Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regards to claims 7 and 11, each claim recites limitations that, while they are believed to exist within the prior art of record, are found to require too significant modification to the base reference to reach a conclusion of obviousness. As such, were one of these claims incorporated into independent form, including each and every intervening limitation, the claim would be found allowable. Claim 12 depends upon claim 11 and therefore is found to be allowable if incorporated into independent form including each intervening limitation for the same reason as claim 11.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210284267), in view of Avila et al. (US 20230147144) and Anantha (US 20200184455).
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches a method for managing a safety solution in a shared mobility apparatus system including at least one mobility apparatus, a safety kit, a safety kit storage case provided in the mobility apparatus for storing the safety kit, and a management server for managing the mobility apparatus, the method comprising: (Figs 1, 7-11, [0050] personal mobility device is shared mobility apparatus, which includes helmet storage device within which helmet is stored, where helmet storage device is safety kit storage case and helmet is safety kit. [0041] operations may be distributed throughout computing architecture including with telematics server, which serves as management server.)
identifying, by the safety kit storage case, whether the safety kit is stored in the safety kit storage case; ([0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device.)
identifying, by the safety kit, a wearing status of the safety kit; ([0072] sensors of helmet determine whether the user wears the helmet.)
based on the wearing status of the safety kit, unlocking, by the management server, a mode of the mobility apparatus; ([0074] when the user is not wearing the helmet, the maximum speed of the personal mobility device is limited.)
Park does not teach:
based on the wearing status of the safety kit, unlocking, by the management server, a starting mode of the mobility apparatus; and
in response to the mobility apparatus being turned on, notifying, by the management server, that charging starts according to use of the mobility apparatus through a mobility apparatus APP.
However, Avila teaches preventing a vehicle from starting ignition when the user does not wear a helmet or does not wear the helmet correctly ([0091]).
Further, Anantha teaches recognizing the start of a trip session and activating a payment session with payment tokens based on the start of the trip session, which charge payments as required ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility vehicle control method of Park, by incorporating the teachings of Avila and Anantha, such that particularly, when the user does not wear a helmet, not only is the speed of the personal mobility device of Park limited, but the ignition may be prevented, which prevents the personal mobility device from entering a starting mode, and once the personal mobility device is turned on with the start of a trip session, a payment session is established through the distributed computing with a server of Park, which is a mobility apparatus application, that begins charging through payment tokens.
The motivation to prevent ignition based on helmet status is that, as acknowledged by Avila, this improves security ([0001]). The motivation to perform payment charging based on the start of a trip session is that, as acknowledged by Anantha, this allows for safely providing payments while improving convenience of the user ([0002], [0005]).
In regards to claim 3, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein identifying whether the safety kit is stored in the safety kit storage case comprises:
requesting, by the mobility apparatus, a storage status of the safety kit to the safety kit storage case; ([0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device. This is a request performed by the personal mobility device to determine storage status of the helmet storage device.)
identifying, by the safety kit storage case, whether the safety kit is present inside the safety kit storage case; ([0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device.) and
in response to the safety kit not being present inside the safety kit storage case, notifying, by the safety kit storage case, that the safety kit is not present to the mobility apparatus. ([0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, and when the helmet is removed, an alert is sent to controller of personal mobility device by the helmet storage device.)
In regards to claim 5, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein identifying the wearing status of the safety kit comprises:
identifying, by the safety kit storage case, whether the safety kit stored inside the safety kit storage case is withdrawn; ([0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device.)
in response to the safety kit being withdrawn, notifying, by the mobility apparatus, that the safety kit is withdrawn to the mobility apparatus; ([0041], [0059]-[0061] signal may be emitted by the helmet storage device when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, which determines that the helmet is stored within the helmet storage device and when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device. When the helmet is removed, an alert is sent to controller of personal mobility device by the helmet storage device, which at least when distributed may a notification from the personal mobility device to the personal mobility device.)
connecting, by the mobility apparatus, data communication to the safety kit; ([0067] when the helmet is removed from the helmet storage device, the controller causes wireless communication to be performed to connect the controller of the personal mobility device and the helmet.) and
detecting, by the safety kit, an operation status of the safety kit in the mobility apparatus. ([0072] sensors of helmet may detect signals that indicate the helmet is being worn, which is an operation status of the helmet.)
In regards to claim 8, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein unlocking the starting mode of the mobility apparatus comprises:
transmitting data according to an operation status of the safety kit to the management server; ([0041], [0072] sensors of helmet may detect signals that indicate the helmet is being worn, which is an operation status of the helmet, which when distributed, may include being sent to server.)
identifying, by the management server, whether the safety kit is worn based on the data according to the operation status of the safety kit; ([0041], [0072] sensors of helmet may detect signals that indicate the helmet is being worn, which is an operation status of the helmet, which when distributed, may include being sent to server.) and
in response to the identification that the safety kit is worn, unlocking, the management server, the starting mode of the mobility apparatus.
Avila teaches preventing a vehicle from starting ignition when the user does not wear a helmet or does not wear the helmet correctly ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by further incorporating the teachings of Avila, such that under the distributed architecture of Park, the server particularly prevents the vehicle from starting ignition when the user does not wear a helmet and otherwise allows ignition.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Avila in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Park teaches operations may be distributed throughout computing architecture including with telematics server, which serves as management server ([0041]).
Avila teaches preventing a vehicle from starting ignition when the user does not wear a helmet or does not wear the helmet correctly ([0091]) and an enablement system that enables ignition of the vehicle ([0043]). This identifies whether the vehicle is turned on.
Anantha teaches recognizing the start of a trip session and activating a payment session with payment tokens based on the start of the trip session, which charge payments as required ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by further incorporating the teachings of Avila and Anantha, such that an enablement system determines ignition engagement, which determines whether the personal mobility device is turned on, which is determined at least in part by the server when in a distributed mode, which is a notification from the personal mobility device, and the personal mobility device is signaled to begin a payment session charging fees as required.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Avila and Anantha in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 9.
Park also teaches operations may be distributed throughout computing architecture including with telematics server, which serves as management server ([0041]).
Anantha teaches recognizing the start of a trip session and activating a payment session with payment tokens based on the start of the trip session, which charge payments as required ([0033]) where a trip session is a time interval from a start trip point to an end trip point ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by further incorporating the teachings of Anantha, such that at least through the distributed computing architecture of Park, the server determines the time interval between starting the trip and ending the trip at the corresponding start trip and end trip locations, which is counting charging according to usage time.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Anantha in regards to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Avila and Anantha, in further view of Viner et al. (US 20200297059).
In regards to claim 2, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Anantha teaches recognizing the start of a trip session and activating a payment session with payment tokens based on the start of the trip session, which charge payments as required ([0033]) where a trip session is a time interval from a start trip point to an end trip point ([0031]).
Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, does not teach:
further comprising:
identifying, by the mobility apparatus, whether the mobility apparatus is turned off;
in response to the mobility apparatus being turned off, identifying, by the safety kit storage case, whether the safety kit is returned to the safety kit storage case; and
in response to the safety kit being returned, notifying, by the management server, that charging counting according to the use of the mobility apparatus is completed through the mobility apparatus APP.
However, Viner teaches determining that a user finishes their ride with their vehicle, which includes setting the vehicle up to be ready for the next user, further a status notification of a helmet being returned or not being returned is determined and if the parameters are out of specification, including that the helmet has not been returned, then a service alert is generated to correct the out of specification parameter ([0038], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by further incorporating the teachings of Anantha and incorporating the teachings of Viner, such that a determination is made of when the trip is finished and the personal mobility device is ready for the next user, which as modified, necessarily includes that the vehicle is turned off as the vehicle must be initially off before being turned on at the beginning of a future trip, determinations are made that the helmet has been returned to the helmet storage device, and then the server of the distributed computing architecture of Park notifies that the trip is complete and the payment session ends.
The motivation to determine trip completion with payment session end is the same as acknowledged by Anantha in regards to claim 1. The motivation to determine ride finishing with helmet return is that, this allows for reduced effort for maintaining the vehicle ([0005], [0006]).
In regards to claim 4, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 3.
Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, does not teach: further comprising:
requesting, by the mobility apparatus, maintenance of the safety kit to the management server in response to the notification of the safety kit not being present.
However, Viner teaches determining a status notification of a helmet being returned or not being returned and determining that parameters are out of specification, including that the helmet has not been returned, and then generating a service alert to correct the out of specification parameter ([0041]). This is a request for maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by incorporating the teachings of Viner, such that a service alert is generated and distributed to the server of Park, which requests maintenance to remedy parameters that are out of specification, including that a helmet is missing or has not been returned.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Viner, this allows for reduced effort for maintaining the vehicle ([0005], [0006]).
In regards to claim 13, Viner teaches when a safety device has been returned, operating a locking mechanism to lock the safety device ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila, Anantha, and Viner, by further incorporating the teachings of Viner, such that when the helmet of Park is returned to the helmet storage device, the lock of the storage device is operated.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Viner in regards to claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Avila and Anantha, in further view of Allen et al. (US 20170325533).
In regards to claim 6, Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, teaches the method as claimed in claim 5.
a sensor configured to detect the wearing status, ([0072] sensors of helmet determine whether the user wears the helmet.) and
Park, as modified by Avila and Anantha, does not teach: wherein the safety kit comprises:
an air tube configured to expand by inflowing air and contract by outflowing air in a safety helmet shape when expanded;
an air pump for inflow and outflow of air;
a control switch configured to operate the air pump; and
wherein the safety kit transmits data on operation statuses of the control switch and the sensor to the mobility apparatus in response to the mobility apparatus being connected to the safety kit in data communication.
However, Allen teaches a helmet equipped with airbags to protect a wearer, where the airbags are inflated with a pump inflation device and deflated by applying a vacuum through retraction device, selectively operated by processor ([0029], [0030], [0048]). These airbags are air tubes that expand by inflowing air and contract by outflowing air within the helmet that are operated by the processor acting as a control switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify personal mobility device control method of Park, as already modified by Avila and Anantha, by incorporating the teachings of Allen, such that the helmet of Park is equipped with airbags with are air tubes that expand by inflowing air and contract by outflowing air caused by pumps operated by a processor acting as a control switch, which is performed when communication is established with the helmet.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Allen, this allows for reducing the risk of injury while operating a vehicle ([0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viner et al. (US 20200298925) teaches a rentable mobility device with a helmet to be worn by a user of the mobility device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661