DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a thermal sensor" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 112(b): for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 12280889 B1) in view Johnson (US 20230256991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a mobility device comprising:
a drive member (FIG. 2, 210, “motor 225”);
an obstruction detection (col. 9, line 11, “obstacle detection system”) and avoidance system (col. 1, line 66, col. 2, line 1, “system.. for indoor navigation and obstacle avoidance”), the obstruction detection and avoidance system :
a thermal sensor configured to sense an obstruction (col. 34, line 55-57, range sensors 930-1, .. , line 63, “infrared light”),
a controller communicatively coupled to a thermal sensor (FIG. 2, 210, sensors 230 and control system 220), controller comprising:
a processing circuit comprising memory communicably coupled to one or more processors (FIG. 2, control system 220, memory 214, processor 212), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (col. 39, line 67, “hardware in a software”, col. 40, line 1-2, “software module stored in one or more memory devices and executed by one or more processor”, causes the processing circuit to:
detect an obstruction (col. 9, line 7-14, “hardware components or software applications to be
executed by one or more hardware components. Such modules may include an obstacle detection module that may assess relative positions of obstacles in a given environment, using temporal information to fuse data received from range sensors provided aboard the unmanned aerial vehicle”);
determine a distance range from the obstruction (col. 28, line59-60, detect one or more obstacles within the predetermined distance”);
generate a control signal when the distance range is less than a predetermined value to adjust the output of the drive member (col. 28, lines 60-64, “unmanned aerial vehicle may be deemed to be at a high risk of coming into contact with any of the obstacles. In the high-risk state, the umnanned aerial vehicle may then be permitted to travel at a substantially lower speed”, col. 29, lines 7-9, “automatically execute one or more braking evolutions, in the imminent collision state.”).
Haung does not explicitly disclose but, Johnson teaches mobility scooter (¶0028, “the autonomous vehicle is an automobile,… the autonomous vehicle can include …terrestrial vehicle (e.g., 2-wheeled vehicle, bike, motorcycle, scooter,”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the collision avoidance disclosed in Haung with the scooter taught in Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable and safe system.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the drive member is an electric motor (col. 13, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses wherein the thermal sensor is an infrared sensor configured to sense infrared radiation (col. 34, line 63).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses wherein the controller, in outputting the control signal, is further configured to: reduce the velocity of the mobility vehicle to a non-zero value in response to determining that an obstacle is detected within a first distance range; and reduce the velocity of the mobility scooter to zero in response to determining that an obstacle is detected within a second distance range (col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 56).
Regarding claim 8, Haung discloses wherein the second distance range is smaller in magnitude than the first distance range (col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 56, “The unmanned aerial vehicle may recalculate a trajectory for the unmanned aerial vehicle at the reduced speed, and continue to determine whether any obstacles are present along the trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle within a second predetermined range that may be shorter than the first predetermined range…If an obstacle is present within the second predetermined range, the unmanned aerial vehicle may execute an emergency maneuver,”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1. Furthermore,
Haung discloses reduce the velocity of the mobility scooter to a non-zero value in response to determining that an obstacle is detected within a first distance range; and reduce the velocity of the mobility scooter to zero in response to determining that an obstacle is detected within a second distance range (col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 56, “The unmanned aerial vehicle may recalculate a trajectory for the unmanned aerial vehicle at the reduced speed, and continue to determine whether any obstacles are present along the trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle within a second predetermined range that may be shorter than the first predetermined range…If an obstacle is present within the second predetermined range, the unmanned aerial vehicle may execute an emergency maneuver,”).
Regarding claim 11, Haung discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the signal indicative of the presence of the obstruction to a controller configured to adjust the velocity of the mobility vehicle (col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 56, “The unmanned aerial vehicle may recalculate a trajectory for the unmanned aerial vehicle at the reduced speed, and continue to determine whether any obstacles are present along the trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle within a second predetermined range that may be shorter than the first predetermined range…If an obstacle is present within the second predetermined range, the unmanned aerial vehicle may execute an emergency maneuver,”).
Regarding claim 12, Haung discloses wherein the signal indicative of the presence of the obstruction includes distance information corresponding to the distance of the obstruction from the mobility vehicle (col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 56, “The unmanned aerial vehicle may recalculate a trajectory for the unmanned aerial vehicle at the reduced speed, and continue to determine whether any obstacles are present along the trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle within a second predetermined range that may be shorter than the first predetermined range…If an obstacle is present within the second predetermined range, the unmanned aerial vehicle may execute an emergency maneuver,”).
Regarding claim 13, Haung discloses further comprising a non-thermal sensor configured to transmit non-thermal data to the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to analyze the non-thermal data in conjunction with the thermal image captured by the thermal sensor (col. 35, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Haung discloses further comprising connecting the thermal sensor with the processor of the detection system (FIG. 2, 210).
Regarding claim 16, Haung discloses wherein connecting the detection system to a controller connected to a braking system includes connecting the controller to a DC motor (FIG. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 12280889 B1) in view Johnson (US 20230256991 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shukla (US 20230022608 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Huang does not explicitly disclose but, Shukla teaches wherein the control signal includes a voltage signal element to modulate an input voltage transmitted to the electric motor via the controller (¶0010).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the collision avoidance disclosed in Haung with the modulation of the voltage taught in Shukla with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable and safe system.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 12280889 B1) in view Johnson (US 20230256991 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Marotti (US 20250035745 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Huang does not explicitly disclose but, Marotti teaches wherein the thermal sensor of the object detection and avoidance system is disposed on a rear portion of the mobility scooter (¶0023).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the collision avoidance disclosed in Haung with the mounting of the sensor taught in Marotti with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in detection capabilities.
Regarding claim 6, Marotti teaches wherein the thermal sensor of the detection system is disposed on a front portion of the mobility scooter (¶0023).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the collision avoidance disclosed in Haung with the mounting of the sensor taught in Marotti with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in detection capabilities.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 12280889 B1) in view Johnson (US 20230256991 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Trehan (US 20230122447 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Huang does not explicitly disclose but, Trehan teaches further comprising a non-transitory memory, and wherein the processor is configured to execute an artificial intelligence function to determine whether the obstruction constitutes an obstruction to be avoided by the mobility scooter (¶0075).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the collision avoidance disclosed in Haung with the artificial intelligence taught in Trehan with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in safety and reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TANISAKA (US 20230022608 A1) discloses An autonomous traveling body includes a vehicle body, a mover, an obstacle detector, a traveling controller, and a storage. The mover causes the vehicle body to travel. The traveling controller controls the mover based on a detection result of the obstacle by the obstacle detector. The storage stores an obstacle detection area around the vehicle body. The obstacle detection area includes a stop area having a predetermined width with the traveling direction of the vehicle body as an axis, and first and second deceleration areas excluding the stop area. When at least a portion of the obstacle is included in the stop area, the traveling controller stops the vehicle body. When at least a portion of the obstacle is included in the first deceleration area or the second deceleration area, the traveling controller reduces the traveling speed of the vehicle body (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667