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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has /been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent JP Application No. JP2018-240195, filed on 12/21/2018.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-13 filed on 06/17/2026 are presently examined. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC § 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-13 have been fully considered, some being moot due to the requirement of a new prior art reference due to change in scope, and others unpersuasive due to previously applied art indeed teaching the claimed invention. Further details are provided below.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom. Examiner respectfully disagrees and this argument is unpersuasive. Previously used reference Oishi teaches a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([lines 155-156] “the orientation of the cameras 1L and 1R (orientation of the optical axis) is … diagonally forward” and the cameras are on the tip of the boom).
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection. The closest art is Oishi, but Oishi does not explicitly state a controller uses the camera feed to determine that the crane vehicle is approaching the intersection. Therefore, Examiner agrees, however this is a change in scope thus requiring a new ground of rejection. New reference Wang teaches a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection ([0030] “By using an image or video processor to process the information from the sensor 110, the arbitration component 104 can determine that its host vehicle has reached or is approaching an intersection for instance. The arbitration component 104 can control or manage the sensor 110 (e.g., through a vehicle onboard interface, gateway, switch or network), so as to instruct the sensor 110 to acquire an image (e.g., of an intersection) in front of or around its host vehicle for processing, to verify that the image is consistent with stored map data.”).
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach alone nor in combination the new limitation according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner states that the combination of Mori, Oishi, You, and Wang for claims 1 and 8 is a reasonable combination that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably combine to create the invention for the motivation of improving vehicle safety at intersections to prevent collisions with the host vehicle. Mori and Oishi provide the work vehicle warning and automatically braking for obstacles and using cameras to determine safety and object locations at intersections. Wang teaches the determination based on camera data that the vehicle is approaching an intersection. You provides the logic for deciding on autonomous braking when the host vehicle is determined to be at an intersection with laterally approaching vehicles using the sensed distance of the approaching vehicles. These are reasonable combination of prior art to teach the amended limitations in claims 1 and 8. A similar reasonable combination is applied to claims 5 and 9 which includes the prior art Heinrichs. Examiner kindly reminds Applicant that the rejection is based on a combination of the prior art and how one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the art, not isolated to individual teachings of each art.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained for claims 1 and 3-13.
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 (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 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (JP
2003238077 A), in view of Oishi (WO 2017038183 A1), You (US 20190263367 A1), and Wang (US 20190279508 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mori, Oishi, You, and Wang, respectively.
As to claim 1, Mori discloses A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body including wheels ([see at least Mori paragraph 0022 lines 182-184] “The lower traveling body 1 has a traveling body frame 3, and a front wheel 4 and a rear wheel 5 are rotatably attached to the front, rear, left and right sides of the traveling body frame 3.”);
a boom protruding forward from a front end of the vehicle body ([see at least Mori paragraph 0014, lines 105-106] “the boom generally protrudes from the crane body.” [and FIG. 1] showing the boom body 10 protruding from the front end of the vehicle body);
a sensor provided at a position corresponding to a tip end portion of the boom ([see at least Mori paragraph 0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”);
a brake device configured to apply a braking force to the wheels ([Mori discloses in paragraph 0038] “but when the crane C turns on a narrow road, the tip of the boom body 10 is prevented from coming into contact with an obstacle” [and in 0057] “the operation of the notification means the like have been described as the operation to avoid interference with obstacles, but the brake operation of the crane C or the like may also be used.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to generate detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, Oishi discloses a similar work vehicle with sensors configured to detect an object on a lateral side of the tip end portion. ([see at least Oishi line 149-150] “The cameras 1L and 1R are provided on both left and right sides of the boom tip 106” [also see FIGS. 1 and 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include cameras or other sensors on the left and right side of the boom tip to detect an object in a perpendicular direction of the boom. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combined Mori and Oishi to improve the detectable area and directions for the work vehicle.
Mori and Oishi both fail to disclose that the sensor on the tip of the work vehicle generates detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, You discloses detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle ([0027] “the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle” [0025] “The sensors may be respectively installed at a center part of a front surface … and may detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object” [FIG. 3] transversally travelling objects are vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s teaching of detecting vehicle moving perpendicular to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori and You in order to increase safety of the host vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object or perform autonomous emergency braking, resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”).
Mori discloses a front sensor provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom.
However, Oishi discloses a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([lines 155-156] “the orientation of the cameras 1L and 1R (orientation of the optical axis) is … diagonally forward”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Oishi’s teaching of using two diagonally-forward cameras on the front tip of the crane boom arm. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use these front facing cameras in order to see the condition of the intersection the work vehicle is approaching, improving safety ([lines 207-208] “the condition of the intersecting road can be confirmed when the boom tip 106 enters the intersection, improving safety when the vehicle is running”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection.
However, Wang teaches a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the vehicle is entering an intersection ([0030] “By using an image or video processor to process the information from the sensor 110, the arbitration component 104 can determine that its host vehicle has reached or is approaching an intersection for instance. The arbitration component 104 can control or manage the sensor 110 (e.g., through a vehicle onboard interface, gateway, switch or network), so as to instruct the sensor 110 to acquire an image (e.g., of an intersection) in front of or around its host vehicle for processing, to verify that the image is consistent with stored map data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Wang’s teaching of using a front-facing camera to detect whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a front facing camera to determine whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection in order to respond to said determination by using the vehicle’s brakes ([0030] “The arbitration component 104 can instruct the ECU(s) 116 to reduce the speed of its host vehicle to initiate a stop at an all-way stop for example, responsive to detecting the all-way stop.”).
Further, Mori fails to explicitly disclose according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to drive the brake device according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time ([Mori discloses in paragraph 0038] “but when the crane C turns on a narrow road, the tip of the boom body 10 is prevented from coming into contact with an obstacle” [and in 0057] “the operation of the notification means the like have been described as the operation to avoid interference with obstacles, but the brake operation of the crane C or the like may also be used.” This hints as the use of braking the vehicle during travel, because crane C refers to the whole vehicle, but it does not explicitly teach the braking of the vehicle based on detection data from sensors.).
However You teaches according to a determination that the vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the front of the vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to drive the brake device according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the front of the vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time ([0027] “When the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle … may perform autonomous emergency braking (AEB) of the host vehicle as necessary.” [0025] “The sensors may … detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object” Where an object moving transversally to and approaching the host vehicle is having its detected lateral distance decrease over time. [See FIG. 3] Having a relative transverse velocity is the same as a lateral distance decreasing over time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s automatic braking when detecting another vehicle traveling perpendicularly to and approaching the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori with Oishi and You to improve driving safety of the work vehicle when detecting a vehicle on the lateral side of the work vehicle boom by braking when the vehicle is approaching ([abstract] “even if one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads are detected, the AEB system guarantees driving safety and stability of the host vehicle.” AEB is autonomous emergency braking.).
As to claim 8, Mori discloses A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body including wheels ([see at least Mori paragraph 0022 lines 182-184] “The lower traveling body 1 has a traveling body frame 3, and a front wheel 4 and a rear wheel 5 are rotatably attached to the front, rear, left and right sides of the traveling body frame 3.”);
a boom protruding forward from a front end of the vehicle body ([see at least Mori paragraph 0014, lines 105-106] “the boom generally protrudes from the crane body.” [and FIG. 1] showing the boom body 10 protruding from the front end of the vehicle body);
a sensor provided at a position corresponding to a tip end portion of the boom ([see at least Mori paragraph 0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”);
a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to generate detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, Oishi discloses a similar work vehicle with sensors configured to detect an obstacle on a lateral side of the tip end portion. ([see at least Oishi line 149-150] “The cameras 1L and 1R are provided on both left and right sides of the boom tip 106” [also see FIGS. 1 and 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include cameras or other sensors on the left and right side of the boom tip to detect obstacles on the lateral sides of the tip end portion of the boom of the work vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combined Mori and Oishi to improve the detectable area and directions for the work vehicle.
Mori and Oishi both fail to disclose that the sensor on the tip of the work vehicle generates detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, You discloses detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle ([0027] “the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle” [0025] “The sensors may be respectively installed at a center part of a front surface … and may detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s teaching of detecting at least one vehicle moving perpendicularly to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori with Oishi and You in order to detect perpendicularly travelling vehicles to the work vehicle to increase safety of the work vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object or perform autonomous emergency braking, resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom.
However, Oishi discloses a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([lines 155-156] “the orientation of the cameras 1L and 1R (orientation of the optical axis) is … diagonally forward”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Oishi’s teaching of using two diagonally-forward cameras on the front tip of the crane boom arm. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use these front facing cameras in order to see the condition of the intersection the work vehicle is approaching, improving safety ([lines 207-208] “the condition of the intersecting road can be confirmed when the boom tip 106 enters the intersection, improving safety when the vehicle is running”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection.
However, Wang teaches a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection ([0030] “By using an image or video processor to process the information from the sensor 110, the arbitration component 104 can determine that its host vehicle has reached or is approaching an intersection for instance. The arbitration component 104 can control or manage the sensor 110 (e.g., through a vehicle onboard interface, gateway, switch or network), so as to instruct the sensor 110 to acquire an image (e.g., of an intersection) in front of or around its host vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Wang’s teaching of using a front-facing camera to detect whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a front facing camera to determine whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection in order to respond to said determination by using the vehicle’s brakes ([0030] “The arbitration component 104 can instruct the ECU(s) 116 to reduce the speed of its host vehicle to initiate a stop at an all-way stop for example, responsive to detecting the all-way stop.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time.
However You teaches according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the front of the vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the front of the vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time ([0023] “Referring to FIG. 1, the AEB system may include … a collision warning device 40” [0027] “When the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle, the ECU 30 may select a control object from among the moving objects using the detected moving object detection information, may warn the driver of the high possibility of collision between the host vehicle and the selected control object” [0025] “The sensors may … detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object” Where an object moving transversally to and approaching the host vehicle is having its detected lateral distance decrease over time. [See FIG. 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s driver warning function when detecting another vehicle traveling perpendicularly to and approaching the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori with Oishi and You to improve driving safety of the work vehicle by warning the operator when a vehicle is perpendicularly approaching the work vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object … resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, and Wang, further in view of Berry et al. (US 20180142441 A1) hereafter referred to as Berry.
As to claim 3, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the controller includes a memory ([see at least Mori paragraph 0027] “The main controller 104 includes a memory 1040”)
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected height of the second vehicle is equal to or greater than a first threshold stored in the memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected height being equal to or greater than the first threshold.
However, Berry discloses the controller is configured to determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected height of the second vehicle is equal to or greater than a first threshold stored in the memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected height being equal to or greater than the first threshold (Berry teaches a work vehicle with a shovel end, which determines a threshold height on a loading vehicle for which the shovel will not contact while unloading material. When approaching the loading vehicle to unload material, if the height of the shovel is below the threshold height for the loading vehicle, it automatically brakes the work vehicle to prevent contact. [0099] “The first control override zone 700, the second control override zone 702, or both may extend a vertical distance 712 above the top edge 160 of the material receptacle 106 to better avoid unintentional contact between the implement 130 and the material receptacle 106.” [0097] “when the leading edge 166 of the implement 130 is disposed within the first control override zone 700, the controller 196 may disable the propulsion system 116 from moving the body 112 of the machine 102 toward the material receptacle 106 along the forward direction 152, … may include … engaging the at least one braking device 128.” [0076] “The target unloading location 210 may be disposed a vertical distance 556 above the top edge 160 of the material receptacle along the vertical direction 150, and a horizontal distance 558 from the proximate wall 180 (see FIG. 2) of the material receptacle 106. The vertical distance 556 may be selected to avoid unintended contact between the machine 102 and the material receptacle 106,” [0090] “To avoid the predicted contact, the controller 196 may act to slow the horizontal velocity 650 of the implement 130, increase the vertical velocity component 652 of the implement 130, or combinations thereof.” [0091] “The controller 196 may act to slow the horizontal velocity 650 of the implement by applying the at least one braking device 128”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Berry’s automatic braking for a vehicle exceeding a threshold height stored in memory which would collide with the work vehicle. Mori shows in FIG. 1 that detection range A does contain some amount of vertical detection area, but does not specifically disclose the use of a height threshold. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include Berry’s braking for a vehicle exceeding a height threshold in order to better avoid contact between the work vehicle and other vehicle ([0090] “the controller 196 overrides or modifies the operator's manual control command signals to better avoid contact between the implement 130 and the material receptacle 106.”).
Claims 4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, and Wang further in view of Straus (US 20130338877 A1), hereafter referred to as Straus
As to claim 4, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the controller includes a memory, and the controller is configured to determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected distance to an obstacle is less than a threshold distance stored in the memory ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] “When the detection distance L becomes smaller than 0.2 m, there is a very high risk of contact with an obstacle, so the forecast/warning buzzer 105 starts emitting a continuous warning sound.”
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the controller will determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected distance to the second vehicle is less than a threshold distance stored in memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected distance being less than the threshold distance.
However Straus teaches a controller that will determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected distance to the second vehicle is less than a threshold distance stored in memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected distance being less than the threshold distance ([0067] “As soon as a certain lateral distance between the two vehicles is undershot, the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention” [see also FIG. 4])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ automatic braking of the vehicle for a detected distance of an obstacle being less than a certain lateral distance value being undershot. Mori is able to modify its behavior of the warning buzzer if an obstacle breaches a threshold of 0.2m. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to reduce chances of damage to the work vehicle to include the brake function for a distance threshold as well.
As to claim 6, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven.
However, Straus discloses a notification device, wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven ([0063] “A visual, acoustic and/or haptic warning can be output to the driver via the warning means 16 as soon as a risk of collision has been detected. If it is necessary to avoid a collision, a limited intervention is also carried out into the vehicle steering system using the steering intervention means 17 and/or an intervention is carried out into the vehicle braking system using the braking intervention means 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ alarm and automatic braking to ensure the operator understood when the brake should be applied due to an obstacle. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature to increase the awareness of the operator about the environment around the work vehicle and the reason for braking behavior of the controller.
Regarding claim 12, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 4, further comprising: a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven.
However, Straus discloses a notification device, wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven ([0063] “A visual, acoustic and/or haptic warning can be output to the driver via the warning means 16 as soon as a risk of collision has been detected. If it is necessary to avoid a collision, a limited intervention is also carried out into the vehicle steering system using the steering intervention means 17 and/or an intervention is carried out into the vehicle braking system using the braking intervention means 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ alarm and automatic braking to ensure the operator understood when the brake should be applied due to an obstacle. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature to increase the awareness of the operator about the environment around the work vehicle and the reason for braking behavior of the controller.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, and Wang further in view of Heinrichs et al. (US 20140032094 A1), hereafter referred to as Heinrichs.
As to claim 5, Mori discloses A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body including wheels ([see at least Mori paragraph 0022 lines 182-184] “The lower traveling body 1 has a traveling body frame 3, and a front wheel 4 and a rear wheel 5 are rotatably attached to the front, rear, left and right sides of the traveling body frame 3.”);
a boom protruding forward from a front end of the vehicle body ([see at least Mori paragraph 0014, lines 105-106] “the boom generally protrudes from the crane body.” [and FIG. 1] showing the boom body 10 protruding from the front end of the vehicle body);
a sensor provided at a position corresponding to a tip end portion of the boom ([see at least Mori paragraph 0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”);
a brake device configured to apply a braking force to the wheels ([Mori discloses in paragraph 0038] “but when the crane C turns on a narrow road, the tip of the boom body 10 is prevented from coming into contact with an obstacle” [and in 0057] “the operation of the notification means the like have been described as the operation to avoid interference with obstacles, but the brake operation of the crane C or the like may also be used.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to generate detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, Oishi discloses a similar work vehicle with sensors configured to detect an obstacle on a lateral side of the tip end portion. ([see at least Oishi line 149-150] “The cameras 1L and 1R are provided on both left and right sides of the boom tip 106” [also see FIGS. 1 and 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include cameras or other sensors on the left and right side of the boom tip to detect obstacles on the lateral sides of the tip end portion of the boom of the work vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combined Mori and Oishi to improve the detectable area and directions for the work vehicle.
Mori and Oishi both fail to disclose that the sensor on the tip of the work vehicle generates detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, You discloses detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle ([0027] “the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle” [0025] “The sensors may be respectively installed at a center part of a front surface … and may detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s teaching of detecting at least one vehicle moving perpendicularly to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori with Oishi and You in order to detect perpendicularly travelling vehicles to the work vehicle to increase safety of the work vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object or perform autonomous emergency braking, resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”)
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom.
However, Oishi discloses a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([lines 155-156] “the orientation of the cameras 1L and 1R (orientation of the optical axis) is … diagonally forward”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Oishi’s teaching of using two diagonally-forward cameras on the front tip of the crane boom arm. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use these front facing cameras in order to see the condition of the intersection the work vehicle is approaching, improving safety ([lines 207-208] “the condition of the intersecting road can be confirmed when the boom tip 106 enters the intersection, improving safety when the vehicle is running”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection.
However, Wang teaches a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection ([0030] “By using an image or video processor to process the information from the sensor 110, the arbitration component 104 can determine that its host vehicle has reached or is approaching an intersection for instance. The arbitration component 104 can control or manage the sensor 110 (e.g., through a vehicle onboard interface, gateway, switch or network), so as to instruct the sensor 110 to acquire an image (e.g., of an intersection) in front of or around its host vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Wang’s teaching of using a front-facing camera to detect whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a front facing camera to determine whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection in order to respond to said determination by using the vehicle’s brakes ([0030] “The arbitration component 104 can instruct the ECU(s) 116 to reduce the speed of its host vehicle to initiate a stop at an all-way stop for example, responsive to detecting the all-way stop.”).
Mori fails to disclose a controller configured to drive the brake device based on detection data received from the sensor, wherein the controller is configured to stop driving of the brake device according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle increases over time or the detected lateral distance between the tip and portion of the boom and the second vehicle remains unchanged over time. ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] “if the detection distance L is 1 m or more, it is assumed that there is no risk of contact with an obstacle and no output is sent to the forecast/warning buzzer 105” showing Mori is capable of stopping the alarm once there is no risk of colliding with an obstacle.)
However, Heinrichs teaches a controller, according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the host vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to drive the brake device based on detection data received from the sensor, wherein the controller is configured to stop driving of the brake device according to a determination that the detected distance between host vehicle and the second vehicle increases over time or the detected distance between the host vehicle and the second vehicle remains unchanged over time ([0019] “recognition of dangerous situations within road intersection to warn the concerned road users as soon as there is a risk of conflicts or collisions.” [0103] “The brake equipment of the own vehicle can be brought into the braking position before the automatic emergency braking process … a part of the driver warning. This preparatory braking is less than the actual emergency braking.” The warning stage can include braking of the vehicle, in other words the “driver warning” can include light and perceptible braking – but braking nonetheless. Driver warning also includes other means of warning the driver than only braking. [0008] “Early detection of critical driving situations by suitable evaluation of a sensor arrangement supplying appropriate raw data makes it possible in a critical situation to emit driver warnings” [0111] “if the collision risk is reduced, a driver warning that has already been triggered can be terminated” which can include the light preparatory braking. [0123] “A reduction in the collision risk can be detected simply with reference to a distance increasing with time between the vehicle and the vehicle in front” in other words, the preparatory braking can be released when it is determined that a distance between the host vehicle and another vehicle is increasing over time.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Heinrichs controller which stops preparatory braking once a distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is determined to be increasing with time. Further, it would be obvious to apply the combination of Oishi’s lateral boom tip sensor and the automatic braking when perpendicularly travelling vehicles are approaching the host vehicle taught by You with Heinrichs termination of the braking when the distance between the vehicles increases with time. Since Mori is capable of stopping the output of the alarm, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this stopping of the output for the braking of the wheels as well in order to not produce unnecessary driver warnings (including Heinrich’s braking) (Heinrich [0112] “a driver warning that has become unnecessary in the meantime is not maintained further”).
Regarding claim 9, Mori discloses A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body including wheels ([see at least Mori paragraph 0022 lines 182-184] “The lower traveling body 1 has a traveling body frame 3, and a front wheel 4 and a rear wheel 5 are rotatably attached to the front, rear, left and right sides of the traveling body frame 3.”);
a boom protruding forward from a front end of the vehicle body ([see at least Mori paragraph 0014, lines 105-106] “the boom generally protrudes from the crane body.” [and FIG. 1] showing the boom body 10 protruding from the front end of the vehicle body);
a sensor provided at a position corresponding to a tip end portion of the boom ([see at least Mori paragraph 0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”);
Mori fails to explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to generate detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, Oishi discloses a similar work vehicle with sensors configured to detect an object on a lateral side of the tip end portion. ([see at least Oishi line 149-150] “The cameras 1L and 1R are provided on both left and right sides of the boom tip 106” [also see FIGS. 1 and 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include cameras or other sensors on the left and right side of the boom tip to detect an object in a perpendicular direction of the boom. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combined Mori and Oishi to improve the detectable area and directions for the work vehicle.
Mori and Oishi both fail to disclose that the sensor on the tip of the work vehicle generates detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the work vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle.
However, You discloses detection data of a second vehicle, the second vehicle moving along a generally perpendicular trajectory with respect to a direction of travel of the vehicle, the detection data including a detected lateral distance of the second vehicle ([0027] “the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle” [0025] “The sensors may be respectively installed at a center part of a front surface … and may detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object” [FIG. 3] transversally travelling objects are vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s teaching of detecting vehicle moving perpendicular to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori and You in order to increase safety of the host vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object or perform autonomous emergency braking, resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”)
Mori discloses a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori discloses a front sensor provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([0026] “In FIG. 3, reference numeral 101 is provided at the tip of the boom, and serves as an ultrasonic sensor.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom.
However, Oishi discloses a front camera provided at a front surface of the tip end portion of the boom, wherein the camera performs imaging in front of the boom ([lines 155-156] “the orientation of the cameras 1L and 1R (orientation of the optical axis) is … diagonally forward”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Oishi’s teaching of using two diagonally-forward cameras on the front tip of the crane boom arm. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use these front facing cameras in order to see the condition of the intersection the work vehicle is approaching, improving safety ([lines 207-208] “the condition of the intersecting road can be confirmed when the boom tip 106 enters the intersection, improving safety when the vehicle is running”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection.
However, Wang teaches a controller analyzing image data received from the front camera to determine whether or not the work vehicle is entering an intersection ([0030] “By using an image or video processor to process the information from the sensor 110, the arbitration component 104 can determine that its host vehicle has reached or is approaching an intersection for instance. The arbitration component 104 can control or manage the sensor 110 (e.g., through a vehicle onboard interface, gateway, switch or network), so as to instruct the sensor 110 to acquire an image (e.g., of an intersection) in front of or around its host vehicle for processing, to verify that the image is consistent with stored map data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori with Wang’s teaching of using a front-facing camera to detect whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a front facing camera to determine whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection in order to respond to said determination by using the vehicle’s brakes ([0030] “The arbitration component 104 can instruct the ECU(s) 116 to reduce the speed of its host vehicle to initiate a stop at an all-way stop for example, responsive to detecting the all-way stop.”).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose a controller configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle decreases over time.
However You teaches a controller configured to, according to a determination that the work vehicle is entering the intersection, further determining whether or not a lateral distance between the host vehicle and the second vehicle decreases over time, the controller configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification based on the detection data received from the sensor ([0023] “Referring to FIG. 1, the AEB system may include … a collision warning device 40” [0027] “When the ECU 30 detects one or more moving objects approaching in a direction transverse to the traveling direction of the host vehicle at crossroads during driving of the host vehicle, the ECU 30 may select a control object from among the moving objects using the detected moving object detection information, may warn the driver of the high possibility of collision between the host vehicle and the selected control object” [0025] “The sensors may … detect an angle, a distance, a relative speed, a relative acceleration, etc. between the host vehicle and each peripheral object” Where an object moving transversally to and approaching the host vehicle is having its detected lateral distance decrease over time. [See FIG. 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include You’s driver warning function when detecting another vehicle traveling perpendicularly to and approaching the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Mori with Oishi and You to improve driving safety of the work vehicle by warning the operator when a vehicle is perpendicularly approaching the work vehicle ([0038] “warn a driver of the host vehicle about the possibility of collision with the selected control object … resulting in increased driving safety of the host vehicle.”).
Mori fails to disclose a controller configured to drive the brake device based on detection data received from the sensor, wherein the controller is configured to stop driving of the notification device according to a determination that the detected lateral distance between the tip end portion of the boom and the second vehicle increases over time or the detected lateral distance between the tip and portion of the boom and the second vehicle remains unchanged over time. ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] “if the detection distance L is 1 m or more, it is assumed that there is no risk of contact with an obstacle and no output is sent to the forecast/warning buzzer 105” showing Mori is capable of stopping the alarm once there is no risk of colliding with an obstacle.)
However, Heinrichs teaches a controller configured to drive the brake device based on detection data received from the sensor, wherein the controller is configured to stop driving of the brake device according to a determination that the detected distance between host vehicle and the second vehicle increases over time or the detected distance between the host vehicle and the second vehicle remains unchanged over time ([0008] “Early detection of critical driving situations by suitable evaluation of a sensor arrangement supplying appropriate raw data makes it possible in a critical situation to emit driver warnings (e.g. acoustic, optical, haptic . . .)” [0111] “if the collision risk is reduced, a driver warning that has already been triggered can be terminated” [0123] “A reduction in the collision risk can be detected simply with reference to a distance increasing with time between the vehicle and the vehicle in front”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Heinrichs controller which terminates driver warnings once a distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is determined to be increasing with time. Further, it would be obvious to apply the combination of Oishi’s lateral boom tip sensor and the detection of the lateral distance of perpendicularly travelling vehicles approaching the host vehicle taught by You with Heinrichs termination of the driver warning when the distance between the vehicles increases with time. Since Mori is capable of stopping the output of the alarm, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to stop the output of the alarm when the distance between vehicles is increasing over time since the warning would be unnecessary and distracting to the driver (Heinrich [0112] “a driver warning that has become unnecessary in the meantime is not maintained further” [0119] “This avoids the driver of the vehicle finding unnecessarily triggered warning stages distracting and deactivating the device.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, and Wang further in view of Tanaka (JP 2011060113 A), hereafter referred to as Tanaka.
As to claim 7, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a sensor configured to detect an obstacle in front of the vehicle body ([see at least Mori paragraph 0031 lines 270-271] “When an obstacle is within the detection range A, the ultrasonic sensor 101 reliably captures the ultrasonic waves reflected by the obstacle” [see FIG. 1 showing detection range A in front of the vehicle body]).
Mori fails to disclose, wherein: the controller includes a memory, and the controller is configured to drive the brake device according to a height position of a lowest point of an obstacle in front of the vehicle body detected by the sensor being less than a second threshold stored in the memory
However, Tanaka discloses the controller includes a memory, and the controller is configured to drive the brake device according to a height position of a lowest point of an obstacle in front of the vehicle body detected by the sensor being less than a second threshold stored in the memory ([see at least Tanaka paragraph 0028, lines 326-329] “… whether there is an obstacle below the maximum height H of the cargo 2 based on information detected by the ultrasonic sonar 11 and the laser sensor 12. If there is an obstacle, it instructs the brake ECU 14 to operate the brake”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Tanaka’s configuration of the controller to automatically brake for obstacles lower than a threshold to prevent collisions. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable the work vehicle to avoid obstacles above the work vehicle to prevent damage.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, Wang, and Berry, further in view of Straus.
Regarding claim 10, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 3, wherein: the controller includes a memory ([see at least Mori paragraph 0027] “The main controller 104 includes a memory 1040”), and the controller is configured to determine, based on the detection data, whether or not a detected distance to a detected obstacle is less than a threshold distance stored in the memory ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] “When the detection distance L becomes smaller than 0.2 m, there is a very high risk of contact with an obstacle, so the forecast/warning buzzer 105 starts emitting a continuous warning sound.”
Mori fails to teach that the controller will determine based on the detection data, whether or not the detected lateral distance to the second vehicle is less than a threshold distance stored in the memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected lateral distance being less than the threshold distance.
However Straus teaches a controller that will based on the detection data, whether or not the detected lateral distance to a detected obstacle the second vehicle is less than a threshold distance stored in the memory, and drive the brake device according to the detected lateral distance being less than the threshold distance ([0067] “As soon as a certain lateral distance between the two vehicles is undershot, the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention” [see also FIG. 4])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ automatic braking of the vehicle for a detected distance of an obstacle being less than a certain lateral distance value being undershot. Further, it would be obvious to apply the combination of You’s automatic braking for laterally approaching vehicles, travelling in a perpendicular direction, with Straus’ automatic braking when a lateral distance threshold is breached. Mori is able to modify its behavior of the warning buzzer if an obstacle breaches a threshold of 0.2m. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to reduce chances of damage to the work vehicle to include the brake function for a lateral distance threshold as well.
Regarding claim 11, Mori discloses The work vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising: a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven.
However, Straus discloses a notification device, wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven ([0063] “A visual, acoustic and/or haptic warning can be output to the driver via the warning means 16 as soon as a risk of collision has been detected. If it is necessary to avoid a collision, a limited intervention is also carried out into the vehicle steering system using the steering intervention means 17 and/or an intervention is carried out into the vehicle braking system using the braking intervention means 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ alarm and automatic braking to ensure the operator understood when the brake should be applied due to an obstacle. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature to increase the awareness of the operator about the environment around the work vehicle and the reason for braking behavior of the controller.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Oishi, You, Wang, and Heinrichs, further in view of Straus.
Regarding claim 13, Mori teaches The work vehicle according to claim 5, further comprising: a notification device ([see at least Mori paragraph 0033] Mori teaches there is a notification device that warns the operator about the risk of contact with obstacles.).
Mori fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be
However, Straus discloses a notification device, wherein the controller is configured to cause the notification device to issue a notification according to a determination that the brake device is to be driven ([0063] “A visual, acoustic and/or haptic warning can be output to the driver via the warning means 16 as soon as a risk of collision has been detected. If it is necessary to avoid a collision, a limited intervention is also carried out into the vehicle steering system using the steering intervention means 17 and/or an intervention is carried out into the vehicle braking system using the braking intervention means 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori so as to include Straus’ alarm and automatic braking to ensure the operator understood when the brake should be applied due to an obstacle. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature to increase the awareness of the operator about the environment around the work vehicle and the reason for braking behavior of the controller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights