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 .
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0248439) in view of Namba (US 2022/0242408)
As to claim 1 Wang discloses a mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a prescribed region different from the roadway, the mobile object control device comprising:
a storage device storing a program; and
a hardware processor configured to execute the program to:
recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the prescribed region (Paragraph 144 “The geospatial analytics module 500 will then check whether the electric scooter 100 is inside a geofence 608 (i.e. geo-fence).”); and
at least partially control a speed of the mobile object, ; and
limit the speed of the mobile object moving on the roadway to a first
speed and limiting the speed of the mobile object moving in the prescribed region to a
second speed that is lower than the first speed (Paragraph 144 “The geospatial analytics module 500 will then check whether the electric scooter 100 is inside a geofence 608 (i.e. geo-fence). If the electric scooter were not in the geofence it will continue acquire the GPS coordinates. On the contrary, if the electric scooter 100 were in the geofence, the geospatial analytics module 500 checks whether the speed limit is violated 610. If the speed limit were exceeded, the electric scooter 100 will reduce the travelling speed automatically 612.”).
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor recognizes that he mobile object moves on the roadway, the hardware processor decide on a first target speed lower than the first speed, and
teaches wherein the hardware processor recognizes that he mobile object moves on the roadway, the hardware processor decide on a first target speed lower than the first speed (Paragraph 35 “If the intersection detector 22b detects the set of intersections whose interval is shorter than the predetermined interval, the ACC-set-vehicle-speed changing section 22c may change the ACC set vehicle speed from the first ACC set vehicle speed set by the driver, for example, to a second ACC set vehicle speed. In one example, if the intersection detector 22b detects the set of intersections satisfying Expression (1), the ACC-set-vehicle-speed changing section 22c may change the ACC set vehicle speed from the first ACC set vehicle speed to the second ACC set vehicle speed which is determined by Expression (2).”), and
the hardware processor decides on a second target speed by correcting the decided first target speed on the basis of a speed instruction from an occupant via an instruction reception unit provide on the mobile object(Paragraph 35 “If the intersection detector 22b detects the set of intersections whose interval is shorter than the predetermined interval, the ACC-set-vehicle-speed changing section 22c may change the ACC set vehicle speed from the first ACC set vehicle speed set by the driver, for example, to a second ACC set vehicle speed. In one example, if the intersection detector 22b detects the set of intersections satisfying Expression (1), the ACC-set-vehicle-speed changing section 22c may change the ACC set vehicle speed from the first ACC set vehicle speed to the second ACC set vehicle speed which is determined by Expression (2).”), and wherein
the hardware processor controls the mobile object to move at the first target speed or the second target speed (Paragraph 36 “If the intersection detector 22b no longer detects, after the changing the ACC set vehicle speed to the second ACC set vehicle speed, the set of intersections whose interval is shorter than the predetermined interval, the ACC-set-vehicle-speed changing section 22c may change the ACC set vehicle speed from the second ACC set vehicle speed to the first ACC set vehicle speed set by the driver, for example.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Wang to include the teachings of adjusting the speed to a first or second target speed for the purpose of providing a safe speed of travel for the mobile object on the roadway.
As to claim 2 Wang discloses a mobile object control device wherein the hardware processor causes an external notification device to provide a notification indicating that the mobile object is moving in the prescribed region to the outside of the mobile object when it is recognized that the mobile object is moving in the prescribed region (Paragraph 148).
As to claim 3 Wang discloses a mobile object control device wherein the hardware processor recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or moving in the prescribed region on the basis of an output of an external world detection device for detecting a situation outside of the mobile object (Paragraph 144).
As to claim 4 Wang discloses a mobile object control device according to any one of wherein the hardware processor recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or moving in the prescribed region on the basis of an operation of an occupant for a switch provided on the mobile object(Paragraph 24, 35).
As to claim 5 Wang discloses a mobile object control device wherein the hardware processor receives the speed instruction from the occupant via the instruction reception unit provided on the mobile object, automatically controls at least the speed of the mobile object moving on the roadway with reference to the speed instruction, and limits the speed of the mobile object moving on the roadway to the first speed regardless of the speed instruction that has been designated(Paragraph 106, 144).
As to claim 6 Wang discloses a mobile object control device wherein hardware processor receives the speed instruction from an occupant via an instruction reception unit, automatically controls at least the speed of the mobile object moving in the prescribed region with reference to the speed instruction, and limits the speed of the mobile object moving in the prescribed region to the second speed regardless of the speed instruction that has been designated (Paragraph 144).
As to claim 7 Wang discloses a mobile object control device wherein the instruction reception unit is a dial switch for issuing an instruction to increase or decrease the speed according to a rotation angle(Paragraph 24)
As to claim 9 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 10 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0248439) in view of Namba (US 2022/0242408) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sen (US 2019/0101916)
As to claim 8 Sen teaches a mobile object control device wherein a first operation element for receiving an acceleration or deceleration instruction and a second operation element for receiving a steering instruction are provided on the mobile object, and
wherein the hardware processor switches a mode to one of mode A in which acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the mobile object are controlled on the basis of an operation on one of the first operation element and the second operation element(Paragraph 14), mode B in which the acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the mobile object are controlled on the basis of an operation on both the first operation element and the second operation element(Paragraph 14), and mode C in which the acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the mobile object are controlled without being based on an operation on either the first operation element or the second operation element(Paragraph 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Wang to include the teachings of different modes for the purpose of switching between manual and automatic modes to control the speed of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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.
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
2/25/2026