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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 22 has been withdrawn in light of the current amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15, 17, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The phrase “in particular” has been removed from claims 15 and 23, but remains in claim 17. Furthermore, claim 21 has been amended to remove the issue of lack of antecedent basis with respect to the phrase “the remote entity.” Therefore, the rejection(s) of claims 15, 21 and 23 has/have been withdrawn, but the rejection of claim 17 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Lee does not disclose the apparatus including at least three load determining elements in the claimed staggered configuration. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the current amendments to the claims.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase are being treated as limitations that are part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Kawai (US Patent Number 7,442,150).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Lee discloses a vehicle and a processing element (200) arranged to carry out a method of operating a vehicle, comprising:
a passenger occupancy element for accommodating an occupant of the vehicle [0004, as shown in Figure 1 the footrest accommodates the weight of the rider], the passenger occupancy element comprises at least one load determining element (160, 170);
wherein the load determining element is arranged to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element [0028-0029],
wherein the vehicle is adapted to determine from the weight or weight distribution a current occupancy situation of the vehicle [0033-0034],
wherein the vehicle, dependent on the determined weight or weight distribution, is arranged to operate in one of at least two different modes of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a first mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is equal to or below an occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a second mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is exceeding the occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the first mode of operation is substantially a normal mode of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the second mode of operation is an exceptional mode of operation [0032-0034],
and wherein the exceptional mode of operation is a mode of operation with reduced functionality [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is a two-wheeled vehicle [as shown in Figure 1],
and wherein the passenger occupancy element is arranged and configured to accommodate at least one occupant in a standing manner [as shown in Figure 1].
Lee does not disclose wherein the passenger occupancy element comprises at least three load determining elements, wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in the passenger occupancy element such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements being configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements.
Kawai discloses an apparatus comprising at least three load determining elements (7,8,9 and/or 10,11,12), wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in a passenger occupancy element (2 including 4, 5, 6) such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements (Col. 3, lines 30-48, Col. 4, lines 17-24, Col. 5, lines 51-54, as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Kawai teaches that the arrangement of the apparatus in which each of three load determining elements is laterally and longitudinally spaced from an adjacent load determining element allows software to determine both a weight and a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element (Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passenger occupancy element disclosed by Lee to include at least three load determining elements in the claimed configuration as disclosed by Kawai since it has been shown by Kawai that this configuration predictably determines a weight or a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element.
Regarding claim 15, Lee further discloses wherein the second mode of operation comprises limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle to a speed below the maximum speed in the first mode of operation [0032-0034].
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses wherein in the second mode of operation an emergency braking function of the vehicle is activated to bring the vehicle to a controlled and/or complete stop, and/or wherein in the second mode of operation the vehicle cannot be activated [0032-0034].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Kawai (US Patent Number 7,442,150) and further in view of Staelin (WO 98/46474 A2).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the vehicle of claim 14 as discussed above wherein a braking function is arranged to be activated in the second mode of operation. Lee does not disclose an indicator element arranged to be activated in the second mode of operation, in particular wherein the indicator element is at least one element out of the group consisting of a light, a head light, a handle light, a brake light, a turn light, a vibration element, a sound emitting element and a display.
Staelin discloses a vehicle configured to accommodate at least one occupant in a standing manner (Title, as shown in Figure 1), wherein the vehicle includes an indicator element (689) wherein the indicator element is at least one element out of the group consisting of a light, a head light, a handle light, a brake light, a turn light, a vibration element, a sound emitting element and a display [Page 30, lines 17-18].
Staelin teaches that indicator element functions as a brake light and provides user safety at night [Page 30, lines 17-18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tail light disclosed by Staelin with the vehicle disclosed by Lee so that the tail light is activated during braking in the second mode of operation to provide user safety at night.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Kawai (US Patent Number 7,442,150) and further in view of Kamen (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0121866).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the vehicle of claim 14 wherein the passenger occupancy element comprises a weight detection sensor 160 and a contact recognition sensor 170 as discussed above wherein the latter is used in determining a load distribution. Lee does not disclose wherein the passenger occupancy element comprises at least two load determining elements, and wherein the load determining elements are arranged to determine the weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element.
Kamen discloses a vehicle configured to accommodate at least one occupant in a standing manner comprising a passenger occupancy element that comprises at least two load determining elements, and wherein the load determining elements are arranged to determine the weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element [0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the contact recognition sensor disclosed by Lee for a plurality of force sensors on the left and right sides of the passenger occupancy element as disclosed by Kamen because this arrangement predictably provides a measure of the weight distribution imposed by at least one passenger.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Kawai (US Patent Number 7,442,150) and further in view of Ewert (WO 2020/216658 A1). Note that U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/430,528, was a National Stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371(c) of PCT/EP2020/060568, thus the U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0126832 of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/430,528 is an accurate English translation of WO 2020/216658 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the vehicle of claim 14 where the vehicle is braked and brought to a stop in the second mode of operation as discussed above but does not disclose the vehicle further comprising an airbag element, wherein the airbag element is adapted to be inactivated in the second mode of operation.
Ewert discloses a vehicle comprising an airbag element, wherein the airbag is adapted to be inactivated when the vehicle is at a dead stop, prior or subsequently to it [0021, 0048-0049].
Ewert teaches that this control reduces a power consumed by the vehicle [0013-0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an airbag in a vehicle because an airbag is a well-known safety component and to inactivate the airbag in the second mode of operation disclosed by Lee when the vehicle is braked because as taught by Ewert this reduces vehicle power consumption.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Peters (DE 10 2013 210 027 A1) and further in view of Kawai (US Patent Number 7,442,150).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a passenger occupancy element for accommodating an occupant of the vehicle [0004, as shown in Figure 1 the footrest accommodates the weight of the rider], the passenger occupancy element comprises at least one load determining element (160, 170);
wherein the load determining element is arranged to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element [0028-0029],
wherein the vehicle is adapted to determine from the weight or weight distribution a current occupancy situation of the vehicle [0033-0034],
wherein the vehicle, dependent on the determined weight or weight distribution, is arranged to operate in one of at least two different modes of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a first mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is equal to or below an occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a second mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is exceeding the occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the first mode of operation is substantially a normal mode of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the second mode of operation is an exceptional mode of operation [0032-0034],
and wherein the exceptional mode of operation is a mode of operation with reduced functionality [0032-0034].
Lee does not disclose the vehicle further comprising a communication element, wherein the communication element is adapted to communicate with a remote entity, and wherein the communication element is adapted to communicate to a remote entity when the operation of the vehicle in the second mode of operation.
Peters discloses a vehicle comprising:
a communication element (10-1),
wherein the communication element is adapted to communicate with a remote entity (9) [0058], and
wherein the communication element is adapted to communicate to a remote entity in a second mode of operation when the current occupancy situation exceeds an occupancy threshold [0058].
Peters teaches that communicating the vehicle occupancy situation can assist potential passengers in providing information on whether the vehicle has free space can accommodate additional passengers [0007-0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the communication element disclosed by Peters with the vehicle disclosed by Lee to notify potential passengers of free space on the vehicle.
Lee, as modified by Peters, does not disclose wherein the passenger occupancy element comprises at least three load determining elements, wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in the passenger occupancy element such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements being configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements.
Kawai discloses an apparatus comprising at least three load determining elements (7,8,9 and/or 10,11,12), wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in a passenger occupancy element (2 including 4, 5, 6) such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements (Col. 3, lines 30-48, Col. 4, lines 17-24, Col. 5, lines 51-54, as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Kawai teaches that the arrangement of the apparatus in which each of three load determining elements is laterally and longitudinally spaced from an adjacent load determining element allows software to determine both a weight and a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element (Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passenger occupancy element disclosed by Lee to include at least three load determining elements in the claimed configuration as disclosed by Kawai since it has been shown by Kawai that this configuration predictably determines a weight or a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element.
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a passenger occupancy element for accommodating an occupant of the vehicle [0004, as shown in Figure 1 the footrest accommodates the weight of the rider], the passenger occupancy element comprises at least one load determining element (160, 170);
wherein the load determining element is arranged to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element [0028-0029],
wherein the vehicle is adapted to determine from the weight or weight distribution a current occupancy situation of the vehicle [0033-0034],
wherein the vehicle, dependent on the determined weight or weight distribution, is arranged to operate in one of at least two different modes of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a first mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is equal to or below an occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the vehicle is operating in a second mode of operation when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is exceeding the occupancy threshold [0032-0034],
wherein the first mode of operation is substantially a normal mode of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the second mode of operation is an exceptional mode of operation [0032-0034],
and wherein the exceptional mode of operation is a mode of operation with reduced functionality [0032-0034].
Lee does not disclose wherein a notification is sent from the vehicle and/or a remote entity to a mobile computing device of a passenger of the vehicle in case the vehicle is operating in the second mode of operation.
Peters discloses a vehicle comprising:
a communication element (10-1), wherein the communication element is adapted to send a notification from the vehicle (2) and/or a remote entity (9) to a mobile computing device (3) of a passenger of the vehicle in case the vehicle is operating in a second mode of operation in which the current occupancy situation exceeds an occupancy threshold [0058].
Peters teaches that communicating the vehicle occupancy situation can assist potential passengers in providing information on whether the vehicle has free space can accommodate additional passengers [0007-0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the communication element disclosed by Peters with the vehicle disclosed by Lee to notify potential passengers of free space on the vehicle via, for example, a passenger located on the vehicle using the mobile computing device.
Lee, as modified by Peters, does not disclose wherein the passenger occupancy element comprises at least three load determining elements, wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in the passenger occupancy element such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements being configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of the vehicle arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements.
Kawai discloses an apparatus comprising at least three load determining elements (7,8,9 and/or 10,11,12), wherein the at least three load determining elements are arranged in a staggered configuration in a passenger occupancy element (2 including 4, 5, 6) such that each load determining element is laterally and longitudinally spaced away from an adjacent load determining element, the load determining elements configured to determine a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant arranged on the passenger occupancy element based on the relative weights detected by the at least three load determining elements (Col. 3, lines 30-48, Col. 4, lines 17-24, Col. 5, lines 51-54, as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Kawai teaches that the arrangement of the apparatus in which each of three load determining elements is laterally and longitudinally spaced from an adjacent load determining element allows software to determine both a weight and a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element (Col. 1, lines 57-63; Col. 2, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passenger occupancy element disclosed by Lee to include at least three load determining elements in the claimed configuration as disclosed by Kawai since it has been shown by Kawai that this configuration predictably determines a weight or a weight distribution imposed by an occupant on a passenger occupancy element.
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020-0109009 A) in view of Peters (DE 10 2013 210 027 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses a method for operating a vehicle, comprising the steps of:
determine, by at least one load determining element (160, 170), a weight or a weight distribution imposed by at least one occupant of a vehicle arranged on a passenger occupancy element of the vehicle [0004, 0028-0029, as shown in Figure 1],
determine from the weight or weight distribution a current occupancy situation of the vehicle [0033-0034],
wherein when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is equal to or below an occupancy threshold, operate the vehicle in a first mode of operation [0032-0034], and
wherein when it is determined that the current occupancy situation is exceeding the occupancy threshold, operate the vehicle in a second mode of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the first mode of operation is substantially a normal mode of operation [0032-0034],
wherein the second mode of operation is an exceptional mode of operation [0032-0034],
and wherein the exceptional mode of operation is a mode of operation with reduced functionality [0032-0034].
Lee does not disclose the method comprising at least one of the following steps when in the second mode of operation, communicate with a remote entity to indicate the operation of the vehicle in the second mode of operation, and send a notification from the vehicle and/or a remote entity to a mobile computing device of a passenger of the vehicle in case the vehicle is operating in the second mode of operation.
Peters discloses a method for operating a vehicle comprising:
sending a notification from the vehicle (2) and/or a remote entity (9) to a mobile computing device (3) of a passenger of the vehicle in case the vehicle is operating in a second mode of operation in which the current occupancy situation exceeds an occupancy threshold [0058].
Peters teaches that communicating the vehicle occupancy situation can assist potential passengers in providing information on whether the vehicle has free space can accommodate additional passengers [0007-0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the communication element disclosed by Peters with the vehicle disclosed by Lee to notify potential passengers of free space on the vehicle via, for example, a passenger located on the vehicle using the mobile computing device.
Regarding claim 23, Lee further discloses the method comprising at least one of the following steps when in the second mode of operation: limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle to a speed below the maximum speed in the first mode of operation, activate an emergency braking function if the vehicle is activated to bring the vehicle to a controlled and/or complete stop, deactivate the vehicle, prohibit activation of the vehicle, activate an indicator element, and deactivate an airbag element [0032-0034].
Regarding claim 24, Lee further discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processing element, cause the processing element to carry out the method according to claim 23 [0031-0032].
Regarding claim 25, Lee further discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processing element, cause the processing element to carry out the method according to claim 23 [0031-0032].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights