DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Y The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is made in response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/6/2025. Claims 1-11 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, Applicant's amendments are not fully responsive to the issues raised in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) made in the previous action. These rejections regarding non-responsive amendments are accordingly maintained as discussed in further detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US 2021/0261032 A1) in view of Ikegami (US 2015/0299986 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes discloses an apparatus for combining vehicle operational status and control in a single interactive sensing (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 9, and related text), control and display unit comprising:
said vehicle being a truck with dump body or a truck with attached dump trailer (see e.g. at least ¶ 6-10, Fig. 1, and related text);
an interactive visual display having one or more screens for displaying for an operator vehicle parametric information including both truck and dump body or dump trailer operational status, selectable control functions for various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer, and selectable camera views of an area immediately adjacent to and surrounding the vehicle and the dump body or dump trailer (e.g. human machine interface 62, 64, see e.g. at least ¶ 11-20, 44, 46, Fig. 8, and related text);
a special purpose computer (e.g. at least ECU 60, see e.g. at least ¶ 47, Fig. 9, and related text) configured for: collecting a plurality of sensor information from said vehicle including operating parameters of said truck and operating parameters of said dump body or dump trailer (id.) and displaying the sensor information and operating parameter status of the vehicle and the dump body or the dump trailer on the interactive visual display screen (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 15-18, 50-53); and controlling selectable functions of various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer from visual controls displayed on one or more screens of said interactive visual display (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 12, 19-20, 41, 44, 50, 57, Fig. 8, and related text).
Additionally, Ikegami teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Hayes including namely: [an interactive visual display having] a primary and one or more alternate screens, each alternate screen being selectable by the operator (see e.g. at least ¶ 114-128, Fig. 14.1 - 14.10, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hayes by configuring an interactive visual display having a primary and one or more alternate screens, each alternate screen being selectable by the operator, for displaying for an operator vehicle parametric information including both truck and dump body or dump trailer operational status, selectable control functions for various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer, and selectable camera views of an area immediately adjacent to and surrounding the vehicle and the dump body or dump trailer as taught by Ikagami in order to facilitate a work implement operation, diagnosis, and calibration by displaying on successive display screens, work implement operation data, status, instructions, and feedback (Ikegami: ¶ 114-128).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Hayes teaches that the operator can select for viewing one of the one or more screens of the interactive visual display to monitor vehicle parameters and sensor information, control dump body or dump trailer functions, and select camera views (see also e.g. at least ¶ 12, 19-20, 41, 44, 50, 57, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Hayes teaches that the one or more screens available for viewing may be arranged to display vehicle parameter and sensor information and dump body or dump trailer control functions on a single screen of the interactive visual display (see also e.g. at least ¶ 12, 19-20, 41, 44, 50, 57, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Hayes teaches that the one or more screens available for viewing may be arranged to display vehicle parameter and sensor information, dump body or dump trailer control functions, and one or more camera views on a single screen of the interactive visual display (see also e.g. at least ¶ 12, 19-20, 41, 44, 50, 57, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Hayes teaches that the plurality of sensor information collected from said vehicle including operating parameters of said truck is selected from the group consisting of body angle sensor, air suspension pressure sensor, air supply pressure sensor, and hydraulic pressure sensor (see e.g. at least ¶ 15-18, 50-53, Fig. 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hayes teaches that the plurality of sensor information from said vehicle including operating parameters of said dump body or dump trailer of is selected from the group consisting of dump body or trailer angle sensor, air suspension pressure sensor, air supply pressure sensor, hydraulic pressure sensor, tailgate pressure sensor, high lift tailgate sensor, tailgate lock position sensor, dump body position sensor, load cover position sensor, and one or more axle position sensors (see e.g. at least ¶ 15-18, 50-53, Fig. 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Hayes discloses an apparatus for combining vehicle operational status and control in a single interactive sensing (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 9, and related text), control and display unit comprising:
said vehicle being a truck with dump body or a truck with attached dump trailer (see e.g. at least ¶ 6-10, Fig. 1, and related text);
an interactive visual display having one or more screens for displaying for an operator vehicle parametric information including both truck and dump body or dump trailer operational status, selectable control functions for various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer, and selectable camera views of an area adjacent to and immediately surrounding the vehicle and the dump body or dump trailer, said operator can select for viewing one of the one or more screens of the interactive visual display to monitor vehicle parameters and sensor information, control dump body or dump trailer functions, and select camera views (see e.g. at least ¶ 11-20, 44, Fig. 8, and related text);
a special purpose computer (e.g. at least ECU 60, see e.g. at least ¶ 47, Fig. 9, and related text) configured for collecting a plurality of sensor information from said vehicle including operating parameters of said truck and operating parameters of said dump body or dump trailer (id.) and displaying sensor information and operating parameter status of the vehicle and dump body or dump trailer on the interactive visual display (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 15-18, 50-53); and controlling selectable functions of various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer from visual controls displayed on one or more screens of said interactive visual display (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 12, 19-20, 41, 44, 50, 57, Fig. 8, and related text).
Additionally, Ikegami teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Hayes including namely: [an interactive visual display having] a primary and one or more alternate screens, each alternate screen being selectable by the operator (see e.g. at least ¶ 114-128, Fig. 14.1 - 14.10, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hayes by configuring an interactive visual display having a primary and one or more alternate screens, each alternate screen being selectable by the operator, for displaying for an operator vehicle parametric information including both truck and dump body or dump trailer operational status, selectable control functions for various operable equipment on the dump body or dump trailer, and selectable camera views of an area immediately adjacent to and surrounding the vehicle and the dump body or dump trailer as taught by Ikagami in order to facilitate a work implement operation, diagnosis, and calibration by displaying on successive display screens, work implement operation data, status, instructions, and feedback (Ikegami: ¶ 114-128).
Claims 8-11 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as described in claims 2-6. These claims are accordingly further rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 2-6 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662