Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 9,11,14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 reads “…the mark provided at an entrance of an exist…” that should be corrected to “…the mark provided at an entrance of an exit
Claim 11 reads “…of a refeleced wave…based on the refelected wave…” that should be corrected to “…of a reflected reflected electric
Claim 14 reads “…in a downward direction form the surface…’ that should be corrected to “…in a downward direction from
Claim 17 reads “…a first sensor provide at a predtermined position… the predtermined position… to a reflection position of a refelected…” that should be corrected to “…a first sensor provide at a predetermined predetermined reflected
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The “front side sensor” lacks antecedent basis in the parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takei (WO 2020013043 A1 Machine Translation Provided).
Regarding claim 1, Takei anticipates an electric mobility vehicle (Fig 1) [on which a user can be seated to ride] (40, Fig 1 “The mobility main body 30 is, for example, a body 31 supported by the front wheel 10 and the rear wheel 20, a seat unit 40 attached to the body 31, and a device for driving at least one of the pair of front wheels 10 and the pair of rear wheels 20. And a motor 50.” Pg 3 para 3), the electric mobility vehicle comprising:
A mobility body 30 (Fig 1) having a front wheel 10 (Fig 1) , a rear wheel 20 (Fig 1) and a seat for the user 40 (Fig 1);
A controller 80 (Fig 7) provided in the mobility body (“The control unit 60 has a motor driver 70 for driving each motor 50 and a control device 80, as shown in FIG. The motor driver 70 is connected to the battery BA.” Pg 5 para 4); and
A lower side sensor 90 (Figs 1 and 9) [capable of emitting a detection wave in a vehicle front direction of the electric mobility vehicle] (“Further, it is also possible to use a millimeter-wave sensor using a radio wave having a wavelength of 1 mm or more and 1000 mm or less in place of the stereo camera 90, and irradiate a laser beam in a pulse form and measure a distance to an object based on reflected light. (Light Detection and Ranging or Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging) can also be used.” pg 9 para 3), from under a footrest surface for the user seated on the seat or from under the mobility body] (Fig 13 “The sensor may be mounted on a spring of the suspension 12 of the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 of the mobility body 30. Using this configuration makes it possible to reduce the influence of vibration input to the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 from the running surface on the sensor.” Pg 12 para 6 ), the sensor 90 (Figs 1 and 9) [being capable of detecting an object to be avoided located in the vehicle front direction of the electric mobility vehicle by using the detection wave] (“…it is also possible to use a millimeter-wave sensor using a radio wave having a wavelength of 1 mm or more and 1000 mm or less in place of the stereo camera 90, and irradiate a laser beam in a pulse form and measure a distance to an object based on reflected light” (emphasis added) pg 9 para 3).
Regarding claim 2, Takei anticipates the sensor 90 (Figs 1 and 9) [is capable of emitting the detection wave in a vehicle width direction of the electric mobility vehicle and the sensor is capable of detecting, by using the detection wave, an object to be avoided which exists in a space between the front wheel and the rear wheel or the object to be avoided which may go into the space] (“This embodiment makes it possible to monitor the widthwise outside of the front wheel 10 in detail. For this reason, in a state where the electric mobility is moving straight ahead, it is possible to detect an avoidance target that does not contact the front end of the front wheel 10 but contacts the rear end of the front wheel 10. For example, when the electric mobility is driven straight forward at low speed in a house or office, a leg of a desk or the like is detected as such an avoidance target.” pg 9 para 4 see also “…the detection ranges of these sensors may be the detection ranges DAR1, DAR2, DAR3… The detection range DAR2 is an area on the vehicle front side with respect to the area outside the width direction of the rear wheel 20, and the detection range DAR2 does not include the rear wheel 20 or its fender.” pg 10 paras 6 and 7 ).
Regarding claim 3, Takei anticipates a front side sensor 90 (“In the above-described example described with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, a three-dimensional area sensor, a three-dimensional distance sensor, a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or the like can be used instead of the stereo camera 90. In the above example described with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, the detection ranges of these sensors may be the detection ranges DAR1, DAR2, DAR3” pg 10 para 6) [provided at a position lower than a seating surface of the seat] (“The sensor may be mounted on a spring of the suspension 12 of the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 of the mobility body 30. Using this configuration makes it possible to reduce the influence of vibration input to the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 from the running surface on the sensor.” pg 12 para 6 ), [wherein at least a part of the front wheel or a part of the fender of the front wheel is placed within a field of vision of the front side sensor] ] (“The detection range DAR2 is an area on the vehicle front side with respect to the area outside the width direction of the rear wheel 20…” pg 10 para 7 and “In the present embodiment, two sensors are provided, and at least one of a part of the right front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 and a part of a fender thereof enters one detection range DA of the two sensors.” pg 12 para 2 ), [and the front side sensor is capable of detecting an object to be avoided which exists in a front direction and a side direction of the front wheel] (“In the present embodiment, two sensors are provided, and at least one of a part of the right front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 and a part of a fender thereof enters one detection range DA of the two sensors. At least one of a part of the left front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 and a part of a fender thereof is included in the other detection range DA of the sensors.” pg 12 para 2 ).
Regarding claim 4, Takei anticipates an electric mobility vehicle further comprising:
A luggage carrier 400 (Fig 21 and 22) [provided at a rear surface side of the seat] (“…the luggage basket 400 may be attached to the seat unit 40 of the mobility body 30, and the luggage basket 400 may be arranged behind the seat unit 40.” pg 16 para 5 ) and a rear side sensor 500 (Fig 22) [located under the luggage carrier or under the seat] (“A known LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging or Laser Imaging and Detection and Ranging) 500 is attached to the lower surface of the luggage basket 400.” Pg 16 para 8), wherein the rear side sensor 500 is capable of emitting a [detection wave at least in a vehicle rear direction and capable of detecting a position of an object to be avoided located at a position in the vehicle rear direction of the electric mobility vehicle] (Fig 22 shows the RDA area of the rear sensor element 500 while scanning the area for objects, “As shown in FIG. 22, the LiDAR 500 is attached to the lower surface of the luggage basket 400 arranged behind the seat unit 40, and the position of the LiDAR 500 is away from the electric mobility, so that the detection range RDA of the LiDAR 500 is widened accordingly.” pg 17 para 1).
Regarding claim 7, Takei anticipates a front side sensor 90 [provided below a seat surface of the seat 40 (Fig 1)] (“The sensor may be mounted on a spring of the suspension 12 of the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 of the mobility body 30. Using this configuration makes it possible to reduce the influence of vibration input to the front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 from the running surface on the sensor.” pg 12 para 6), [wherein at least a part of the front wheel or a part of a fender of the front wheel is located within a field of vision of the front side sensor] (“The detection range DAR2 is an area on the vehicle front side with respect to the area outside the width direction of the rear wheel 20, and the detection range DAR2 does not include the rear wheel 20 or its fender” pg 10 para 7 ), [and the front side sensor is capable of detecting an object to be avoided which exists in a front direction and a side direction of the front wheel] (“In the present embodiment, two sensors are provided, and at least one of a part of the right front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 and a part of a fender thereof enters one detection range DA of the two sensors. At least one of a part of the left front wheel 10 or the rear wheel 20 and a part of a fender thereof is included in the other detection range DA of the sensors.” pg 12 para 2 ).
Regarding claim 8, Takei anticipates the front side sensor 90 (Fig 1) [is located at a position higher than the upper end of the front wheel or an upper end of the fender of the front wheel] (Fig 1 shows the front side sensor 90 is located at a position higher than the front wheel, “Two stereo cameras (sensors) 90, which are visual sensors, are attached to the upper end of the right control arm 43 and the upper end of the left control arm 43, respectively pg 5 para 7), and/or [the front side sensor is located 5cm or more behind a rear end of the front wheel] (Fig 1 shows the front side sensor 90 is located a significant distance away from the rear end of the front wheel that is greater than 5cm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei in further view of Field et al (US 4996468 A).
Regarding claim 5, Takei teaches the lower side sensor or the rear side sensor 500 (Fig 22) [is configured to receive a reflected wave reflected by an object] (“LiDAR 500 scans a laser beam and detects a surrounding object by detecting a laser beam reflected by the surrounding object” pg 17 para 1).
Takei does not teach a plurality of portions of a mark located at a predetermined position, the mark is made of more than two or more different colors, two or more different kinds of brightness, or two or more different reflectance portions, and wherein the controller calculates a position based on the electric mobility vehicle with respect to the mark based on intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portion and based on the locations of the plurality of portions, which are detected by the lower side sensor or the rear side sensor.
Field teaches a sensor that detects a plurality of portions of a mark 16 (Figs 1, 5 and 8) located at a predetermined position, the mark 16 [ is made of more than two or more different colors, two or more different kinds of brightness, or two or more different reflectance portions] (“Some of the targets may be coded by bars of reflective stripes 19 spaced apart by intervening non-reflective areas 23. The stripes 19 on the surfaces 15 are parallel to the vehicle's direction of travel while those on surface 17 lie laterally to the machine's path. Thus the code on surfaces 15 can be read by the laser scanner and will be called laser codes. Similarly, the code on surface 17 is readily distinguishable by the photoelectric sensor 70 as it passes underneath a target.”, Col 6 lines 36-44 ), and wherein the controller 112 (Fig 6) [calculates a position based on the electric mobility vehicle with respect to the mark based on intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portion and based on the locations of the plurality of portions, which are detected by the sensor] (“The target-in-view signal is a digital high when the photo-detector senses reflected light and a digital low when no light is sensed. The microprocessor 112 provides an "analog out" signal to an analog comparator 114. The target-in-view signal is fed on lines 116 and 118 to the analog comparator 114, the speed selector 92, the computer 90 and a target tracker board 91.” Col 8 lines 62-69 and “When the tracking means is searching for a new target, the target-in-view signal is low and this information is supplied to the speed selector 92 through the line 116.” Col 11 lines 28-30 and “The time required to find the next target is relatively short, on the order of one second or less. If for some reason the new target is not found in three seconds, the computer will shut the vehicle down.” Col 11 lines 48-51 ). Field additionally teaches the sensor [distinguishes a type of the mark based on intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portions and based on the locations of the plurality of portions] (“As mentioned above, the laser scanner unit 54 includes a scanning laser beam 108 transmitting laser light toward a target 16. A photo-detector 110 in the laser scanner senses light reflected from a target and provides a target-in-view signal to the on-board microprocessor 112 which is built into the laser scanner unit 54. The target-in-view signal is a digital high when the photo-detector senses reflected light and a digital low when no light is sensed. The microprocessor 112 provides an "analog out" signal to an analog comparator 114. The target-in-view signal is fed on lines 116 and 118 to the analog comparator 114, the speed selector 92, the computer 90 and a target tracker board 91.” Col 8 lines 36-69 and “As the machine moves, the plane of the transmitted light L will lose contact with the target 16 and the target-in-view signal will be lost. When this happens the microprocessor 112 sends a signal through line 118 to the target tracker board 91 which directs the linear actuator 60 to change the angle of elevation E as required to regain a target-in-view signal. If the machine is moving forwardly, the angle of elevation E will be increased until the target-in-view signal is regained. Conversely, if the machine is moving backwardly, the angle of elevation E will be decreased. The time needed to alter the angle of elevation to regain the target-in-view signal is on the order of 100 milliseconds. Until the target-in-view signal is regained, the two drive motors 26 are brought to equal speed so the machine will travel in a straight line and not wander off course during corrections in the angle of elevation.” Col 9 line 61 and Col 10 line 10 )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the markings and controller method of Field with the mobility vehicle sensors of Takei with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a physical means of detection for the sensors to read. Using reflective marks of Field, the sensors of mobility vehicle can give an output based on the reflective marks and give an input signal to control the vehicle based on the visual information of the marks.
Regarding claim 6, Takei and Field fully teach the lower side sensor or the rear side sensor distinguishes a type of the mark based on intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portions and based on the locations of the plurality of portions (See modifications of Takei and Field in claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 15, Takei teaches the electric mobility vehicle with the lower side sensor 90 (Figs 1 and 9).
Takei does not explicitly teach the sensor emits the detection wave in a diagonally upward direction of the vehicle front side.
Field teaches an equivalent sensor 54 (Fig 1) [emits the detection wave in a diagonally upward direction of the vehicle front side] (Fig 1 shows the sensor 54 emitting a wave in a diagonally upward direction, “The angle of elevation of the light beam emitted by the laser scanner is controlled by an electromechanical linear actuator 60.” Col 5 lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the upward facing sensor of Field with the mobility vehicle sensors of Takei with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the sensor wave to be unimpeded by the components of the electric mobility vehicle. By having the sensor direct a wave in an upward elevation, the electric mobility vehicle has a means of detecting the space around it without having the components of the vehicle impede the waves of the sensor.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei and Field et al in further view of Sako (US-20170123423-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Takei and Field teach the lower side sensor or the rear side sensor is configured to receive the reflected wave reflected from the mark, and the controller is configured to calculate a position of the electric mobility vehicle with respect to the marks based on the intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portions and based on the locations of the plurality of portions.
Takei and Field do not teach the marks are provided at an entrance or an exist of an entry-prohibited area, the controller is configured to calculate a position of the electric mobility vehicle with respect to the entry-prohibited area based on the intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portions and based on the locations of the plurality of portions.
Sako teaches an autonomous vehicle with sensors [that receive information about an entry-prohibited area] (S106, Fig 11, para 0171) , [and the controller is configured to calculate a position of the electric mobility vehicle with respect to the entry-prohibited area based on the intensity of the reflected wave reflected from each of the plurality of portions and based on the locations of the plurality of portions] (“Next, the control unit 101 determines whether the getting-off location (current location) is a no parking place or not (Step S106). Whether the getting-off location is a no parking place or not is determined by recognizing whether there is a sign or marking for no parking or not on the basis of the photographed images of the camera configured to photograph the surroundings thereof of the group of cameras 107.” Para 0170 and “in a case where it is determined at Step S106 that the getting-off location is a no parking place, the control unit 101 continues to move the automatic driving vehicle 1 by going around a peripheral area of the getting-off location (current location) for the predetermined time estimated at Step S105. Alternatively, the control unit 101 controls the car-navi functioning unit 113 to carry out peripheral retrieval in which the getting-off location (current location) is set to a center location, and searches a neighboring available parking place” para 0171 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the detection step of Sako with the mobility vehicle sensors of Takei and Field with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a means to prevent the electric mobility vehicle from entering or remaining in an entry-prohibited area. By including the method steps of Sako with the electric mobility sensor controller, the electric mobility vehicle has a means of detecting environments where the vehicle cannot enter and improves the overall safety of the user by not driving the user into a prohibited area.
Regarding claim 10, Takei teaches the electric mobility vehicle with a lower side sensor is configured to receive a reflected wave of an object.
Takei does not teach a front side sensor, nor is the sensor configured to receive a reflected wave reflected by a plurality of reflection tapes provided on a corresponding position of an entry-prohibited area, the detection wave becomes the reflected wave by reflected by the reflection tapes, the reflection tapes are located at positions apart from each other in a horizontal direction by a predetermined distance, and the controller is configured to recognize the entry-prohibited area as an area where the electric mobility vehicle is not allowed to enter based on positions of the reflection tapes calculated by using the reflection wave.
Field teaches a front side sensor 54 (Fig 1) , and the sensor [configured to receive a reflected wave reflected by a plurality of reflection tapes 16 (Fig 5) the detection wave becomes the reflected wave by reflected by the reflection tapes] (“…the laser scanner unit 54 includes a scanning laser beam 108 transmitting laser light toward a target 16. A photo-detector 110 in the laser scanner senses light reflected from a target and provides a target-in-view signal to the on-board microprocessor 112 which is built into the laser scanner unit 54. The target-in-view signal is a digital high when the photo-detector senses reflected light and a digital low when no light is sensed. The microprocessor 112 provides an "analog out" signal to an analog comparator 114. The target-in-view signal is fed on lines 116 and 118 to the analog comparator 114, the speed selector 92, the computer 90 and a target tracker board 91.” Col 8 lines 56-69), the reflection tapes 16 (Fig 5, “Some of the targets may be coded by bars of reflective stripes 19 spaced apart by intervening non-reflective areas 23.” Col 6 lines 36-39) [are located at positions apart from each other in a horizontal direction by a predetermined distance] (Fig 1 shows the targes that are positioned apart from each other by a specified distance but equal distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the reflective target detection method of Field with the mobility vehicle sensors of Takei with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a means for the vehicle to determine its current position in space based on the reflected values of the tapes. By including the reflective tape and measurement device with the electric mobility sensors, the electric mobility vehicle has a means of detecting the environment around the vehicle to prevent the motor vehicle from moving into a prohibited location or a location that is off the intended path of the wheelchair.
Additionally, Takei and Field do not teach the reflected tapes are provided on a corresponding position of an entry-prohibited area, and the controller is configured to recognize the entry-prohibited area as an area where the electric mobility vehicle is not allowed to enter based on positions of the reflection tapes calculated by using the reflection wave.
Sako teaches an autonomous vehicle with sensors [that receive information about an entry-prohibited area] (S106, Fig 11, para 0171) , [and the controller is configured to recognize the entry-prohibited area as an area where the electric mobility vehicle is not allowed to enter based on positions of the reflection tapes calculated by using the reflection wave. ] (“Next, the control unit 101 determines whether the getting-off location (current location) is a no parking place or not (Step S106). Whether the getting-off location is a no parking place or not is determined by recognizing whether there is a sign or marking for no parking or not on the basis of the photographed images of the camera configured to photograph the surroundings thereof of the group of cameras 107.” Para 0170 and “in a case where it is determined at Step S106 that the getting-off location is a no parking place, the control unit 101 continues to move the automatic driving vehicle 1 by going around a peripheral area of the getting-off location (current location) for the predetermined time estimated at Step S105. Alternatively, the control unit 101 controls the car-navi functioning unit 113 to carry out peripheral retrieval in which the getting-off location (current location) is set to a center location, and searches a neighboring available parking place” para 0171 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the controller method of Sako with the mobility vehicle sensors of Takei and reflection tape of Field with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a means to prevent the electric mobility vehicle from entering or remaining in an entry-prohibited area. By including the controller method steps of Sako with the electric mobility sensor controller, the electric mobility vehicle has a means of detecting environments where the vehicle cannot enter and improves the overall safety of the user by not driving the user into a prohibited area and if the vehicle does go into a prohibited area, the controller can safely navigate the user out of the area and into an acceptable area.
Claims 12- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei.
Regarding claim 12, Takei discloses the claimed invention except for the second and third sensors provided in the electric mobility vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the sensors to include a second and third sensor since it has been held that duplication of parts does not carry patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 USPQ 378. Additionally, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function (in this case a detection range of the sensors) is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 13, Takei discloses the claimed invention except for the luggage carrier has side walls that extend in a vehicle width direction and descend towards the vehicle base It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the luggage carrier to have slanted side walls since it has been held that the configuration or shape of an invention is a matter of personal choice. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Takei discloses the claimed invention except for a second and third sensor It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include a second and third sensor to detect objects along the side of the vehicle since it has been held that the duplication of parts of an invention does not have patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 USPQ 378. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Additionally, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function (in this case a detection range of the sensors) is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are allowed.
Claims 11 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record fails to teach a electric mobility vehicle having all limitations claimed, particularly as follows:
Claim 11: a first sensor emits a first detection wave and detects a distance away from the electric mobility vehicle, and the controller executes an evading or stopping command based on the first sensor detection wave.
Claim 16: a seating sensor and a controller that controls the location of the display element based on the state of the seating sensor
Claim 17 : a first sensor that emits a detection wave to detect the position of the vehicle and the electric vehicle executes an evasion operation based on the reflected wave.
Claim 18: at least one of a second or third sensor detecting a downward object to be avoided.
Claim 19 : a seating sensor and a controller that controls the location of the display element based on the state of the seating sensor .
Since the prior art (e.g. Sako ) teaches a seat sensor that sends a control signal to a controller that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu (CN-109966068-A) teaches a wheelchair with a front sensor to detect a gap and can activate a set of ground wheels to maintain balance of the wheelchair .
Viswanathan (WO-2018010024-A1) teaches a sensor and method for detecting objects around a wheelchair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611