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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on April 9, 2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are currently amended.
Claim 14 is newly added.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on August 20, 2026 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Specification Objection:
The outstanding Specification Objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract, which are accepted.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
The outstanding 35 USC 112(f) Claim Interpretations for all of the cited terms are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments canceling each of the terms from the claims.
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
The outstanding 35 USC 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments correcting the antecedent basis issue.
The outstanding 35 USC 112(b) Claim Rejections regarding all of the terms that were interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn in view of Amendments deleting each of those terms from the claim language.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that reference Ryoko (Publication JP2017100490A) “does not clearly distinguish between the first direction (allowable direction) and second direction (opposite direction), and does not disclose that different speed controls are applied to the first and second directions, respectively. Consequently, Ryoko fails to disclose each and every element recited in independent claim 1, at least as currently amended.” See Applicant’s Arguments filed April 9, 2026, page 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ryoko clearly explains, on page 21 in the last paragraph, that when the personal mobility vehicle enters one-way traffic by mistake the upper limit value of the speed is reduced. Further, Ryoko discloses that a warning may be notified to a user by displaying a message whether the vehicle is traveling in one-way traffic incorrectly or in the direction of travel that matches the specified direction. Specifically, Ryoko states, “Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km/h). And a warning may be notified to a user by displaying a message on a notification part. Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road.” See Ryoko, page 21, paragraph 6. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that Ryoko does clearly distinguish between the first direction (allowable direction) [when travel matches the specified direction] and second direction (opposite direction) [when vehicle travels in one-way mistakenly opposite the specified direction], and does disclose that different speed controls are applied to the first [upper limit value] and second [upper limit value is reduced, for example, 6 km/h] directions, respectively.
Therefore, all of the outstanding 35 USC 102 rejections are maintained, but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Salter [Publication US 2018/0281782 A1] involves gradually limiting speed to safely deal with the abnormal situation of driving in the wrong direction, and its technical concept differs from that of the subject application, which is a control system for conforming to traffic rules during normal driving. In view of the above, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” See Applicant’s Arguments filed April 9, 2026, page 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Salter reference is in the same technical area of vehicle controls and, more specifically, controlling the vehicle in an environment where it is traveling in a direction opposite from the traffic flow or in restricted traveling zones. Therefore, the current application and the Salter reference are in analogous technical areas and it is, therefore, proper to use as a reference in an obviousness rejection.
Therefore, all of the outstanding 35 USC 10e rejections are maintained, but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 11 and 14 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.
Claim 11, in lines 15-16 states, “(a) control the movement of the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result and a recognition result”. It is not clear if the claim requires two different recognition results. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring only one recognition result.
Claim 14, in lines 3-4 states, “execute the program to control the speed of the mobile object to gradually change toward the speed limit.” It is not clear how to interpret the metes and bounds of the phrase “gradually change toward the speed limit.” Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryoko, et al., JP2017100490A (hereinafter referred to as “Ryoko”.)
As per claim 1, Ryoko discloses a control device for a mobile object that is able to move both on a roadway and in a predetermined area other than a roadway [see at least Ryoko p. 22, para 1 "Moreover, although the electric wheelchair 100 and personal mobility were demonstrated as a mobile body in the Example mentioned above, a senior car, a golf cart, a motor vehicle, etc. may be sufficient. Further, the power source is not limited to driving the motor with electricity, but may be an internal combustion engine such as a gasoline engine, or any other movable body that has a built-in power source and moves by the power source."; p. 21, para "...For example, in personal mobility, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk."], the control device comprising:
a processor [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 2 "…a speed control program which performs the speed control method mentioned above by computer."]; and
a storage medium configured to store a program executed by the processor [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 3 "The speed control program described above may be stored in a computer-readable recording medium."],
wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 3 "In this way, the program can be distributed as a single unit in addition to being incorporated in the device…"]:
recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined area on the basis of an output of a sensing device for sensing an external situation of the mobile object [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "...Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road.];
recognize whether the roadway on which the mobile object is moving is a limitation area in which movement of a vehicle in a first direction is permitted and movement of a vehicle in a second direction opposite to the first direction is limited on the basis of the output of the sensing device [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).]; and
control a speed of the mobile object as follows:
limit the speed of the mobile object to a first speed when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the first direction [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h). {Examiner Note: first speed is upper limit}];
limit the speed of the mobile object to a second speed lower than the first speed when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the second direction [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”; {Examiner Note: the mobile object is moving in the opposite direction, one way traffic is entered by mistake, second speed lower than first is reduced upper limit value}];
limit the speed of the mobile object to a third speed when the mobile object moves on a roadway other than the limitation area [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 3 "...The plurality of external environments described above may be determined in combination. By doing so, the upper limit value of the electric wheelchair 100 can be set corresponding to more external environments."; p.20, para 8 "..., the setting unit 11 decreases the upper limit value when detecting that the electric wheelchair 100 is located indoors. By doing so, it is possible to automatically travel at a reduced speed when traveling indoors. " {Examiner note: third speed is upper limit decreased when traveling on roadway indoors}; page 19, para 6 - page 21, para 6.]; and
limit the speed of the mobile object to a fourth speed lower than the third speed when the mobile object moves in the predetermined area [see at least Ryoko p. 20, para 8 "In addition, by automatically adjusting the upper limit value, it is possible to save time and effort for the user to change the speed by pausing each time the vehicle moves from the outdoor to the indoor or from the indoor to the outdoor." [Examiner note: fourth speed is pausing when vehicle enters predetermined area of transitioning from outdoor to indoor or indoor to outdoor}; page 19, para 6 - page 21, para 6.]
As per claim 2, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the third speed is higher than the second speed or equal to the first speed [see at least Ryoko page 19, para 6 - page 21, para 6 {Examiner Note: First speed (highway) >third speed (indoor speed) >Second speed (reduced because detected one way traffic).}]
As per claim 3, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to:
acquire position information of the mobile object [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 1 "...the setting part 11 may reduce an upper limit, when it detects having drive | worked the edge of the road without a sidewalk as an external environment. Whether a road has no sidewalk can be determined based on the current location and map data"]; and
recognize whether the mobile object is moving in the limitation area in the second direction on the basis of the position information and map information including information of the limitation area stored in the storage medium [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "...Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road.]
As per claim 4, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … the processor is configured to execute the program to recognize whether the mobile object is moving in the limitation area in the second direction on the basis of whether there is a sign or a road marking indicating the limitation area in an area in which the mobile object is moving on the basis of the output of the sensing device [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "...Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road."]
As per claim 5, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to notify a traffic participant near the mobile object of information indicating that the mobile object is traveling in a traveling mode in which the mobile object is traveling in the limitation area in the second direction when the mobile object is moving in the second direction [see at least Ryoko p. 12, para 3 " When the setting unit 11 changes the setting of the upper limit value, a display unit, a voice output unit, or the like as a notification unit that notifies the change may be further provided."; p. 21, para 6 ".... Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h). And a warning may be notified to a user by displaying a message on a notification part."]
As per claim 6, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to notify an occupant of the mobile object of information indicating that the speed of the mobile object is limited to the second speed lower than the first speed when the mobile object is moving in the second direction [see at least Ryoko p. 12, para 3 " When the setting unit 11 changes the setting of the upper limit value, a display unit, a voice output unit, or the like as a notification unit that notifies the change may be further provided. By doing so, the user can recognize that the vehicle has accelerated or decelerated and that the upper limit value of the traveling speed has been increased."; p. 21, para 6 "In personal mobility, when traveling on a road without a sidewalk, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on the right side or the left side, and if the vehicle is traveling on the right side, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, speed per hour). 6 km / h). And a warning may be notified to a user by displaying a message on a notification part."]
As per claim 11, Ryoko discloses a control device for a mobile object that is able to move both on a roadway and in a predetermined area other than a roadway [see at least Ryoko p. 22, para 1 "Moreover, although the electric wheelchair 100 and personal mobility were demonstrated as a mobile body in the Example mentioned above, a senior car, a golf cart, a motor vehicle, etc. may be sufficient. Further, the power source is not limited to driving the motor with electricity, but may be an internal combustion engine such as a gasoline engine, or any other movable body that has a built-in power source and moves by the power source."; p. 21, para "...For example, in personal mobility, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk."], the control device comprising:
a processor [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 2 "…a speed control program which performs the speed control method mentioned above by computer."]; and
a storage medium configured to store a program executed by the processor [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 3 "The speed control program described above may be stored in a computer-readable recording medium."],
wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to [see at least Ryoko p. 5, para 3 "In this way, the program can be distributed as a single unit in addition to being incorporated in the device…"]:
recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined area on the basis of an output of a sensing device for sensing an external situation of the mobile object [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "...Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road.”];
recognize whether the roadway on which the mobile object is moving is a limitation area in which movement of a vehicle in a first direction is permitted and movement of a vehicle in a second direction opposite to the first direction is limited on the basis of the output of the sensing device [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”]; and
control movement of the mobile object as follows:
control the movement of the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result and a recognition result [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; ],
control the movement in a first moving mode when the mobile object is moving in the predetermined area other than the roadway [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 5 " it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk. If the vehicle is traveling on a roadway, the upper limit is increased (for example, 60 km / h), and the vehicle is driven on the sidewalk. If so, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, 6 km / h / h). Whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk may be determined from the current location and map data, or may be determined using a camera, a laser scanner, or the like."; {Examiner Note: Predetermined area = sidewalk = first moving mode = limited speed}],
control the movement in a second moving mode different from the first moving mode when the mobile object is moving on a roadway other than the predetermined area [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 5 " it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk. If the vehicle is traveling on a roadway, the upper limit is increased (for example, 60 km / h), and {than when} the vehicle is driven on the sidewalk. If so, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, 6 km / h / h). Whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk may be determined from the current location and map data, or may be determined using a camera, a laser scanner, or the like."; {Examiner Note: second moving mode = full speed = in roadway not sidewalk}],
control the movement in the first moving mode when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the second direction [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”; {Examiner Note: first moving mode = limited speed = second direction is travel in opposite direction to one-way traffic}],
control the movement in the second moving mode when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the first direction [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 5 "it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk. If the vehicle is traveling on a roadway, the upper limit is increased (for example, 60 km / h), and {than when} the vehicle is driven on the sidewalk. If so, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, 6 km / h / h). Whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk may be determined from the current location and map data, or may be determined using a camera, a laser scanner, or the like."; {Examiner Note: Second moving mode = full speed = in roadway not sidewalk = first direction is travel along with one-way traffic/in the correct direction}],
limit a speed of the mobile object to a first speed when the mobile object moves on a roadway other than the limitation area [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "..., when traveling on a road without a sidewalk, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on the right side or the left side, and if the vehicle is traveling on the right side, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, speed per hour). 6 km / h)."; {Examiner Note: First Speed = Roadway other than limitation area (road without a sidewalk)}]; and
limit the speed of the mobile object to a second speed lower than the first speed when the mobile object moves in the predetermined area [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 5 "it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk. If the vehicle is traveling on a roadway, the upper limit is increased (for example, 60 km / h), and {than when} the vehicle is driven on the sidewalk. If so, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, 6 km / h / h). Whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk may be determined from the current location and map data, or may be determined using a camera, a laser scanner, or the like."; {Examiner Note: Second Speed (lower than first speed) = when object moves in predetermined area (sidewalk)}.]
As per claim 12, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Ryoko discloses … wherein a speed limit in the first moving mode is lower than a speed limit in the second moving mode and/or a rate of change of steering per unit time in the first moving mode is less than a rate of change of steering per unit time in the second moving mode [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”; p. 21, para 5 " it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk. If the vehicle is traveling on a roadway, the upper limit is increased (for example, 60 km / h), and {than when} the vehicle is driven on the sidewalk. If so, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, 6 km / h / h). Whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk may be determined from the current location and map data, or may be determined using a camera, a laser scanner, or the like."; {Examiner Note: First moving mode = limited speed, second moving mode = full speed}]
As per claim 13, Ryoko discloses a control method for a mobile object that is performed by a control device for a mobile object that one or more occupants board and that is able to move both on a roadway and in a predetermined area other than a roadway [see at least Ryoko p. 22, para 1 "Moreover, although the electric wheelchair 100 and personal mobility were demonstrated as a mobile body in the Example mentioned above, a senior car, a golf cart, a motor vehicle, etc. may be sufficient. Further, the power source is not limited to driving the motor with electricity, but may be an internal combustion engine such as a gasoline engine, or any other movable body that has a built-in power source and moves by the power source."; p. 21, para "...For example, in personal mobility, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on a roadway or a sidewalk."], the control method comprising:
recognizing whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined area on the basis of an output of a sensing device for sensing an external situation of the mobile object [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 6 "...Whether the vehicle is one-way or the direction of travel matches the specified direction, it can be judged from the current location and map data, or a road sign is recognized using a camera, laser scanner, etc. It may be determined by detecting whether or not the vehicle has entered the road."];
recognizing whether the roadway on which the mobile object is moving is a limitation area in which movement of a vehicle in a first direction is permitted and movement of a vehicle in a second direction opposite to the first direction is limited on the basis of the output of the sensing device [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).];
limiting a speed of the mobile object to a first speed when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the first direction[see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”; {Examiner Note: first speed is upper limit}]; and
limiting the speed of the mobile object to a second speed lower than the first speed when the mobile object moves on the roadway, the roadway is the limitation area, and the mobile object is moving in the second direction [see at least Ryoko p. 3, para 1 "...an upper limit can be set according to external environments, ..."; p. 21, para 6 "...Furthermore, the upper limit value is also reduced in the same way when one-way traffic is entered by mistake (for example, 6 km / h).”; {Examiner Note: the mobile object is moving in the opposite direction, one way traffic is entered by mistake, second speed lower than first is reduced upper limit value}];
limiting the speed of the mobile object to a third speed when the mobile object moves on a roadway other than the limitation area [see at least Ryoko p. 21, para 3 "...The plurality of external environments described above may be determined in combination. By doing so, the upper limit value of the electric wheelchair 100 can be set corresponding to more external environments."; p.20, para 8 "..., the setting unit 11 decreases the upper limit value when detecting that the electric wheelchair 100 is located indoors. By doing so, it is possible to automatically travel at a reduced speed when traveling indoors. " {Examiner note: third speed is upper limit decreased when traveling on roadway indoors}]; and
limiting the speed of the mobile object to a fourth speed lower than the third speed when the mobile object moves in the predetermined area [see at least Ryoko p. 20, para 8 "In addition, by automatically adjusting the upper limit value, it is possible to save time and effort for the user to change the speed by pausing each time the vehicle moves from the outdoor to the indoor or from the indoor to the outdoor."]
As per claim 14, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein when a speed limit of the mobile object is changed, the processor is configured to execute the program to control the speed of the mobile object to gradually change toward the speed limit [see at least Ryoko page 9, para 2 "...Note that the rate of speed that is gradually changed (the slope of the broken line or the alternate long and short dash line in the figure) is such that the user does not feel sudden acceleration or sudden deceleration. For example, an upper limit of acceleration during acceleration / deceleration may be set, and acceleration / deceleration may be performed within the upper limit acceleration."]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko in view of Salter, et al. (Publication US 2018/0281782 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Salter”.)
As per claim 7, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko fails to disclose … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to release the limitation of the speed of the mobile object to the second speed lower than the first speed and limits the speed of the mobile object to the first speed when the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction and then the mobile object exits the limitation area or the mobile object enters a state in which the mobile object does not move in the second direction. However, Salter teaches this limitation [see at least Salter [0005] "Disclosed herein is a method comprising actuating a light of a first vehicle to provide a user-detectable pattern external to the first vehicle upon determination that the first vehicle is traveling in a wrong-way direction."; [0012] The method may further comprise limiting a speed of the first vehicle to a first amount upon the determination that the first vehicle is traveling in the wrong-way direction. The method may further limit the speed of the first vehicle to a second amount upon determination that the first vehicle has traveled in the wrong-way direction for a threshold amount of time."; [0013] "The method may further comprise terminating actuation of the light upon determination that the first vehicle is no longer traveling in the wrong-way direction."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Ryoko to use … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to release the limitation of the speed of the mobile object to the second speed lower than the first speed and limits the speed of the mobile object to the first speed when the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction and then the mobile object exits the limitation area or the mobile object enters a state in which the mobile object does not move in the second direction as disclosed in Salter with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of notifying drivers of dangerous situations on the roadways. [See at least Salter [0025].]
As per claim 8, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Ryoko fails to disclose … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to stop notifying a traffic participant near the mobile object information indicating that the mobile object is traveling in a traveling mode in which the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction when the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction and then the mobile object exits the limitation area or the mobile object enters a state in which the mobile object does not move in the second direction. However, Salter teaches this limitation [see at least Salter [0005] "Disclosed herein is a method comprising actuating a light of a first vehicle to provide a user-detectable pattern external to the first vehicle upon determination that the first vehicle is traveling in a wrong-way direction."; [0013] "The method may further comprise terminating actuation of the light upon determination that the first vehicle is no longer traveling in the wrong-way direction."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Ryoko to use … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to stop notifying a traffic participant near the mobile object information indicating that the mobile object is traveling in a traveling mode in which the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction when the mobile object moves in the limitation area in the second direction and then the mobile object exits the limitation area or the mobile object enters a state in which the mobile object does not move in the second direction as disclosed in Salter with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of notifying drivers of dangerous situations on the roadways. [See at least Salter [0025].]
As per claim 9, the combination of Ryoko and Salter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to notify an occupant of the mobile object information indicating that limitation to the second speed is released and the speed of the mobile object is limited to the first speed when limitation of the speed of the mobile object to the second speed lower than the first speed is released and the speed of the mobile object is limited to the first speed [see at least Ryoko p. 12, para 3 " When the setting unit 11 changes the setting of the upper limit value, a display unit, a voice output unit, or the like as a notification unit that notifies the change may be further provided. By doing so, the user can recognize that the vehicle has accelerated or decelerated and that the upper limit value of the traveling speed has been increased."; p. 21, para 6 "In personal mobility, when traveling on a road without a sidewalk, it is detected whether the vehicle is traveling on the right side or the left side, and if the vehicle is traveling on the right side, the upper limit value is reduced (for example, speed per hour). 6 km / h). And a warning may be notified to a user by displaying a message on a notification part."]
As per claim 10, the combination of Ryoko and Salter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Ryoko discloses … wherein, when limitation of the speed of the mobile object to the second speed lower than the first speed is released and the speed of the mobile object is limited to the first speed, the processor is configured to execute the program to limit acceleration of the mobile object based on an operation on an operator for operating the speed of the mobile object until a predetermined time elapses after the limitation of the speed of the mobile object to the second speed lower than the first speed has been released even if an occupant of the mobile object operates the operator to accelerate the mobile object at the releasing timing [see at least Ryoko page 3, para 1 "...Therefore, it is possible to set an appropriate upper limit value of the traveling speed according to the surrounding situation. Therefore, the user can travel at a safe speed without consciously operating the operation lever or the like. Further, since the traveling speed is gradually changed, the user can be changed smoothly without being subjected to an impact due to sudden acceleration or the like."; page 9, para 2 "...Note that the rate of speed that is gradually changed (the slope of the broken line or the alternate long and short dash line in the figure) is such that the user does not feel sudden acceleration or sudden deceleration. For example, an upper limit of acceleration during acceleration / deceleration may be set, and acceleration / deceleration may be performed within the upper limit acceleration."]
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 PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights