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 the Applicant’s arguments
The RCE is entered. The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Kumar is silent but Colgate teaches “...a presentation device configured to deliver the haptic signal to the user, wherein the presentation device includes a piezoelectric haptic array (see paragraph 14 to 18 and Fig. 1 where the vehicle can include a haptic device that has a piezoelectric two dimensional array of piezoelectric elements)
comprising a two-dimensional (2D) array of piezoelectric elements (see paragraph 14) configured to [[present]] be individually controlled to form a 2D dynamic tactile pattern (see paragraph 79-82) that changes over multiple time points and depicts [[dynamic features]] position and movements of a moving vehicle in the environment”. (see paragraph 94-104 where the user can move an appendage across the piezo electric elements that can provide an input or an output to control one or more elements of the vehicle and/or provide a signal as to what the vehicle is doing and this can be combined with the movement of the vehicle in paragraph 111 and any other system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of COLGATE since COLGATE teaches a vehicle can include a center panel with a touch surface interface and a 2-d array of piezoelectric elements to provide control of one or more components of the vehicle and also output a haptic feedback pertaining to the vehicle. Different haptic stimulations can be provided to the user’s finger to provide urgent warnings about the vehicle. The user can then also drag their finger across to resolve the warnings for an improved user interface. See paragraph 74-85 and 100-109 of COLGATE.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2014/0310594 A1 to Ricci that was filed in 2014 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190187842A1 to Colgate.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Kumar is silent but Colgate teaches “...a presentation device configured to deliver the haptic signal to the user, wherein the presentation device includes a piezoelectric haptic array (see paragraph 14 to 18 and Fig. 1 where the vehicle can include a haptic device that has a piezoelectric two dimensional array of piezoelectric elements)
comprising a two-dimensional (2D) array of piezoelectric elements (see paragraph 14) configured to [[present]] be individually controlled to form a 2D dynamic tactile pattern (see paragraph 79-82) that changes over multiple time points and depicts [[dynamic features]] position and movements of a moving vehicle in the environment”. (see paragraph 94-104 where the user can move an appendage across the piezo electric elements that can provide an input or an output to control one or more elements of the vehicle and/or provide a signal as to what the vehicle is doing and this can be combined with the movement of the vehicle in paragraph 111 and any other system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of COLGATE since COLGATE teaches a vehicle can include a center panel with a touch surface interface and a 2-d array of piezoelectric elements to provide control of one or more components of the vehicle and also output a haptic feedback pertaining to the vehicle. Different haptic stimulations can be provided to the user’s finger to provide urgent warnings about the vehicle. The user can then also drag their finger across to resolve the warnings for an improved user interface. See paragraph 74-85 and 100-109 of COLGATE.
KUMAR discloses “...1. An assistive apparatus, comprising: (see FIG. 1 where the drone can monitor the building on fire and then assist with the safe evacuation of the occupants in paragraph 35)
a sensing device configured to collect data characterizing an environment in the vicinity of a user, the collected data being of a first data type; (see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
a processing device, including one or more processors, configured to process an input including the collected data into presentation data specifying one or more of: a haptic signal; and(see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
a presentation device configured to deliver the audio signal or the haptic signal to the user. (see paragraph 35-45 where the drone can detect a fire, and detect people in the building and then provide auditory instructions to the people for an exit or to an elevator)
Claim 1 is amended to recite and KUMAR is silent but RICCI teaches “...a presentation device configured to deliver the haptic signal to the user, wherein the presentation device includes a haptic array configured to present a dynamic tactile pattern that depicts dynamic features of a moving vehicle in the environment”. (see paragraph 841-845 where the haptic feedback can be provided to a blind individual that has a low vision impairment; see paragraph 854-855 where the device can include a collision avoidance system that can detect a collision; see paragraph 8547 where the collision system can provide a tugging of the shoulder portion of the belt, 1 time, then 2 times and 3 times to provide that a vehicle is going to collide with a second vehicle and that the person needs to take action and can provide an audio warning and then provide a braking of the vehicle)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of RICCI since RUCCI teaches a vehicle can detect a collision with a second vehicle. Before the collision occurs, a first vibration can be provided for a localizing the haptic indication. See paragraph 845. Then if there is no avoidance a second haptic indication can be provided for a tug on the shoulder belt three times with the vibration. This can cause the user to avoid the collision and if not an automatic braking can be provided. This can cause a low vision user to have a safe experience. See paragraph 841-845 of RICCI.
KUMAR discloses “..2. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes one or more of: a camera, a sonar, or a Lidar. (see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
KUMAR discloses “..3. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensing device is further configured to transmit the collected data to a data repository shared by multiple users, and the processing device is further configured to receive data from the data repository and process the received data into the presentation data”. (see paragraph 49 where a manual control can be provided and the data can be sent back to an operator for an operator to provide a manual instruction and a remote user and operator)
PNG
media_image1.png
752
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KUMAR discloses “.4. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to:
navigate the environment in the vicinity of the user; (see FIG. 3 where the drone can search each floor for a handicapped person to provide them with a navigation via an audio device)
collect sensor data using a sensor onboard the UAV; and(see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
transmit the sensor data to the processing device”. (see paragraph 35-49)
Kumar discloses “...5. The assistive apparatus of claim 4, wherein the sensor includes one or more of: a camera, a sonar, or a Lidar. (see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN108137153B (US10370122B2) filed in 2016 to Fisher et al. and Ricci and Colgate.
Kumar discloses “...6. The assistive apparatus of claim 4, wherein the UAV comprises a control unit, including one or more processors, configured to:
control the UAV to be deployed to navigate the environment in the vicinity of the user; and control the UAV” (see paragraph 35-40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc and then transmit instruction to the users to allow them to escape)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kumar is silent but Fisher teaches “...to return to a storage housing of a wearable device when the UAV is not being deployed” (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image3.png
654
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fisher teaches “..7. The assistive apparatus of claim 6, wherein the control unit is further configured to control one or more actuators to rearrange a structure of the UAV between a resting configuration for storage and a deployed configuration for flight tasks. (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user and in FIG. 1c folds down to mate with the curvature of the helmet).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image3.png
654
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fisher teaches “..8. The assistive apparatus of claim 7, wherein the UAV includes a plurality of rotor discs, and rearranging the UAV from the deployed configuration to the resting configuration comprises:
rearranging one or more respective rotation axles of one or more of the plurality of rotor discs to align the rotation axles into a linear alignment with each other. . (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user and in FIG. 1c folds down to mate with the curvature of the helmet or in FIG. 13a the rotors fold downward to mate with the shoulder of the wearer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image4.png
822
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fisher teaches “..9. The assistive apparatus of claim 7, wherein the UAV includes a frame structure that has an elongated shape in the resting configuration, and rearranging the UAV from the resting configuration to the deployed configuration comprises expanding a width and shortening a height of the elongated shape of the frame structure. (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user and in FIG. 1c folds down to mate with the curvature of the helmet or in FIG. 13a the rotors fold downward to mate with the shoulder of the wearer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image4.png
822
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fisher teaches “...10. The assistive apparatus of claim 7, wherein the UAV has a spherical shape when in the resting configuration, and rearranging the UAV from the resting configuration to the deployed configuration comprises moving one or more movable portions of the spherical shape from a closed to an open position. . (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user and in FIG. 1c folds down to mate with the curvature of the helmet or in FIG. 13a the rotors fold downward to mate with the shoulder of the wearer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
Fisher teaches “...11. The assistive apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the UAV comprises one or more propellers each including a plurality of rectangular blades rotatably coupled to an axle, and the plurality of rectangular blades are aligned with each other when the UAV is in a resting configuration. . (see FIG. 1a to 1d where the drone is provided to land in a housing formed in a helmet of the user and in FIG. 1c folds down to mate with the curvature of the helmet or in FIG. 13a the rotors fold downward to mate with the shoulder of the wearer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of FISHER since FISHER teaches that in a small drone can dock via a port into a helmet and fold into the helmet to not be obtrusive. The drone can go on missions and engage in a security camera viewing and then return to the helmet for charging. See FIG. 10-12 and the abstract.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN108137153B (US10370122B2) filed in 2016 to Fisher et al. and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN109229410A and Ricci and Colgate.
The 410 publication teaches “..12. The assistive apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a UAV launching device, the UAV launching device comprising:
a barrel configured to house and guide the UAV during launching; and
an ejection mechanism configured to eject the UAV”. (see abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of TONG since TONG teaches that in a small drone can be ejected using an emission cylinder to assist with the deployment of the air drone. See abstract.
Claims 13 to 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140379251A1 to Tolstedt et al. filed in 2014 and Ricci and Colgate.
Tolstedt teaches “...13. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes a walking stick incorporated with one or more sensors configured to collect sensor data of the environment, and transmit the sensor data to the processing device”. (see abstract that includes an IMU sensor that can providing walking navigation instructions from a walking stick).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of TOLSTEDT since TOLSTEDT teaches that a smart walking stick can provide a mobility aid for the blind and provide a vibration to warn the blind user of an obstruction or that they are moving off course. See paragraph 37-39.
Tolstedt teaches “...14. The assistive apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more sensors incorporated into the walking stick comprises one or more of:
one or more cameras; (see paragraph 8 where the walking stick includes a head or body mounted camera to provide walking safe paths)
a GPS device; or (see paragraph 24)
a UAV housed in a storage housing of the elongated pole when the UAV is in a resting position”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of TOLSTEDT since TOLSTEDT teaches that a smart walking stick can provide a mobility aid for the blind and provide a vibration to warn the blind user of an obstruction or that they are moving off course. See paragraph 37-39.
PNG
media_image5.png
708
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140379251A1 to Tolstedt et al. filed in 2014 and in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No.: JP5897840B2 and in view of Ricci and Colgate.
The 840 publication teaches “...15. The assistive apparatus of claim 13, wherein the elongated pole comprises a plurality of sections coupled together and configured to expand from a retracted to an expanded configuration”. (see FIG. 7b where the walking stick can retract to save the individual from a fall)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of the 874 since the 874 publication teaches that a smart walking stick can provide telescoping function to elongate to prevent a fall and for the user to regain a balance. See abstract.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140379251A1 to Tolstedt et al. filed in 2014 and Ricci and Colgate.
Tolstedt teaches “...16. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes a mobile robotic device configured to:
navigate the environment in the vicinity of the user;
collect sensor data using a sensor onboard the mobile robotic device; and (see paragraphs 30-33)
transmit the sensor data to the processing device”. (see paragraph 10-13 and 48-49).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of TOLSTEDT since TOLSTEDT teaches that a smart walking stick can provide a mobility aid for the blind and provide a vibration to warn the blind user of an obstruction or that they are moving off course. See paragraph 37-39.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140379251A1 to Tolstedt et al. filed in 2014 and in view of NPL, Islam, Towhidul, et al., TaxSeeMe: A Taxi Administering System for the Visually Impaired, (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8628328), 2018 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) (December 5 2018) (hereinafter “Islam”) and in view of Ricci and Colgate.
PNG
media_image6.png
591
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Islam teaches “...17. The assistive apparatus of claim 16, wherein the mobile robotic device is connected to an expandable tether”. (see FIG. 1 where the tethered mobile device is on the neck of the blind person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to IBM™ and the teachings of Islam since Islam teaches that a blind person’s cell phone (see FIG. 1 as Samsung Galaxy phone with raspberry oS) can be used with a second chest mounted wearable low powered camera with speaking instructions (See FIG.1). The user who is blind can have a cell phone summon the ride share and then provide audio walking directions from the GPS origin location to where the taxi and rideshare is located. Also, the wearable low powered chest mounted camera can warn of obstacles on the way as an audio warning. This can ensure that the blind person can be provided walking directions free of obstacles from a hotel to a taxi where as before a blind person cannot stand on the street and hail a taxi. This can provide a safe summoning of a taxi and navigation to the taxi/rideshare pick up location from the hotel. See section III at page 2 of Islam.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190325548A1 to KUMAR and assigned to Carrier filed in 2018 which is prior to 9-30-2022 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20140379251A1 to Tolstedt et al. filed in 2014 and in view of NPL, Islam, Towhidul, et al., TaxSeeMe: A Taxi Administering System for the Visually Impaired, (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8628328), 2018 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) (December 5 2018) (hereinafter “Islam”) and Ricci and Colgate.
PNG
media_image6.png
591
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Islam teaches “...18. The assistive apparatus of claim 16, wherein the mobile robotic device is further configured to be controlled by a voice command to perform a task. (see page 1-2, section III where the taxi see me device receives the user’s location and receives a destination location and then this is provided to summon a rideshare vehicle in response to the request for a taxi via a Wi-Fi direct ID and/or Bluetooth ID and computer vision to identify the taxi via object recognition and marker text identification and then the user can be instructed to move to the taxi)’
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to IBM™ and the teachings of Islam since Islam teaches that a blind person’s cell phone (see FIG. 1 as Samsung Galaxy phone with raspberry oS) can be used with a second chest mounted wearable low powered camera with speaking instructions (See FIG.1). The user who is blind can have a cell phone summon the ride share and then provide audio walking directions from the GPS origin location to where the taxi and rideshare is located. Also, the wearable low powered chest mounted camera can warn of obstacles on the way as an audio warning. This can ensure that the blind person can be provided walking directions free of obstacles from a hotel to a taxi where as before a blind person cannot stand on the street and hail a taxi. This can provide a safe summoning of a taxi and navigation to the taxi/rideshare pick up location from the hotel. See section III at page 2 of Islam.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being obvious in view of Kumar and in view of United States Patent No.: US9659503B2 to Gordon (US20170018193A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Gordon”) and assigned to IBM™ and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “...19. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device includes one or more arrays of actuated pegs that are controlled, by a control signal generated according to the presentation data, to move in an axial direction to form one or more patterns. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)”/
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being obvious in view of Kumar and in view of United States Patent No.: US9659503B2 to Gordon (US20170018193A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Gordon”) and assigned to IBM™ and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “...20. The assistive apparatus of claim 19, wherein the one or more of the actuated pegs are further controlled by the control signal to provide a haptic feedback. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being obvious in view of Kumar and in view of United States Patent No.: US9659503B2 to Gordon (US20170018193A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Gordon”) and assigned to IBM™ and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “...21. The assistive apparatus of claim 20, wherein the haptic feedback is a vibration”. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
PNG
media_image7.png
724
1102
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kumar and in view of United States Patent No.: US10121388B2 to SEIM and Ricci and Colgate.
KUMAR is silent but SEIM teaches “..22. The assistive apparatus of claim 19, wherein the processing device is configured to:
generate text data specifying a text segment based on the collected data;
process the text data to generate Braille data specifying a Braille text segment that is a translation of the text segment; and
process the Braille text segment to generate the control signal;
wherein the one or more array of actuated pegs are controlled by the control signal to form one or more patterns of Braille characters to present the Braille text segment to the user”. (see Col. 2, lines 2-Col. 3, line 10 and FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of SEIM since SEIM teaches that a blind person can be aided by a haptic device to gain information in braille typed messages in real time. This can be from a glove or other device to relay messages to the blind. See Col 20, line 15 to col. 22, line 11 and FIG. 4.
SIEM teaches “.23. The assistive apparatus of claim 19, wherein each of the one or more arrays of actuated pegs are incorporated into one or more wearable rings. (see Col. 45). see Col. 2, lines 2-Col. 3, line 10 and FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of SEIM since SEIM teaches that a blind person can be aided by a haptic device to gain information in braille typed messages in real time. This can be from a glove or other device to relay messages to the blind. See Col 20, line 15 to col. 22, line 11 and FIG. 4.
Claims 24-25 and 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being obvious in view of Kumar and in view of United States Patent No.: US9659503B2 to Gordon (US20170018193A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Gordon”) and assigned to IBM™ and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “..24. The assistive apparatus of claim 19, wherein at least one of the one or more patterns is a dynamic pattern that changes over multiple time points”. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 25 is cancelled.
Gordon teaches “..25. The assistive apparatus of claim 24, wherein the dynamic pattern depicts dynamic features of the environment. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Gordon teaches “...26. The assistive apparatus of claim 23, wherein the dynamic pattern depicts position and movements of an object in the environment. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kumar and in view of SEIM and Ricci and Colgate.
SEIM teaches “...27. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device includes a tactile image formed by controlling a plurality of valves in micro-fluidic or pneumatic channels to route forced air or liquid flow in the channels. (see Col. 2, lines 2-Col. 3, line 10 and FIG. 4 and col. 2, line 1-22)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of SEIM since SEIM teaches that a blind person can be aided by a haptic device to gain information in braille typed messages in real time. This can be from a glove or other device to relay messages to the blind. See Col 20, line 15 to col. 22, line 11 and FIG. 4.
Gordon teaches “...28. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the assistive apparatus is configured to receive a user command, and control the sensing device and the presentation device to perform operations according to the user command. (see paragraph 17)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2013006639A1 to Horseman that was filed in 2012 and Ricci and Colgate.
Horseman teaches “...29. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a brain signal sensing device, the brain signal sensing device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to measure signals from a user brain; and
an analysis unit, including one or more processors, configured to analyze the measured signals to infer a user intention, and generate the user command based on the inferred user intention.( See FIG. 1 where the foot pedal sensors 224 and the seat sensors 220a and 220b and steering wheel sensors and brain and heart sensor can provide input for the adjustment of the driver’s seat)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of HORSEMAN since HORSEMAN teaches that a brain wave sensor can be provided to infer the intent of the wearer and to provide a control signal.
Horseman teaches “..30. The assistive apparatus of claim 29, wherein the one or more sensors are fixed on one or more rotatable frames to scan different locations. (see FIG. 8 where the sensors from the seat, floor board, pedal and steering wheel and mirrors and brain and heart can provide an input to the driver status for feedback in blocks 220-219 and 104-106)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of HORSEMAN since HORSEMAN teaches that a brain wave sensor can be provided to infer the intent of the wearer and to provide a control signal.
Horseman teaches “..31. The assistive apparatus of claim 29, wherein the analysis unit is configured to process an input specifying the measured signals using a machine-learning model to infer the user intention. - (see claims 1-5 where the position of the user’s hands and feet and back are compared to a “target ergonomic body position” and if not then a move command is provided to move the seat, pedals, steering wheel, rear wheel mirror)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of HORSEMAN since HORSEMAN teaches that a brain wave sensor can be provided to infer the intent of the wearer and to provide a control signal.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2013006639A1 to Horseman that was filed in 2012
view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/0087691 A1 to Jelveh that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “Jelveh”) and Ricci and Colgate.
Jelveh teaches 32. The assistive apparatus of claim 31, wherein the machine-learning model has been trained on a dataset of brain signals that have been labeled with corresponding user intentions. . (see paragraph 28 and 20 where an emotional response of the user can be detected)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of JELVEH since JELVEH teaches that an artificial neural network can be provided to infer the intent of user and to provide a control signal.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of Gordon and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “...33. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device comprises a wearable device for conveying 3D shapes through haptic feedback”. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple routes and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious n view of KUMAR and in view of Gordon and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US9468847B2 to Siraj that was filed in 2018 and Ricci and Colgate.
SIRAJ teaches “...34. The assistive apparatus of claim 33, wherein the wearable device comprises:
a glove configured with mechanics on each finger joint;
connection mechanisms connecting the joint mechanics; and
actuators for providing haptic feedback to the user”. (see abstract and claims 1-6)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of SIRAJ since SIRAJ teaches that glove can provide a tactile feedback via one or more pin actuators.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of Gordon and in view of Russian Patent Application Pub. No.: RU2769974C2 that was filed in 2014 and Ricci and Colgate.
The 974 publication teaches “...35. The assistive apparatus of claim 33, wherein the wearable device comprises:
rings configured to be worn over finger joints of the user;
connection mechanisms interconnecting the rings; and
actuators for providing haptic feedback to the user” (see abstract and paragraph 143-161 where the wearable ring can be worn and provide haptic vibrating alerts to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of 974 publication since the 974 teaches that wearable ring that is a smart ring can provide a tactile feedback via one or more actuators.
The 974 publication teaches “...36. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device comprises a shoe for providing haptic feedback, the shoe comprising:
vibration elements within a sole of the shoe, wherein the vibration elements are configured to relay vibration patterns for providing direction cues for the user. (see abstract and paragraph 137 and 143-161 where the wearable shoe can be worn and provide haptic vibrating alerts to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of 974 publication since the 974 teaches that wearable smart shoe ring can provide a tactile feedback via one or more actuators for users that cannot use a display.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP6889187B2 to Asbeck et al. filed in 2013 and assigned to Harvard and Ricci and Colgate.
PNG
media_image8.png
424
328
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Harvard teaches “...37. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device comprises a wearable device for assisting movements of the user, the wearable device comprising:
a thigh cuff, (See Fig. 1-2 where the suit can provide assistance for the user)
a lower leg cuff, (see fig. 1-3)
a joint mechanism connecting the thigh cuff and the lower leg cuff; and (see figure 1-3)
actuators in the joint mechanism configured to move based on control signals”. (FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an example embodiment of an operating system of a flexible exoskeleton suit according to at least some aspects of the concept. It is a figure which shows the connection of the detection component of a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows the analog and digital I / O of a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns on at least some aspect of this concept. It is a figure which shows the motor controller assembly of the actuation system of a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows the representation of the controlled operation of a flexible exoskeleton suit during a part of a gait cycle in a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows the approximation of the power input to the motor over the gait cycle in the flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows an example of the plot of the cable displacement as a function of time in a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows the Bowden cable end fitting of the flexible exoskeleton suit actuator attachment which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept. It is a figure which shows the load cell arrangement in the pulley model which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept, and the theoretical input-output graph in a flexible exoskeleton suit. To measure cable tension in a flexible exoskeleton suit for at least some aspects of the concept, as well as examples of parallel and series arrangements for applying cable tension in at least some aspects of the concept. It is a figure which shows the figure of the deflection idler pulley. It is a figure which shows the location of the serial load cell in the ankle joint of a user's footwear in a flexible exoskeleton suit which concerns on at least some aspects of this concept)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of ASBECK since the ASBECK teaches that wearable suit with an actuator can be worn and provide assistance with the user’s running and mobility. The suit can assist with raising the legs and propelling the user forward when running. The suit system also includes at least one sensor to determine a force the at least one connection element or at least one of the plurality of anchor elements is exerted or has and to output signals relating to the force, at least one actuator configured to change a tension in the soft exosuit and at least one controller configured to receive the signals output from the at least one sensor and actuate the at least one actuator responsive to the received signals.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of KUMAR and in view of Gordon and Ricci and Colgate.
Gordon teaches “...38. The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the presentation device comprises a shape presentation device, shape presentation device comprising:
a 3D grid of rod elements interconnected by node elements;
telescoping mechanisms for adjusting lengths of the rod elements; and
actuators configured to reshape the 3D grid. (see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR assigned to Carrier™ and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one ore more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kumar and Ricci and Colgate.
Claim 39 is amended to recite and KUMAR is silent but RICCI teaches “..an assistive method comprising.a presentation device configured to deliver the haptic signal to the user, wherein the presentation device includes a haptic array configured to present a dynamic tactile pattern that depicts dynamic features of a moving vehicle in the environment”. (see paragraph 841-845 where the haptic feedback can be provided to a blind individual that has a low vision impairment; see paragraph 854-855 where the device can include a collision avoidance system that can detect a collision; see paragraph 8547 where the collision system can provide a tugging of the shoulder portion of the belt, 1 time, then 2 times and 3 times to provide that a vehicle is going to collide with a second vehicle and that the person needs to take action and can provide an audio warning and then provide a braking of the vehicle)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of RICCI since RUCCI teaches a vehicle can detect a collision with a second vehicle. Before the collision occurs, a first vibration can be provided for a localizing the haptic indication. See paragraph 845. Then if there is no avoidance a second haptic indication can be provided for a tug on the shoulder belt three times with the vibration. This can cause the user to avoid the collision and if not an automatic braking can be provided. This can cause a low vision user to have a safe experience. See paragraph 841-845 of RICCI.
Kumar discloses “...39. An assistive method being performed by comprising: (see FIG. 1 where the drone can monitor the building on fire and then assist with the safe evacuation of the occupants in paragraph 35)
deploying a sensor to collect data from the environment; (see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
receiving the collected data from the sensor; (see paragraph 35-45 where the drone can detect a fire, and detect people in the building and then provide auditory instructions to the people for an exit or to an elevator) (see paragraph 40 where the drone has a sensor that is optical and visual and a IR and thermal radiation sensor and audio sensor to detect the fire and capture data about the building and the people etc)
processing the sensor data into audio or haptic signals; and
outputting the audio and/or the haptic signals to the user. (see paragraph 35-45).
Claim 39 is amended to recite and Kumar is silent but Colgate teaches “...a presentation device configured to deliver the haptic signal to the user, wherein the presentation device includes a piezoelectric haptic array (see paragraph 14 to 18 and Fig. 1 where the vehicle can include a haptic device that has a piezoelectric two dimensional array of piezoelectric elements)
comprising a two-dimensional (2D) array of piezoelectric elements (see paragraph 14) configured to [[present]] be individually controlled to form a 2D dynamic tactile pattern (see paragraph 79-82) that changes over multiple time points and depicts [[dynamic features]] position and movements of a moving vehicle in the environment”. (see paragraph 94-104 where the user can move an appendage across the piezo electric elements that can provide an input or an output to control one or more elements of the vehicle and/or provide a signal as to what the vehicle is doing and this can be combined with the movement of the vehicle in paragraph 111 and any other system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of COLGATE since COLGATE teaches a vehicle can include a center panel with a touch surface interface and a 2-d array of piezoelectric elements to provide control of one or more components of the vehicle and also output a haptic feedback pertaining to the vehicle. Different haptic stimulations can be provided to the user’s finger to provide urgent warnings about the vehicle. The user can then also drag their finger across to resolve the warnings for an improved user interface. See paragraph 74-85 and 100-109 of COLGATE.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kumar and Ricci and Colgate and in view of United States Patent No.: US10254856B2 to Osterhout.
Colgate teaches ‘...40. (New) The assistive apparatus of claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric haptic array is a
contoured array c (see paragraph 14 to 18 and Fig. 1 where the vehicle can include a haptic device that has a piezoelectric two dimensional array of piezoelectric elements) (see paragraph 94-104 where the user can move an appendage across the piezo electric elements that can provide an input or an output to control one or more elements of the vehicle and/or provide a signal as to what the vehicle is doing and this can be combined with the movement of the vehicle in paragraph 111 and any other system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of COLGATE since COLGATE teaches a vehicle can include a center panel with a touch surface interface and a 2-d array of piezoelectric elements to provide control of one or more components of the vehicle and also output a haptic feedback pertaining to the vehicle. Different haptic stimulations can be provided to the user’s finger to provide urgent warnings about the vehicle. The user can then also drag their finger across to resolve the warnings for an improved user interface. See paragraph 74-85 and 100-109 of COLGATE.
Oscterhout teaches “configured to be placed in contact with a forehead of the user to serve as a tactile display”. (see abstract)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine the disclosure of KUMAR of Carrier™ with the teachings of OSTERHOUT since OSTERHOUT teaches a head mounted device can be provided on the wearer and this can provide a haptic interface to provide a tactile display with the pen device. See abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666