/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
Claims 1-13 were originally presented having a 371 filing date of September 26, 2024 from PCT/JP2022/015453 that was filed on March 29, 2022.
Claims 1-13 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on September 26, 2024 and May 19, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner. Initialed copies of the 1449 Forms are enclosed herewith.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract exceeds 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“road type recognizing unit” in claims 1 and 11 (the hardware associated with this term is disclosed in the originally filed specification, in [0034] that states, “The control device 100 includes, for example, a road type recognizing unit 120, a recognition unit 130, an identification unit 140, and a control unit 150. These constituents are realized, for example, by causing a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) to execute the program (software) 74.”);
“limitation recognizing unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, and 11;
“control unit” in claims 1-2 and 5-11 (the hardware associated with this term is disclosed in the originally filed specification, in [0034] that states, “The control device 100 includes, for example, a road type recognizing unit 120, a recognition unit 130, an identification unit 140, and a control unit 150. These constituents are realized, for example, by causing a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) to execute the program (software) 74.”);
“position information acquiring unit” in claim 3;
“storage unit” in claim 3;
“first output unit” in claims 5 and 8;
“second output unit” in claims 6 and 9 (the hardware associated with this term is disclosed in the originally filed specification, in [0051] that states, “The occupant output unit is an example of a "second output unit." FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of information which is displayed on a display unit (the occupant output unit) in the mobile object 1.”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 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 3 recites the limitation "the storage unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “limitation recognizing unit” (in claims 1, 3, 4, and 11), “position information acquiring unit” (in claim 3), “storage unit” (in claim 3), “first output unit” ( in claims 5 and 8) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For each of these terms, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11-13 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 road type recognizing unit configured to 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.];
a limitation recognizing unit configured to 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
a control unit configured to limit 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 and to 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).]
As per claim 2, Ryoko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ryoko discloses … wherein the control unit limits the speed when the mobile object moves on a roadway other than the limitation area to a third speed and limits the speed when the mobile object moves in the predetermined area to a fourth speed lower than the third speed [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. "], and
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 … further comprising a position information acquiring unit configured 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"],
wherein the limitation recognizing unit recognizes 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 unit [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 … wherein the limitation recognizing unit recognizes 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 control unit causes a first output unit, which is configured to notify a traffic participant near the mobile object of information, to output 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 control unit causes a second output unit, which is configured to notify an occupant of the mobile object of information, to output 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 road type recognizing unit configured to 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.];
a limitation recognizing unit configured to 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
a control unit configured to control movement of the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result from the road type recognizing unit and a recognition result from the limitation recognizing unit [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).],
wherein the control unit causes the mobile object to move in a first moving mode when the mobile object is moving in the predetermined area other than the roadway [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).],
wherein the control unit causes the mobile object to move 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. 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).],
wherein the control unit causes the mobile object to move 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 and causes the mobile object to move 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. 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).]
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).]
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).]; 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).]
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 control unit releases 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 control unit releases 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 control unit stops causing the first output unit, which is configured to notify a traffic participant near the mobile object of information, to output 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 control unit stops causing the first output unit, which is configured to notify a traffic participant near the mobile object of information, to output 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 control unit causes a second output unit, which is configured to notify an occupant of the mobile object of information, to output 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 control unit limits 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
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