally performed by a human during a transfer between a mobility device and a mobility assistance robot. If the transfer required a readjustment of the position of the mobility device or the mobility assistance robot, one would naturally recognize that the initial positions of the mobility device and the mobility assistance robot were not ideal and seek to correct the initial position s for any subsequent transfers to increase the comfort of the user. Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nomura discloses the method of claim 11 (shown above). Nomura does not disclose receiving information