DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing dated 27 March 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2025 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 10 September 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The information disclosure statement has been considered except for any foreign document and NPL citations lacking a provided copy by the applicant (e.g. as indicated by their associated strike-through on the annotated IDS).
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Examiner notes that the color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. The features of the reproduced color drawings in the instant application are difficult to view.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims use “and/or” terminology. Examiner does however note that, “A and/or B” does have a meaning and that meaning is A alone, B alone, or A and B together. The “preferred verbiage” should be more simply “at least one of A and B.” Further, giving the claim limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will use the broader “or” recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “highlighting comprises: associating an indicium [A]; rendering with a color [B]; rendering brighter [C]; rendering larger [D]; and combinations thereof”. The phrasing of this limitation requires that the highlighting has all of A, B, C, and D present, so the only combination thereof that would be available is A, B, C, and D as each are already required by the limitation. Examiner believes applicant may have intended this limitation to read “highlighting comprises at least one of: associating an indicium; rendering with a color; rendering brighter; rendering larger; and combinations thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 recite the limitation “the primary display”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that independent claim 1 established “a home display” not “a primary display”. Dependent claims 3 and 5-20 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansell et al. (US 2007/0130522 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Mansell discloses a method comprising:
detecting an input respecting a first icon on a home display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0008, 0040 and Fig. 2) ”the menu structure includes a main user menu, generally indicated at 50. The menu structure includes various menu selection items 52 that, for example, may be most often accessed by a particular user. The menu selection items 52 shown facilitate the operation of the power seat system 34 and various accessories and controls, and operating parameters (e.g., speed) of the vehicle. Navigation through the menu 50 may be achieved though any suitable input, such as a hand control module 12 or a specialty input control module 24. For example, a menu selection-item, such as the menu selection item labeled "Seat" … a display for an electronic control system for a personal mobility vehicle, wherein the display has one or more menu selection items that are labeled with customizable text, icons, or a combination thereof”].
if the input has a first alignment relative to the first icon, then replacing the primary display with a secondary display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2 numerals 50, 56) ”such as the menu selection item labeled "Seat" … by moving the joystick to the right. This may open a sub-menu. as shown at 56 in FIG. 2, which may contain more menu selection items 58, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt" and "Recline"”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 2, moving the joystick to the right while aligned with the “Seat” main menu option, opens and displays a sub-menu for seat control.
else if the input has a second alignment relative to the first icon, then enabling detecting a second input respecting a second icon [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0008, 0040 and Figs. 2-6) ”Navigation through the menu 50 may be achieved though any suitable input, such as a hand control module 12 or a specialty input control module 24. For example, a menu selection-item, such as the menu selection item labeled "Seat", can be selected by first scrolling up and down the items 52, for example, by moving a joystick, or other input device, forward or backward until the desired menu selection item is reached … menu selection items that are labeled with customizable text, icons, or a combination thereof”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 2-6, moving the joystick forward and backward while aligned with the “Seat” main menu option, causes the main menu to scroll to a second selected menu option. Further, due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
As for dependent claim 2, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 1 and Mansell further discloses:
further comprising, prior to said detecting, highlighting the first icon on the primary display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2) ”the menu structure includes a main user menu, generally indicated at 50. The menu structure includes various menu selection items 52 … a menu selection-item, such as the menu selection item labeled "Seat", can be selected”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 2, the Seat menu item is highlighted with the use of a bounding box.
As for dependent claim 4, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 1 and Mansell further discloses:
if the input has a second alignment relative to the first icon, further comprising replacing the primary display with a second primary display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0040, 0068 and Figs. 2-6) ”the menu structure includes a main user menu, generally indicated at 50. The menu structure includes various menu selection items 52 … scrolling up and down the items 52, for example, by moving a joystick … It should be appreciated that the menu structure may include one or more main menus … In this way, the main menu or user menu may be a dynamic menu, and the manner in which the menu selection item is accessed (i.e., selected) by a user can be readily (e.g., with the need to program in code) and selectively changed”]. Examiner notes that forward/backward movement/alignment of the joystick refreshes the main menu to display highlighting of the currently selected menu item. Further, due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
As for dependent claim 5, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 4 and Mansell further discloses:
further comprising highlighting the second icon on the second primary display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0040, 0041) ”scrolling up and down the items 52, for example, by moving a joystick, or other input device, forward or backward until the desired menu selection item is reached … Selecting the menu selection item labeled "Appliance" in FIG. 3”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 3, the Appliance menu item is now highlighted with the use of a bounding box.
As for dependent claim 6, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 1 and Mansell further discloses:
wherein the first icon and/or the second icon relate to: seat component configuration options; power off options; drive options; mode options: setting options; and combinations thereof [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0027, 0040, 0053) ”The menu selection items 52 shown facilitate the operation of the power seat system 34 and various accessories and controls, and operating parameters (e.g., speed) of the vehicle … the user may move to more and more specific menu selection items, such as "General Drive", "Creep Drive", or "Hand Control". Activating a particular control mode may require the selection of several menu selection items, as is clearly illustrated in FIG. 11 when setting "Forward Acceleration" … the state of charge of the battery pack 30”].
As for dependent claim 7, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 1 and Mansell further discloses:
detecting a second input and if the second input has a third alignment relative to the secondary display, then replacing the secondary display with another secondary display [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2 numerals 56, 60) ”This may open a sub-menu. as shown at 56 in FIG. 2, which may contain more menu selection items 58, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt" and "Recline". Selecting one of these menu selection items 58 may open an action menu, as indicated at 60, which may contain menu selection items 62 that are associated with seat functions, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt Up" or "Tilt Down"”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
As for dependent claim 8, Mansell discloses the method as described in claim 1 and Mansell further discloses:
further comprising rendering the secondary display with an indicium pertaining to an operating limit and/or recommendation [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0072) ”This screen may be like a dashboard in that it may indicate the current drive profile (e.g., "Drive 4"), the type of input device being used--in this case, a hand control module (i.e., in the upper left corner when viewing FIG. 14), a speedometer, an odometer and a trip odometer, a battery indicator, and a speed tick mark, which may indicate the maximum speed available in the current drive profile”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansell et al. (US 2007/0130522 A1) in view of Rotelli et al. (US 2022/0363128 A1) and further in view of Clausen et al. (US 2015/0186011 A1).
As for dependent claim 3, Mansell teaches the method as described in claim 2 and Mansell further teaches:
wherein said highlighting comprises: associating an indicium; rendering with a color [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2) ”the menu structure includes a main user menu, generally indicated at 50. The menu structure includes various menu selection items 52 … a menu selection-item, such as the menu selection item labeled "Seat", can be selected … be emphasized, pronounced, or highlighted in some manner, such as, for example, by allowing those items to appear in red font”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 2, the Seat menu item is highlighted with the use of an indicium (e.g. bounding box).
Mansell does not specifically teach rendering brighter; rendering larger; and combinations thereof. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Rotelli and Clausen teach:
rendering brighter; rendering larger; and combinations thereof [(e.g. see Rotelli paragraphs 0068, 0080) ”The function icon 1038 is displayed at the top of the feature 1020 list to indicate it is the current feature … shown enlarged and at the top of feature list 1020 to indicate it is the selected feature” … (e.g. see Clausen paragraph 0067) ”the UI may display the selected at least one item so as to be displayed emphatically in relation to any items not selected … The selected at least one item may be displayed brighter than any items not selected”].
All of Mansell, Rotelli and Clausen adjust the display of selected items using highlighting. Given that there are a finite number highlighting techniques to choose from, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, to try any available techniques for highlighting a selected element that would achieve a desired emphasis to the user, with reasonable success (i.e. the selected element stands out to the user versus unselected elements). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of invention but of ordinary skill and common sense. See MPEP 2143(I)(E) – KSR: “Obvious to Try”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansell et al. (US 2007/0130522 A1) in view of Pliutau (US 2023/0263651 A1).
As for dependent claim 9, Mansell teaches the method as described in claim 8, but does not specifically teach wherein the indicium resembles a traffic light. However, in the same field of invention, Pliutau teaches:
wherein the indicium resembles a traffic light [(e.g. see Pliutau paragraph 0051) ”FIG. 10 illustrates the configuration of the tilt angle LED colors in reference to the wheelchair tilt angles. The tilt angle indicator LED 716 (FIG. 7) has 3 colors (red, yellow, and green) to display the proximity of the current tilt angle to the range of optimum tilt angles between the minimum and maximum programmed values as shown in FIG. 10”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Mansell and Pliutau, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the indicium resembles a traffic light, as taught by Pliutau, to the teachings of Mansell because it allows for the optimum correct positioning of the wheelchair (e.g. see Pliutau paragraph 0051).
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansell et al. (US 2007/0130522 A1) in view of Beavers (US 2022/0104959 A1).
As for dependent claim 10, Mansell teaches the method as described in claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the secondary display comprises an image configured to resemble a seat component. However, in the same field of invention, Beavers teaches:
wherein the secondary display comprises an image configured to resemble a seat component [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053 and Fig. 11) ”the logic displays a user interface for the end user to select a posture axis to adjust. In one example EGPCS, these axes include leg lift, upper torso recline, seat tilt, seat height, head tilt, head pan, etc. FIG. 11 is an example screen display of a user interface for selection of an axis for adjustment … tilting the body (icon 1110), reclining the torso/head (icon 1105), raising the chair/bed height (icon 1112), or a lifting the feet/legs (icon 1113)”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 11, a graphical image of the chair is displayed.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Mansell and Beavers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the secondary display comprises an image configured to resemble a seat component, as taught by Beavers, to the teachings of Mansell because it allows the presentation of information to the user from the posture advisor to improve decisions and to prevent dangerous situations or health problems (e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0058).
As for dependent claim 11, Mansell and Beavers teaches the method as described in claim 10, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
further comprising: first rendering the secondary display with a first indicium when the seat component defines a first configuration and/or second rendering the secondary display with a second indicium when the seat component defines a second configuration [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053 and Fig. 11) ”the logic displays a user interface for the end user to select a posture axis to adjust. In one example EGPCS, these axes include leg lift, upper torso recline, seat tilt, seat height, head tilt, head pan, etc. FIG. 11 is an example screen display of a user interface for selection of an axis for adjustment … tilting the body (icon 1110), reclining the torso/head (icon 1105), raising the chair/bed height (icon 1112), or a lifting the feet/legs (icon 1113) … allows the end user to configure the posture control application through a configuration interface”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 12, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 11, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
wherein the first indicium is a first color and/or the second indicium is a second color [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053) ”the selected axis is highlighted to the user through a change in color”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 13, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 10 and Mansell further teaches:
further comprising: detecting a second input and if the second input has a third alignment relative to the secondary display, then commanding moving the seat component [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0040, 0067, 0070) ”open an action menu, as indicated at 60, which may contain menu selection items 62 that are associated with seat functions, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt Up" or "Tilt Down". By moving a joystick … the menu selection item labeled "Tilt" may send an action message or control function (e.g., "up" and "down") to an actuator that causes the seat to tilt when selected … an actuator controller for controlling one or more actuators (e.g., seat tilt, lift and recline actuators and leg rest actuators)”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
As for dependent claim 14, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 13 and Mansell further teaches:
wherein said moving is selected from: an elevation; a tilt; a recline; a leg rest; a “home” position; a synched mode; and combinations thereof [(e.g. see Mansell paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2) ”Selecting one of these menu selection items 58 may open an action menu, as indicated at 60, which may contain menu selection items 62 that are associated with seat functions, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt Up" or "Tilt Down"”]. Examiner notes that this is a Markush group limitation in which the prior art is only required to show one of the listed alternatives.
As for dependent claim 15, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 13 and Mansell further teaches:
wherein, if the third alignment is in a first direction, then said moving increases a difference between a first configuration and a second configuration, and if the third alignment is in a second direction, then said moving decreases the difference [(e.g. see Mansell paragraphs 0040, 0062, 0067, 0070) ”open an action menu, as indicated at 60, which may contain menu selection items 62 that are associated with seat functions, such as the menu selection items labeled "Tilt Up" or "Tilt Down". By moving a joystick … The other two items activate a seat actuator function. "Tilt Up" activates the seat actuator to drive the seat in the upward (i.e., "up" (1)) direction. "Tilt Dn" activates the same actuator to drive the seat in the downward (i.e., "down" (0)) direction … the menu selection item labeled "Tilt" may send an action message or control function (e.g., "up" and "down") to an actuator that causes the seat to tilt when selected … an actuator controller for controlling one or more actuators (e.g., seat tilt, lift and recline actuators and leg rest actuators)”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
As for dependent claim 16, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 1, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
wherein the secondary display comprises an image configured to resemble a seat having multiple components, further comprising first rendering the secondary display with a first indicium when the components define a first configuration and/or second rendering the secondary display with a second indicium when the components define a second configuration [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053 and Fig. 11) ”the logic displays a user interface for the end user to select a posture axis to adjust. In one example EGPCS, these axes include leg lift, upper torso recline, seat tilt, seat height, head tilt, head pan, etc. FIG. 11 is an example screen display of a user interface for selection of an axis for adjustment … tilting the body (icon 1110), reclining the torso/head (icon 1105), raising the chair/bed height (icon 1112), or a lifting the feet/legs (icon 1113) … allows the end user to configure the posture control application through a configuration interface”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 11, a graphical image of the chair having a footrest, chair back, seat bottom, and head rest is displayed.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 17, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 16, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
wherein the first indicium is a first color and/or the second indicium is a second color [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053) ”the selected axis is highlighted to the user through a change in color”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 18, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 16, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
further comprising: detecting a second input and if the second input has a third alignment relative to the secondary display, then replacing the secondary display with another secondary display [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0055 and Fig. 12) ”the logic determines which axis the end user selected (e.g., in FIG. 11) and presents a secondary interface for the user to indicate a particular adjustment for that axis. FIG. 12 is an example screen display of a user interface for adjusting an axis of movement”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 19, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 16, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers taches:
detecting a second input and if the second input has a third alignment relative to the secondary display, then commanding the components to assume the first configuration [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053 and Fig. 11) ”The settings icon 1120 allows the end user to configure the posture control application through a configuration interface. For example, the configuration interface may be used to adjust the user experience (such as selection times, color pallets, etc.) and to create ‘preset positions’ for a combination of posture axis position targets, such as ‘resting’ (e.g., back mostly reclined, legs lifted), ‘talking’ (e.g., sitting up, head reclined slightly), ‘driving’ (e.g., body straight, head looking directly forward), etc. The screen display 1100 may include choices and selection buttons for these preset positions”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 20, Mansell and Beavers teach the method as described in claim 16, but Mansell does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Beavers teaches:
wherein said second rendering respects only components without the first configuration [(e.g. see Beavers paragraph 0053 and Fig. 11) ”the logic displays a user interface for the end user to select a posture axis to adjust. In one example EGPCS, these axes include leg lift, upper torso recline, seat tilt, seat height, head tilt, head pan, etc. FIG. 11 is an example screen display of a user interface for selection of an axis for adjustment … tilting the body (icon 1110), reclining the torso/head (icon 1105), raising the chair/bed height (icon 1112), or a lifting the feet/legs (icon 1113) … allows the end user to configure the posture control application through a configuration interface”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 11, each configuration axis renders only the parts that will be adjusted as outlined/unshaded.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2007/0055424 A1 issued to Peters et al. on 08 March 2007. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. wheelchair menu for adjusting operating parameters).
U.S. PGPub 2012/0316884 A1 issued to Rozaieski et al. on 13 December 2012. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. wheelchair display menu for seat adjustment).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174