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 . Claims 1, 9, 12 and 18 have been amended. Currently, claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections filed on 1/6/2026 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki (US 2010/0084204) in view of Kim (US 2019/0367112)
Regarding claim 1, Iwaki discloses:
An apparatus for controlling a mobility device, the apparatus comprising: (Iwaki - apparatus (sensors, controller, etc.) configured to control mobility device/crawler device -> Fig. 2, Par. 119-122)
a distance sensor configured to be disposed at a frame of the mobility device, the distance sensor being configured to, based on the mobility device traveling on stairs, measure a distance from the mobility device to the stairs; (Iwaki - distance sensor measures distance to stairs -> Fig. 4A-4I, Fig. 7A-7H, Fig. 17A-17G, Par. 135-145, Par. 152-161)
a processor; and (Iwaki - controller adjusts travel speed based on measured distance -> Par. 111, Par. 117-122, Par. 130-133; processor to execute instructions -> Par. 122, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 8-9, Fig. 16)
a non-transitory storage medium including program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to, while the mobility device travels on the stairs, adjust a travel speed of the mobility device based on the measured distance to the stairs, (Iwaki - controller adjusts travel speed based on measured distance -> Par. 111, Par. 117-122, Par. 130-133; processor to execute instructions -> Par. 122, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 8-9, Fig. 16)
wherein the distance sensor comprises:
a first laser sensor configured to, based on the mobility device traveling on uphill stairs in a first direction, measure a first distance from the mobility device to the uphill stairs, and (Iwaki - laser sensor -> Par. 120; first laser sensor measures first distance to uphill stairs -> Fig. 4E, Par. 120-121, Par. 142-144)
a second laser sensor configured to, based on the mobility device traveling on downhill stairs in a second direction opposite to the first direction, measure a second distance from the mobility device to the downhill stairs, and (Iwaki - laser sensor -> Par. 120; second laser sensor measures second distance to downhill stairs -> Fig. 17B, Par. 203)
wherein the first laser sensor and the second laser sensor are mounted (Iwaki – Fig. 15 and [0198] – laser sensors 63 and 64 as shown).
Iwaki does not appear to explicitly disclose mounted to a center of the frame.
Kim (US 2019/0367112 A1), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein a distance sensor is mounted to a center of the frame at a rear wheel side of the mobility device (Kim – Fig. 2, [0031-0033] - rear sensor 26 is mounted to the center of rear motor mounting stand 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kim into the invention of Iwaki with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of mounting the sensors at a place where they are able to sense a vertical surface of the stairs and climb the stairs safely (Kim – [0031-0033]). Mounting the sensors at the center of the rear frame would balance the weight of the mobility device. Furthermore, mounting the sensors at a center of the frame considered a rearrangement of parts that would not negatively impact the operation of the device and therefore doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Iwaki discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate the first laser sensor based on the mobility device traveling on the uphill stairs in the first direction. (Iwaki - laser sensor -> Par. 120; first laser sensor measures first distance to uphill stairs -> Fig. 4E, Par. 120-121, Par. 142-144; use first laser sensor when traveling uphill -> Fig. 3, Par. 142-144)
Regarding claim 4, Iwaki discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate the second laser sensor based on the mobility device traveling on the downhill stairs in the second direction. (Iwaki - laser sensor -> Par. 120; second laser sensor measures second distance to downhill stairs -> Fig. 17B, Par. 203; use second laser sensor when traveling downhill -> Fig. 16, Par. 201-210)
Regarding claim 5, Iwaki discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to reduce the travel speed of the mobility device based on the first distance to the stairs being less than a first threshold distance while the mobility device travels on the uphill stairs in the first direction. (Iwaki - ascent mode determined when distance is less than a first threshold distance -> Fig. 3, Par. 142-144; predetermined relatively (compared to normal mode) low speed when ascent or descent mode -> Par. 216)
Regarding claim 6, Iwaki discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to reduce the travel speed of the mobility device based on the second distance to the stairs being greater than a threshold distance while the mobility device travels on the downhill stairs in the second direction. (Iwaki - descent mode determined and reduce speed when second distance to stairs is greater than a threshold distance -> Fig. 16, Par. 201-210; predetermined relatively (compared to normal mode) low speed when ascent or descent mode -> Par. 216)
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 3-4, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 3-4; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 5-6; therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5-6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Kim and in further view of Lafontaine (US 2023/0047500 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Iwaki discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Iwaki further discloses (Iwaki does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a tilt sensor configured to measure a tilt of the mobility device with respect to a reference position of the mobility device, (Iwaki - perform stabilizing function when tilt is greater than a threshold angle -> Par. 138, Par. 174, claims 1-2)
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to adjust (Iwaki - perform stabilizing function when tilt is greater than a threshold angle -> Par. 138, Par. 174, claims 1-2)
Lafontaine teaches an inclination control system for tracked vehicle, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to adjust the travel speed of the mobility device based on the tilt measured by the tilt sensor being greater than a threshold angle. (Lafontaine - adjust vehicle speed based on tilt angle -> Par. 43-49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwaki to include adjusting travel speed as taught by Lafontaine.
One would be motivated to make this modification to bolster stability and prevent rollover (Lafontaine - Par. 3, Par. 47). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Iwaki and Lafontaine.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Iwaki and Lafontaine from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 7; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 9-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Kim and in further view of Pivac (US 2021/0080582 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Iwaki discloses (Iwaki does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
An apparatus for controlling a mobility device, the apparatus comprising: (Iwaki - apparatus (sensors, controller, etc.) configured to control mobility device/crawler device -> Fig. 2, Par. 119-122)
a distance sensor configured to be disposed at a frame of the mobility device, the distance sensor being configured to, based on the mobility device traveling on stairs, measure a distance from the mobility device to the stairs; (Iwaki - distance sensor measures distance to stairs -> Fig. 4A-4I, Fig. 7A-7H, Fig. 17A-17G, Par. 135-145, Par. 152-161; first irradiation angle and second irradiation angle -> Par. 199; first laser sensor measures first distance to uphill stairs -> Fig. 4E, Par. 120-121, Par. 142-144; second laser sensor measures second distance to downhill stairs -> Fig. 17B, Par. 203)
a processor; and (Iwaki - controller adjusts travel speed based on measured distance -> Par. 111, Par. 117-122, Par. 130-133; processor to execute instructions -> Par. 122, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 8-9, Fig. 16)
a non-transitory storage medium including program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to, while the mobility device travels on the stairs, adjust a travel speed of the mobility device based on the measured distance to the stairs, (Iwaki - controller adjusts travel speed based on measured distance -> Par. 111, Par. 117-122, Par. 130-133; processor to execute instructions -> Par. 122, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 8-9, Fig. 16)
wherein the distance sensor comprises:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
(Iwaki - first irradiation angle and second irradiation angle -> Par. 199; first laser sensor measures first distance to uphill stairs -> Fig. 4E, Par. 120-121, Par. 142-144; second laser sensor measures second distance to downhill stairs -> Fig. 17B, Par. 203)
second direction opposite to the first direction, and (Iwaki - first irradiation angle and second irradiation angle -> Par. 199; first laser sensor measures first distance to uphill stairs -> Fig. 4E, Par. 120-121, Par. 142-144; second laser sensor measures second distance to downhill stairs -> Fig. 17B, Par. 203)
wherein the laser sensor is configured to be disposed on the frame at a rear wheel side of the mobility device. (Iwaki - laser sensors in the rear sprocket (i.e. wheel) side -> Par. 198)
Pivac teaches a laser tracker with improved roll angle measurement, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
a laser sensor configured to emit light, and (Pivac - motor to adjust irradiation angle of laser sensor configured to emit light -> Par. 28, Par. 61, Par. 107, Par. 116-117, Par. 133-137, Par. 147)
a motor configured to adjust an irradiation angle of the laser sensor, (Pivac - motor to adjust irradiation angle of laser sensor configured to emit light -> Par. 28, Par. 61, Par. 107, Par. 116-117, Par. 133-137, Par. 147)
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
control the motor to adjust the irradiation angle of the laser sensor to a first irradiation angle (Pivac - motor to adjust irradiation angle of laser sensor configured to emit light -> Par. 28, Par. 61, Par. 107, Par. 116-117, Par. 133-137, Par. 147)
control the motor such to adjust the irradiation angle of the laser sensor to a second irradiation angle (Pivac - motor to adjust irradiation angle of laser sensor configured to emit light -> Par. 28, Par. 61, Par. 107, Par. 116-117, Par. 133-137, Par. 147)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwaki to include a motor to adjust an irradiation angle of a laser sensor as taught by Pivac.
One would be motivated to make this modification to accurately control the position of the laser sensor and accommodate for a changing position of a target (Pivac - Par. 5-12, Par. 55). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Iwaki and Pivac.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of robotic control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Iwaki and Pivac from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 10, Iwaki and Pivac teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and Iwaki further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to reduce the travel speed of the mobility device based on the measured distance to the stairs being less than a first threshold distance while the mobility device travels on uphill stairs. (Iwaki - ascent mode determined when distance is less than a first threshold distance -> Fig. 3, Par. 142-144; predetermined relatively (compared to normal mode) low speed when ascent or descent mode -> Par. 216)
Regarding claim 11, Iwaki and Pivac teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and Iwaki further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to reduce the travel speed of the mobility device based on the measured distance to the stairs being greater than a threshold distance while the mobility device travels on downhill stairs. (Iwaki - descent mode determined and reduce speed when second distance to stairs is greater than a threshold distance -> Fig. 16, Par. 201-210; predetermined relatively (compared to normal mode) low speed when ascent or descent mode -> Par. 216)
Regarding claims 18-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 9-11, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 9-11; therefore, claims 18-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVID MEHDIZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7691. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trammell can be reached on (571)-272-6712. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669