MULTIMODAL WHEELCHAIR AND METHODS THEREOF

§103 §112 §DP

DETAILED ACTION This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-20 as originally presented and filed on 08/15/2025. This Application is subject to a Double Patent Rejection with the parent application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is February 7, 2023 (20230207). The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority This application is a continuation application of U.S. Non-Provisional Application Provisional 18/434,337, filed February 6, 2024, now U.S. Patent 12409084 B1, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/483,580 filed February 7, 2023 (“Parent Application(s)”). See MPEP §201.07[R-08.2017]. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b)[R-08.2017] (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application(s). Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) [R-08.2017] (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first paragraph should be updated to reflect the issuance of the parent application. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 17 and 18 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. Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the at least one existing passenger seat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this limitation is set forth in claim 16 and not claim 1 from which the claims depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 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. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3882949 A to Anderson; David M. in view of US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko). Regarding claim 1 Anderson teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below: PNG media_image1.png 817 630 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 367 671 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 463 557 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 477 523 media_image4.png Greyscale and associated descriptive texts a method of dynamically adjusting a seat height of a multimodal wheelchair contained in a vehicle (given the BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation) a POSITA (Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (See MPEP 2141.03)) with Fig. 14 in front of them would understand a multimodal wheelchair W would be contained in vehicle 112 once “loaded” in the vehicle as explained in for example only paras: “(30) The wheelchair is designed to be compatible with a fully powered automobile loading mechanism that will automatically place the quadriplegic and his wheelchair into either the driver or passenger side of a passenger car. Such a lift mechanism is shown in FIG. 14. The wheelchair W will back up to the car 112 as shown and the fork structure 114 will attach to the seat frame 18. The user will then shorten the actuator 42 which will raise the wheels and frame. It should be noted that although the name "lift" is given to the mechanism, this is really a misnomer since the wheelchair itself does all the vertical lifting. After the entire wheelchair is above the door sell height, the lift mechanism 110 will guide and completely support the wheelchair until it is in either the driver or passenger position. It should be noted that the wheelchair loads on the curb side of the car 112 which is much safer than having to load on the street side.”)) comprising: determining a contextual condition of the multimodal wheelchair (as shown in Fig. 14 above the “user” is determining how to align the wheelchair “W” to vehicle “112” loading “fork structure 114”); generating a control signal based on the contextual condition (given the BRI connotes either a control lever that is not shown as set forth in for example para: “(33) For ease of rolling plus large contact area for traction and lower loading pressures on the ground, a large drive wheel is important. The preferable size for such a drive wheel is 16 inches diameter in order to avoid elbow interference in the automobile driving mode. The two drive motors 40 are controlled by an infinitely variable solid state proportional control lever (not shown) which are well known in the art of powered wheelchairs. The control is placed in any desired location on the wheelchair for easy accessibility. It is preferably attached to arm rests which are not shown in the drawings.”, Or the auto wheelchair control that are much more automated as set forth as being known to a POSITA in for example paras: “(5) It appears that the group of disabled persons most in need of aid to achieve mobility are those afflicted by the worst form of paralysis: the loss of control and sensation of the legs, torso, and part of the arms. There are many diseases and accidents that cause this condition, the most common of which is quadriplegia (lesion of the spinal cord in the region of the cervical vertebrae). Manual wheelchair operation and wheelchair to auto transfer is possible by normal weight young low-level (trauma at sixth or seventh cervical vertebrae) quadriplegics, although with some difficulty. High level (trauma at fourth or fifth cervical vertebrae) quadriplegics have required a powered wheelchair and other human or mechanical assistance in transferring to automobile, bed or commode. Most quadriplegics can drive an automobile equipped with hand controls, power steering and brakes and automatic transmission. (6) Quadriplegics with trauma higher than the fourth cervical vertebrae either do not live long or, lacking autonomic breathing, require mechanical breathing assist apparatus. Also these very high level traumas quadriplegics have even less arm and shoulder function and their auto and wheelchair controls must by much more automated.”); transmitting the control signal to a height adjustment mechanism operably coupled to a seat portion of the multimodal wheelchair (given the BRI a Quadripligics much more automated wheelchair as shown in Fig. 14 and described above “The wheelchair W will back up to the car 112 as shown and the fork structure 114 will attach to the seat frame 18. The “Quadripligics much more automated wheelchair” will then shorten the actuator 42 which will raise the wheels and frame… After the entire wheelchair is above the door sell height, the lift mechanism 110 will guide and completely support the wheelchair until it is in either the driver or passenger position...”; and causing based on the control signal, the seat portion to transition from a first vertical position to a second vertical position (as explained above a POSITA would understand that a “Quadripligics much more automated wheelchair” will then shorten the actuator 42 which will raise the wheels and frame.” Because it would be “automated” to perform the task previously manually performed. See the MPEP section 2144.04.III. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow. See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186). In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).” MPEP 2141.03 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art [R-01.2024] The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (B) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (C) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (D) "sophistication of the technology; and" (E) "educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983). While Anderson does expressly teach that “Quadripligics” should have a “ much more automated wheelchair” Anderson does not appear to expressly disclose how that is accomplished including receiving, at a processor of the multimodal wheelchair, sensor data; determining, using the processor and based on the sensor data, a contextual condition of the multimodal wheelchair; generating, using the processor, a control signal based on the contextual condition; transmitting, using the processor, the control signal to a height adjustment mechanism operably coupled to a seat portion of the multimodal wheelchair; and causing, using the processor and based on the control signal, the seat portion to transition from a first vertical position to a second vertical position. In analogous art Seko teaches in for example, the figures below: PNG media_image5.png 525 412 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 329 487 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 413 616 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 408 659 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 426 658 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 742 506 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 748 530 media_image11.png Greyscale And associated descriptive texts receiving, at a processor of the multimodal wheelchair, sensor data (given the BRI a POSITA would have understood that multimodal wheelchair “100” as claimed is shown in the figures above and especially Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 9 as explained in for example only para: “[0029] FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram showing the components of a motorized wheelchair 100 configured to interface with a vehicle as described herein. A controller 120 receives input from cameras 122a,b, feedback sensors 124, and a mobile device 200 connected thereto.”); determining, using the processor and based on the sensor data, a contextual condition of the multimodal wheelchair (as shown in Fig. 8 steps 802-816 as explained in for example para: “[0053] Steps 810 through 824 form an illustrative control loop configured to continue to move the mobility device 100 to its docking position (such as the position 508) until that position is reached or until an exception ends the loop prematurely. While these steps are presented for illustrative purposes, it will be understood that other navigation steps and control methods may be used in different implementations. For example, markings 504 on a vehicle may act as sophisticated instructions for when and how much the mobility device 100 should turn at certain points along its path. Furthermore, the mobility device control system 120 may include preset instructions for known vehicles which include when and how much to turn at certain points of the navigation path. Other technologies related to real-time automated navigation, such as visual simultaneous localization and mapping (“VSLAM”) sensors, circuitry, and/or logic may be included to enable movement of the mobility device 100.”); generating, using the processor, a control signal based on the contextual condition (as shown in the figures controller 120 connotes the processor generating control signal based on contextual conditions as explained in for example para: “[0033] In some implementations, the wheelchair seat 108 may include a variety of sensors 108a for monitoring the occupant of the wheelchair. These may include pressure or contact sensors to determine when the seat is occupied. In some implementations, seat sensors 108a may be configured to determine the occupant's posture within the seat (for example, resting against the back of the seat or leaning forward). In some implementations, the controller 120 may provide commands to components of the wheelchair 100, or may provide notifications to a connected mobile device 200, based on receiving data from seat sensors 108a that the controller 120 identifies as movement of the occupant. For example, the controller 120 may identify sensor data with the occupant attempting to get up from the wheelchair 100 and may maneuver the wheelchair 100 to accommodate the occupant's action. The seat 108 may also include sensors 108a that measure the user's biometric data such as breathing, temperature, or heart rate. In some implementations, seat sensors 108a may allow the controller 120 to identify a known user and associate that user with a known preference and/or health profile.”); transmitting, using the processor, the control signal to a r (given the BRI is disclosed in para: “[0034] In some implementations, the wheelchair 100 may include component motors 110 which allow for powered adjustments for components of the wheelchair. Any or all of the armrests, seat 108, back, wheels 102, movable arm 104, or any other adjustable component may be equipped with automated motion in some embodiments. The component motors 110 may provide, for example, increased accessibility for the wheelchair occupant by allowing the features to accommodate different configurations for entering and exiting the wheelchair 100, and to increase the range of motions available to the occupant while seated in the chair 100. One or more of the component motors 110 may, in some implementations, include sensors 110a that send data to the controller 120 indicating the position of the motor and/or the component moved by that motor. The component motors 110 may draw power from the wheelchair battery 106 or may be separately powered.”); and causing, using the processor and based on the control signal, the seat portion to transition from a first (as set forth in para [0034] above “In some implementations, the wheelchair 100 may include component motors 110 which allow for powered adjustments for components of the wheelchair. Any or all of the…, seat 108… in some implementations, include sensors 110a that send data to the controller 120 indicating the position of the motor and/or the component moved by that motor.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automation of the wheelchair disclosed in Seko with the wheelchair taught in Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided “Quadripligics much more automated wheelchair” by “automatically position and navigate the wheelchair into and within the vehicle without detailed input from the user” as taught by Seko Para(s): “[0025] Generally described, the systems and methods herein are directed to an automated process for positioning and docking a motorized wheelchair within a motor vehicle. Visual data is used to automatically position and navigate the wheelchair into and within the vehicle without detailed input from the user.”. Further, as taught by Anderson the height of the wheelchair is adjusted to ensure the user “fits” inside the vehicle. Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein the contextual condition comprises a transition of the multimodal wheelchair from a public location to a cabin of the vehicle (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein both references are clearly directed towards the ingress and egress of a wheelchair from a vehicle wherein it is understood that as taught by Anderson the height of the wheelchair is adjusted to ingress the vehicle). Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein the contextual condition comprises an alignment of the multimodal wheelchair with a locking mechanism of the vehicle (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that while Anderson expressly teaches a loading mechanism 114 and various “locks” Anderson does not appear to go into detail of the vehicle securing system, however Seko expressly teaches that a POSITA would see mechanical locking systems in for example para: “[0060] Docking of the mobility device 100 may, in different implementations, be manual or automatic to different extents. In one implementation, mechanical and electrical interfaces may be automated by the device 100 and/or the vehicle 500. Mechanical interfaces, may include, for example, a mechanical locking system that can be locked and/or unlocked automatically by the vehicle 500 and/or the mobility device controller 120. In another implementation, manual locking of the device 100 may be a required part of the docking procedure, and a manual cord may be connected and disconnected by a user for electrical power. Where one or more manual components are necessary, a mobility device display, vehicle display, or mobile device display may prompt a user to carry out the necessary steps.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mechanical locks disclosed in Seko with the vehicle taught in Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have secured the wheelchair in the vehicle as was known to a POSITA in the art. Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein the height adjustment mechanism comprises a linear actuator disposed within a base portion of the multimodal wheelchair (see Anderson actuator unit 42 as explained in for example para: “(27) The actuator unit 42 powered by motor 56 is known in the prior art and may utilize a recirculating ball screw and nut to efficiently convert the gear motors rotary output into linear thrust. Such an actuator is manufactured as "Power Pak" by the Saginaw Steering Gear Division of General Motors, Inc. The screw preferably has a "No-Bak" device to prevent reverse driving; thus, the linkage "locks" whenever the power is turned off. Also the actuator unit has an overrunning clutch to provide protection from overload and limit motion at the end of the stroke. The ratchet type clutch also provides audio feedback to the user indicating that he has reached the end of the stroke. In addition, the overrunning clutch eliminates the need for limit switches (at the end of each stroke) and the accompanying wiring and relaying they require. In the preferred, a 22 inch stoke is necessary. It should be clear that any other mechanical, electromechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic mode of operation for the actuator can be used without departing from the concept of the present invention.”). Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting, using the processor and responsive causing the seat portion to transition from the first vertical position to the second vertical position, a position of a footrest mechanically coupled to the seat portion (given the BRI see the teachings of Anderson Figs 4-8, wherein it appears that seat 18 and footrest 14 operate as claimed as shown in said Figures 4-8). Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein the first vertical position corresponds to a ride height configuration and the second vertical position corresponds to a lock height configuration for securement within the vehicle (given the BRI connotes the “ride height configuration” set by the user as their preferred ride height while riding in the wheelchair and the second vertical position corresponds to the lock height shown in Anderson Fig. 14 to engage with fork 114. Further, a POSITA would have found it obvious to adjust the wheelchair to adjust to the mechanical locks taught in Seko). Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising deploying, using the processor and based on the contextual condition, a securement mechanism to couple the multimodal wheelchair to a locking structure associated with the vehicle (given the BRI connotes in Anderson Fig. 14 fork 114, however a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the mechanical locks taught in Seko with the vehicle of Anderson for the express benefit of automating the wheelchair for the benefit and use by Quadriplegics). Regarding claim 19 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein maneuvering the multimodal wheelchair into alignment is performed autonomously by the multimodal wheelchair based on sensor input identifying a position of the one or more locking mechanisms (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Anderson teaches the impetus of an automated wheel chair and Seko teaches an automated wheel chair and one more locking mechanisms and the docking and undocking procedures that are followed during the ingress and egress of the vehicle know to a POSITA). Regarding claim 20 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising lowering a seat portion of the multimodal wheelchair from a first height to a second height prior to engaging the securement mechanism (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Anderson teaches the impetus of an automated wheel chair and Seko teaches an automated wheel chair and one more locking mechanisms and the docking and undocking procedures that are followed during the ingress and egress of the vehicle know to a POSITA). Claims 10, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko) in view of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. Rearrangement of Parts. Regarding claim 10 and the limitation A method of operating a vehicle based on a docking status of a multimodal wheelchair, comprising: receiving, from a processing system of the multimodal wheelchair, a notification at a vehicle control device (see Seko paras [0049] step 806 and [0065-66 and step 906 “Error notification” and associated descriptive texts); identifying, upon analysis of the notification, a docking status of the multimodal wheelchair, and adjusting a functionality of at least one component associated with the vehicle based on the docking status (as taught in Seko para: “[0049] The system receives a docking instruction from a user or from another system (step 802). In some implementations, the docking instruction may represent one or a small number of selections taken by a user on a mobile device (such as mobile device 200 or 400) or on controls for the motorized mobility device (such as the wheelchair 100). Imaging systems, which may retrieve images from any available imaging device (such as cameras 122a,b described above) within range of the mobility device 100 and/or vehicle (such that vehicle 500) in different embodiments, determine whether the mobility device 100 is within a range of positions and orientations to navigate the mobility device 100 into the vehicle 500 (step 804). If the system determines that the mobility device 100 is not in position, then an error notification is provided for use by any appropriate control system 120 and, in some implementations, reported to a user having selected the docking command (step 806).”); wherein the docking status corresponds to a first docking status or a second docking status and wherein: the first docking status corresponds to a first state of the multimodal wheelchair where a securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair is engaged with one or more locking mechanisms of the vehicle (see Seko paras [0060-66]) and ; and the second docking status corresponds to a second state of the multimodal wheelchair where the securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair is not engaged with the one or more locking mechanisms of the vehicle (see Seko paras [0060 and 66]. While Seko teaches all of the claimed limitations, Seko does not appear to expressly disclose that it is the wheelchair that sends a notification to the vehicle. Accordingly, resort may be had to the MPEP to show it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to rearrange the parts of Seko as an obvious matter of design choice because shifting the position of where the notification is generated would not have modified the operation of the device with regard to ensuring the wheelchair is securely locked within the vehicle. Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the method of claim 10, wherein the vehicle control device is at least one of: a computing system associated with the vehicle and a personal device associated with an operator of the vehicle (see Seko Fig. 3, Mobile device 200 and vehicle 500 and what a POSITA would have found obvious with regard to the rearrangement of parts taught by the MPEP above). Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the method of claim 10, wherein the identifying comprises identifying that the docking status corresponds to the second docking status and wherein the adjusting the functionality of the at least one component comprises limiting activation of one or more vehicle systems (see Seko paras: “[0051] In some implementations, the mobility device controller (such as the controller 120) may, in addition to confirming the position of the mobility device 100, also confirm the status of one or more vehicle features before initiating automated navigation. For example, the mobility device controller 120 may require communication from a control system associated with the vehicle 500 that the vehicle is in park or the engine is off, that seats are positioned such as to give the mobility device 100 proper clearance, that hazard lights or other accessibility features are activated, or any other vehicle-controlled feature necessary or preferred for navigation of the mobility device 100 onto the vehicle 500. [0065] Upon receiving an egress instruction (step 902), the system may first confirm that the vehicle is ready (step 904), and provide an error notification if not (step 906). In some implementations, the same interface from which the egress instruction was provided, such as a mobile device 200 or vehicle interface, may provide an option along with the error notification to configure the vehicle 500 for egress, such as placing the vehicle 500 in park, opening the door 506, and deploying the access ramp 502. Any other readiness features controlled by the vehicle 500, such as hazard lights, seat configuration, or the vehicle's operational status, may also be confirmed before automated navigation is initialized. Where one or more control systems involved in this procedure have reason to believe that readying the vehicle 500 in park is not viable, such as detecting that the vehicle 500 is moving at speed rather than stopped or that there is insufficient clearance from the vehicle 500 to deploy the access ramp 502, then these features may be unavailable and not provided to a user.”). Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more vehicle systems corresponds to a propulsion system Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the method of claim 10, wherein the identifying comprises identifying that the docketing status corresponds to the first docking status and further comprising: receiving a second notification at the vehicle control device; and identifying, upon analysis of the second notification, that the docking status has changed from the first docking status to the second docking status (see the teachings of Seko with regard to ensuring the wheelchair is fully docked and undocked as set forth in for example para: “[0058] At any cycle of the control loop in which a stop requirement is not determined, the system will check to see if the final position of the mobility device 100 has been reached (step 816). In some implementations, sensors (such as, for example, any of the sensors 102a-110a or 124) may be able to detect the proximity and alignment of docking features to confirm the destination position. Sensors in the vehicle 500 may also be able to send signals to the mobility device controller 120 to confirm the mobility device's position. Visual images, either in reference to vehicle markings 504 or not, may also be used to determine or confirm that the vehicle 500 is in its appropriate position. The mobility device's docking position may, in some implementations, be a vehicle driving position as described above and shown in FIG. 7. In some implementations, the vehicle 500 may be configured so that until the mobility device 100 is confirmed to be properly docked into the driver's position 508, the vehicle 500 will not start or will not shift into gear.”). Regarding claim 16 and the limitation A method of docking a multimodal wheelchair in a cabin of a vehicle, comprising: repositioning at least one existing passenger seat from a first location in the cabin to a second location, wherein the first location is associated with a docking zone; maneuvering the multimodal wheelchair into alignment with one or more locking mechanisms associated with the docking zone; and securing the multimodal wheelchair to the cabin by engaging a securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair with the one or more locking mechanisms (see the teachings of Seko above with regard to moving the passenger seats in the minivan such “that seats are positioned such as to give the mobility device 100 proper clearance,” set forth in for example only paras: “[0051] In some implementations, the mobility device controller (such as the controller 120) may, in addition to confirming the position of the mobility device 100, also confirm the status of one or more vehicle features before initiating automated navigation. For example, the mobility device controller 120 may require communication from a control system associated with the vehicle 500 that the vehicle is in park or the engine is off, that seats are positioned such as to give the mobility device 100 proper clearance, that hazard lights or other accessibility features are activated, or any other vehicle-controlled feature necessary or preferred for navigation of the mobility device 100 onto the vehicle 500. [0071] Exemplary embodiments described herein should not be considered limiting to the range of implementations available to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, while described and shown as a vehicle access ramp, it will be recognized that motorized lift platforms are also known to provide access to motorized devices. While the mobility device is described and illustrated as a wheelchair, it will be recognized that a variety of mobility devices exist for which automated operations can be performed in conjunction with a vehicle. While described as a driver seat, it will be recognized that the automated procedures would also apply to docking to other positions in a vehicle, including passenger positions in any row. While the automobile shown resembles a minivan, it will be recognized that many vehicles of different sizes and operating parameters may be configured to allow for automated navigation and docking as described herein.”). Further, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to rearrange the parts of Seko as taught by the MPEP above as an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3882949 A to Anderson; David M. in view of US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko) as applied to the claims above in view of US 11077816 B1 to Bates; Mark Alan et al. (Bates). Regarding claim 4 the combination of Anderson does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Bates teaches the limitations wherein the contextual condition comprises detection of a crash event associated with the vehicle (in for example para: “(145) GG. An example method comprising: receiving, from one or more sensors of a vehicle, data corresponding to a condition associated with the vehicle; detecting, based at least in part on the data, a collision or a predicted collision; determining a direction of collision associated with the collision or the predicted collision; determining a bench seat of the vehicle facing in the direction of collision; and activating, based at least in part on the direction of collision, a restraint surface adjustment mechanism of the bench seat to adjust at least one of a height, an angle, or a rigidity of a restraint surface associated with the bench seat.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ability to adjust the height of a seat disclosed in Bates with the seats taught in the combination of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased safety of the passengers by helping to minimize the injury of occupants as taught by Bates. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3882949 A to Anderson; David M. in view of US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko) as applied to the claims above in view of US 11077816 B1 to Bates; Mark Alan et al. (Bates) as applied to claim 4 above in view of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. Rearrangement of Parts. Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the method of claim 4, wherein the crash event is detected using at least one of: an accelerometer, inertial measurement unit (IMU), or pressure sensor integrated into the multimodal wheelchair (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference including the teachings of Bates paras: “(49) FIG. 3B illustrates an example cross-section view of the vehicle seat 300 facing in the direction of travel and showing the inflatable bladder 302 in an inflated state. In some examples, the inflated bladder 306 may transition from the deflated state (shown in FIG. 3A) to the inflated state (shown in FIG. 3B) based at least in part on the vehicle detecting a collision (e.g., based on sensor data from a sensor such as an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle) or a predicted collision (e.g., by a prediction system of the vehicle). Additionally, or alternatively, the vehicle may determine whether to inflate the inflated bladder 306 based on whether the vehicle seat 300 is facing in the direction of travel of the vehicle. (86) In some examples, the sensor system(s) 606 may include LIDAR sensors, radar sensors, ultrasonic transducers, sonar sensors, location sensors (e.g., GPS, compass, etc.), inertial sensors (e.g., inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, etc.), cameras (e.g., RGB, IR, intensity, depth, time-of-flight (TOF), etc.), microphones, wheel encoders, environment sensors (e.g., temperature sensors, humidity sensors, light sensors, pressure sensors, etc.), etc. The sensor system(s) 606 may include multiple examples of each of these or other types of sensors. For instance, the LIDAR sensors may include individual LIDAR sensors located at the corners, front, back, sides, and/or top of the vehicle 602. As another example, the camera sensors may include multiple cameras disposed at various locations about the exterior and/or interior of the vehicle 602. The cameras may be coupled to the perception component 622 to detect and/or classify objects such as occupants of the vehicle. In some examples, the perception component 622 may be configured to determine a size, age, and/or weight of an occupant, and/or to detect objects such as child seats. Additionally or alternatively, the sensor system(s) 606 may include weight sensors, pressure sensors, occupant detection sensors, child seat detection sensors, inflator status sensors, actuator sensors, and combinations of these or other types of sensors which may be disposed in, on, or in association with the one or more seats of the vehicle and/or at other locations in an interior of the vehicle. The sensor system(s) 606 may provide input to the vehicle computing device 604. Additionally, or alternatively, the sensor system(s) 606 may send sensor data, via the one or more networks 632, to the one or more computing device(s) 630 at a particular frequency, after a lapse of a predetermined period of time, in near real-time, etc.”). While it appears that Bates teaches the sensors are on the vehicle, resort may be had to the MPEP to show that a POSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to rearrange the parts such that they are located on the wheelchair. See In re Shepard, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963) In considering disclosure of reference patent, it is pertinent to point out not only specific teachings of patent but also the reasonable inferences which one skilled in the art would logically draw therefrom. As is here, it is the Examiners position that a POSITA would logically draw the ability to rearrange the various parts of the references as a matter of design choice as not new or unexpected result is produced by any such rearrangement. Claims 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3882949 A to Anderson; David M. in view of US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20100051746 A1 to Law; Sondra F. Regarding claim 12 the combination of Anderson does not appear to expressly disclose hover in analogous art Law teaches wherein the securement mechanism comprises a bolt deployable through a deployment port in a base portion of a multimodal wheelchair in for example Figures and 14-16 and associated descriptive texts including for example only paras: “[0062] In a first embodiment of the invention, track member 120 preferably also has a bracket or track member 132 secured on top of a typical track member 120 or adjacent to a typical track fitting, as shown in FIG. 13, and containing inwardly-extending longitudinal flanges 133 creating gaps 131 shaped complementary to a corresponding mating association plug 140A/B located on the wheel or caster 27E or bottom seat structure 46B of a handicapped accessible seat 94, as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16. Mating association plugs 140A/B corresponding flanges 133 and gaps 131 may be implemented within an aircraft seat 94 and 98 instead of, or in addition to, a shear plug 130A. [0066] A second embodiment of the invention is similar to the first embodiment in the use of mating association plug 140A located within wheels or casters 27E, as shown in FIG. 15, or mating association plug 140B located within the seat bottom structure 46B, as shown in FIG. 16. However, in the second embodiment, track member 134, as shown in FIG. 14A, is substituted for track members 122 and 132 as a whole part, featuring counterbores 124, while also containing inwardly projecting longitudinal flanges 133 creating gaps 131 shaped complementary to a corresponding mating association plug 140A/B located on the wheel or caster 27E or bottom seat structure 46B of a handicapped accessible seat 94, as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16.”. PNG media_image12.png 603 741 media_image12.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bolts disclosed in Law with the locking mechanisms taught in the combination of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “allowed unhindered access into and within aircraft” as taught by Law Para(s): “[0002] More than any other major form of transportation, all travel restricts or discourages the mobility impaired. The accessibility barriers created by air travel have proven to be so severe that many of those who are physically disabled avoid flying entirely. With improved recognition of rights of disabled people, many public forms of transportation have been modified to provide equal access. However, modifications have not included any system of device that provides unhindered access into and within aircraft. Previously considered insignificant of unimportant by the airline industry, over 21 million Americans who suffer from mobility impairments deserve convenient and barrier-free travel.”. Claims 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3882949 A to Anderson; David M. in view of US 20200113755 A1 to SEKO; Shigeyuki et al. (Seko) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20100051746 A1 to Law; Sondra F. as applied to the claims above in view of US 20190156254 A1 to HANSEN; Gregg M. et al. (Hansen). Regarding claim 17 the combination of Anderson and especially Law teaches the use of securement holes for detaching and reattaching the passenger seats of the vehicle/airplane, however the combination does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Hansen teaches that a POSITA would understand the limitations a “method wherein repositioning at least one existing passenger seat comprises detaching the at least one existing passenger seat from a first set of securement holes in a floor of the cabin and reattaching the at least one existing passenger seat to a second set of securement holes located elsewhere in the floor of the cabin” is taught in the figures below: PNG media_image13.png 454 651 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image14.png 649 492 media_image14.png Greyscale And associated descriptive texts in for example paras: “[0041] The communications module 310 may be further configured to obtain shuttle information 320 from each shuttle in the shuttle fleet 104. The shuttle information 320 may include identity information, location information, occupancy information, and/or seating configuration information associated with each shuttle in the shuttle fleet 104. The identity information may include information sufficient to uniquely identify each shuttle in the fleet 104 such as, but not limited to, VIN number, license plate number, make and model, color, etc. The location information may include information describing a current location of each shuttle in the fleet 104 and/or current route information describing where each vehicle in the fleet 104 is currently heading. The location information may be expressed in terms of a textual address, textual geolocation coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates, latitudinal/longitudinal coordinates, etc.), and/or visual geolocation coordinates (e.g., as expressed via a “shuttle location” indicator on a digital map). The occupancy information may include information describing a current or projected occupancy of each vehicle in the fleet 104 (e.g., how many seats are occupied and/or how many seats are available). For example, and as described in further detail below, according to some implementations, the system 300 may operate in a ride-sharing mode whereby multiple passengers associated with separate shuttle reservation requests may share a shuttle for a portion or all of their trip. The seating configuration information may include information describing possible seating arrangements for each vehicle in the fleet 104. For example, the seating configuration information may indicate that a given shuttle has foldable seats that may be folded to provide additional room within shuttle's cabin. According to other examples, the seating configuration information may indicate whether or not a given shuttle is wheelchair accessible or includes child-seats. [0058] The number of passengers input field 410 of the GUI 402 allows a user to identify the number of passengers that will be traveling from the pick-up location to the destination location. The system may utilize this information, for example, for shuttle selection and/or route assignment. With regard to shuttle selection, the system may use the “number of passengers” information to ensure that the assigned shuttle has sufficient occupancy. Occupancy for a given shuttle may be determined based on, for example, the number of current passengers in a given shuttle (e.g., as determined via suitable occupancy sensors located in the shuttle) and/or seating configuration information, which may indicate that a shuttle's seating arrangement may be reconfigured (e.g., by folding down, moving, adding, or removing seats) to accommodate additional passengers.” . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the seating reconfiguring disclosed in Hansen with the seating reconfiguring disclosed taught in the combination of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “accommodated additional passenger” as taught by Hansen Para [0058] above. Hansen is considered as expressly teaching it was known to a POSITA to reconfigure seating arrangements of a Shuttle to accommodate ANY NUMBER of passengers in wheelchairs as set forth in for example para: “[0059] The wheelchair access needed input field 412 of the GUI 402 allows a user to indicate whether wheelchair access is needed by any of the passengers. The system may utilize this information, for example, for shuttle selection to ensure that the assigned shuttle is wheelchair accessible.”. Regarding claim 18 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein repositioning the at least one existing passenger seat comprises folding and moving the at least one existing passenger seat from a forward position of the cabin to a rear position of the cabin (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 17 immediately above incorporated herein by reference wherein it would have been obvious to a POSITA to rearrange the seats by folding and moving them as claimed as a matter of design choice to accommodate more passengers in wheelchairs). See Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp. 43 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997) The suggestion to combine need not be express and may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.\ Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12409084 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown by the side by side comparison below. Those claims not cited below are rejected for at least depending from a rejected base claim. Claims of instant Application Claims of US 12409084 B1 1.a method of dynamically adjusting a seat height of a multimodal wheelchair contained in a vehicle, comprising: receiving, at a processor of the multimodal wheelchair, sensor data; determining, using the processor and based on the sensor data, a contextual condition of the multimodal wheelchair; generating, using the processor, a control signal based on the contextual condition; transmitting, using the processor, the control signal to a height adjustment mechanism operably coupled to a seat portion of the multimodal wheelchair; and causing, using the processor and based on the control signal, the seat portion to transition from a first vertical position to a second vertical position. 1. A multimodal wheelchair, comprising: a first section, including: a processing system contained within a housing of the first section; a movement controller component positioned on a portion of the first section that is connected to the processing system; a plurality of wheels that are controllable by the movement controller; and a set of tracks recessed within a first side of the first section; and a second section, including: a seat portion located on a first side of the second section, the seat portion having an integrated harness; and a connection component, coupled to a second side of the second section, that attaches the second section to the first section via coupling with the set of tracks of the first section. 4. The multimodal wheelchair of claim 1, wherein the seat portion is configured to vertically move relative to the connection component in response to a crash event. 10. A method of operating a vehicle based on a docking status of a multimodal wheelchair, comprising: receiving, from a processing system of the multimodal wheelchair, a notification at a vehicle control device; identifying, upon analysis of the notification, a docking status of the multimodal wheelchair, and adjusting a functionality of at least one component associated with the vehicle based on the docking status; wherein the docking status corresponds to a first docking status or a second docking status and wherein: the first docking status corresponds to a first state of the multimodal wheelchair where a securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair is engaged with one or more locking mechanisms of the vehicle; and the second docking status corresponds to a second state of the multimodal wheelchair where the securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair is not engaged with the one or more locking mechanisms of the vehicle. 15. A method of autonomously docking an electronic wheelchair to a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, at a system of the electronic wheelchair, sensor data; identifying, from the sensor data and using a processor associated with the system, an indication of a predetermined docking location within the vehicle; aligning, via instructions provided by the processor to a controller of the electronic wheelchair, the electronic wheelchair with the predetermined docking location; and deploying, subsequent to the aligning, a securement mechanism of the electronic wheelchair to attach with a locking mechanism present at the predetermined docking location. 19. The method of claim 15, further comprising transmitting a docking notification to a designated device. 20. The method of claim 19, wherein the designated device is at least one of: a personal computing device associated with a user, a movement controller of the electronic wheelchair, and another device associated with a pilot of the vehicle. 9. The multimodal wheelchair of claim 1, further comprising a sensor system, operably coupled to the processing system, containing at least one sensor, wherein the sensor system is configured to enable autonomous docking of the multimodal wheelchair with a locking mechanism of a vehicle. 16. A method of docking a multimodal wheelchair in a cabin of a vehicle, comprising: repositioning at least one existing passenger seat from a first location in the cabin to a second location, wherein the first location is associated with a docking zone; maneuvering the multimodal wheelchair into alignment with one or more locking mechanisms associated with the docking zone; and securing the multimodal wheelchair to the cabin by engaging a securement mechanism of the multimodal wheelchair with the one or more locking mechanisms. A method of autonomously docking an electronic wheelchair to a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, at a system of the electronic wheelchair, sensor data; identifying, from the sensor data and using a processor associated with the system, an indication of a predetermined docking location within the vehicle; aligning, via instructions provided by the processor to a controller of the electronic wheelchair, the electronic wheelchair with the predetermined docking location; and deploying, subsequent to the aligning, a securement mechanism of the electronic wheelchair to attach with a locking mechanism present at the predetermined docking location. 17. The method of claim 15, wherein the securement mechanism is a bolt configured to deploy through a deployment hole from within the electronic wheelchair. 18. The method of claim 15, wherein the securement mechanism is a height-adjustable portion of the electronic wheelchair that is shaped to interact with connection points of the locking mechanism. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of multimodal wheelchairs at the time of the invention. For example: US 20090146389 A1 to Borisoff; Jaimie teaches, inter alia a Wheelchair in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “[0007] It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a manual wheelchair that enables a user to easily and efficiently self-propel, as well as to dynamically adjust the seat height of the wheelchair to accommodate various situations. It is also desirable that the mechanism that lowers the wheelchair seat results in a relatively constant knee height position, for instance to facilitate access under table tops or sinks. Furthermore, it is desirable to provide a wheelchair that can keep its backrest at a relatively constant angle to the wheelchair frame at all angles of the seat bottom, and to provide a wheelchair that can absorb the shocks encountered during wheelchair travel, as well as allow the user to easily change the seat height without having to leave the chair.”. US 20180110664 A1 to Borisoff; Jaimie et al. teaches, inter alia Kneeling Wheelchair Frame in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “[0014] The front seat height adjustment mechanism is intended to allow a user in the wheelchair to dynamically adjust a height of a front end of the seat relative to both front wheels on the fly. That is, the user can modify the front seat height quickly and efficiently while seated in the wheelchair without any additional tools or auxiliary equipment being required.”. US 3379450 A to EMERSON JONES et al. teaches, inter alia Adjustable wheelchair device in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “(40) Upright members 122 are secured at right angles to the longitudinal members 118 and 120 so as to form spaced upright frame members which will support the adjustable components of the wheel chair for movement about a pivotal axis near the uppermost ends of each upright member 122, which member may be longer or shorter depending on the height of the wheel chair bed desired.”. US 3964786 A to Mashuda; David teaches, inter alia Mechanized wheelchair in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “The specification discloses a wheelchair in which the seat, back and leg portions are so articulated and separately actuable, by power means, under control of the occupant, as to enable the occupant to assume any one of three positions, namely sitting, standing or reclining. Two separated leg support members are selectively actuable by the occupant to a horizontal leg-supporting position. Steering and forward and reverse propulsion controls accessible to the occupant are also provided, enabling the occupant to obtain substantially total mobility on level ground.”. US 4079990 A to MCMUNN E E et al. teaches, inter alia Adjustable reclining wheelchair has main frame pivotally mounting pivotally interconnected backrest seat, and leg-rest frame portions in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “A back rest support is mounted pivotally intermediate its ends on the frame above the wheels for movement between a horizontal and inclined position. A seat support is connected pivotally at its rear end to the forward end of the back rest support. A seat mounting on the frame is connected pivotally to the seat support adjacent the forward end and movable during movement of the back rest support from the sitting position to reclining position. The back rest and seat supports are aligned in a common horizontal plane while simultaneously moving the seat support forward.”. US 4614246 A to Masse; James H. et al. teaches, inter alia Powered wheel chair in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below: “The wheel chair of this invention has its seat member supported for raising and lowering on a chassis having a castering rear wheel and two relatively small front wheels rotatable on a common axis, each driven independently of the other by a reversible electric motor. A brake member is pivoted to the chassis to swing up from and down to an extended position in which the rear wheel is above the surface and the brake member cooperates with the front wheels to support and immobilize the wheel chair. Swinging legs so support the chair element on the chassis that as the chair element is lowered it moves forward over the footrest so that the footrest does not hamper the occupant in transferring to and from the wheel chair.”. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST) or via email at DanielL.GreeneJr@USPTO.GOV under the guidance of MPEP Section 502.03 Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email) [R-07.2022]. The written authorization may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms and submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. The Examiner’s Fax number is 571-273-6876. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260807