DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on May 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 28, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3 and 12 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.
The term “approximate” in claims 3 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art of the invention would be unable to be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention as it is unclear what would be considered “mutually approximate detection values”, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 recite a system/apparatus, therefore claims 1-9 and 19-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 10-18 recite a method/process, therefore claims 10-18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 19 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 19 recites:
A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body;
a travel device;
an attitude angle sensor that is disposed in the vehicle body;
a standard value calculation unit that calculates a standard value related to a detection value based on the detection value of the attitude angle sensor when the travel device stops at a predetermined position of a work site; and
a diagnosis unit that determines presence or absence of abnormality of the attitude angle sensor based on the standard value calculated by the standard value calculation unit and the detection value of the attitude angle sensor when the travel device stops at the predetermined position after the standard value is calculated.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, " calculates a standard value…" and " determines presence or absence of abnormality..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. " calculates a standard value…" involves a human observing and/or evaluating or using paper and pencil to determine a standard value and “" determines presence or absence of abnormality..." involves a human making a judgment and/or evaluating to determine the presence of an abnormality. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body;
a travel device;
an attitude angle sensor that is disposed in the vehicle body;
a standard value calculation unit that calculates a standard value related to a detection value based on the detection value of the attitude angle sensor when the travel device stops at a predetermined position of a work site; and
a diagnosis unit that determines presence or absence of abnormality of the attitude angle sensor based on the standard value calculated by the standard value calculation unit and the detection value of the attitude angle sensor when the travel device stops at the predetermined position after the standard value is calculated.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of " a work vehicle”, “a vehicle body”, and “an attitude sensor” the examiner submits that this limitation characterizes the system as being associated with a vehicle with a body and an attitude sensor, which merely amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the claim limitation “a standard value calculation unit” and “a diagnosis unit” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is generic computing components that merely apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a standard value calculation unit” and “a diagnosis unit” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, " a work vehicle”, “a vehicle body”, and “an attitude sensor” is merely a technological environment or field of use as the limitations merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 10 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 19 and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-18, and 20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 10, and 19, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
In regards to claims 7 and 16, it is noted that with respect to “the detection value of the first attitude angle sensor is transmitted…” and “the detection value of the second attitude angle sensor is transmitted …”, it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20190340848) in view of Abe (JP 2004325777; already of record from IDS; see attached English translation for citations).
In regards to claim 1, Nakamura discloses of a management system for a work vehicle (“A diagnosis apparatus includes a detection value and appropriate value acquisition unit configured to acquire a detection value of first equipment mounted in a first vehicle and an appropriate value of the detection value of the first equipment, an appropriate value estimation unit configured to estimate an appropriate value of a detection value of second equipment mounted in at least one second vehicle within a predetermined range from the first vehicle based on the detection value of the first equipment and the appropriate value of the detection value of the first equipment, and a diagnosis unit configured to compare the detection value of the second equipment with the appropriate value of the detection value of the second equipment to perform diagnosis of an operation state of the second equipment.” (Abstract)), comprising:
a standard value calculation unit that calculates a standard value related to a detection value based on the detection value of a first attitude angle sensor… (“The diagnosis apparatus 10 acquires the detection values of the sensors 30 mounted in the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information obtained through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Step S11). Next, the diagnosis apparatus 10 estimates appropriate values (hereinafter, simply referred to as “appropriate values”) of the detection values from the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 (Step S12). A specific example of the estimation will be described below. Then, the diagnosis apparatus 10 compares the detection values of the host vehicle 1-1 with the estimated appropriate values (Step S13), when both values deviate (Step S13—Yes), determines that an abnormality occurs in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S14), and when both values do not deviate (Step S13—No), determines that an abnormality does not occur in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S15).” (Para 0037), see also Para 0040-0041); and
a diagnosis unit that determines presence or absence of abnormality of a second attitude angle sensor based on the standard value calculated by the standard value calculation unit and a detection value of the second attitude angle sensor (“The diagnosis apparatus 10 acquires the detection values of the sensors 30 mounted in the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information obtained through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Step S11). Next, the diagnosis apparatus 10 estimates appropriate values (hereinafter, simply referred to as “appropriate values”) of the detection values from the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 (Step S12). A specific example of the estimation will be described below. Then, the diagnosis apparatus 10 compares the detection values of the host vehicle 1-1 with the estimated appropriate values (Step S13), when both values deviate (Step S13—Yes), determines that an abnormality occurs in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S14), and when both values do not deviate (Step S13—No), determines that an abnormality does not occur in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S15).” (Para 0037), see also Para 0046).
However, Nakamura does not specifically disclose of … when a work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor stops at a predetermined position of a work site; and
… when a work vehicle including the second attitude angle sensor stops at the predetermined position.
Abe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of … when a work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor stops at a predetermined position of a work site (“When the current position reaches the pre-registered primary reference point, the primary reference point identifying / correcting means 16d searches the absolute elevation data of the primary reference point database 17b, and calculates the relative elevation calculated value as the absolute elevation value. In addition, if there is a difference from the relative altitude calculation result, the difference is weighted with a function of the distance from the immediately preceding primary reference point to obtain a corrected altitude, which is recorded as road surface elevation measurement data 17c. It is a means to do.” (Para 0053), “Next, a measurement vehicle equipped with a GPS, an inclination sensor, and an in-vehicle computer for collecting measurement results in real time travels on the road to be measured, and every time the vehicle reaches the set primary reference point, the inclination of the point is measured. The angle is measured (S32). The inclination value of the road surface is obtained in addition to the coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the primary reference point already collected and recorded. In FIG. 3, the inclination angle is abbreviated as the inclination in the description of each step.” (Para 0025)); and
… when a work vehicle including the second attitude angle sensor stops at the predetermined position (“When the current position reaches the pre-registered primary reference point, the primary reference point identifying / correcting means 16d searches the absolute elevation data of the primary reference point database 17b, and calculates the relative elevation calculated value as the absolute elevation value. In addition, if there is a difference from the relative altitude calculation result, the difference is weighted with a function of the distance from the immediately preceding primary reference point to obtain a corrected altitude, which is recorded as road surface elevation measurement data 17c. It is a means to do.” (Para 0053), “Next, a measurement vehicle equipped with a GPS, an inclination sensor, and an in-vehicle computer for collecting measurement results in real time travels on the road to be measured, and every time the vehicle reaches the set primary reference point, the inclination of the point is measured. The angle is measured (S32). The inclination value of the road surface is obtained in addition to the coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the primary reference point already collected and recorded. In FIG. 3, the inclination angle is abbreviated as the inclination in the description of each step.” (Para 0025), “According to this system configuration, setting registration of the primary reference point, distribution of the information, actual traveling by a plurality of measuring vehicles, correction and editing of the actual measurement data, and provision of information to the used vehicle can be efficiently performed in parallel.” (Para 0045)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of the first and second attitude sensor, as taught by Nakamura, to include being when the sensor stops at a predetermined position, as taught by Abe, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the data to be collected and compared at fixed time intervals (Abe Para 0025-0026).
In regards to claim 2, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 1, comprising:
a detection value acquisition unit that acquires the detection value of the first attitude angle sensor each time the work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor stops at the predetermined position (“Equipment 30 is a sensor or an actuator, and a detection value of the equipment 30 means a detection value (sensor value) of the sensor or a control value of the actuator. Hereinafter, in an embodiment of the present specification, the equipment 30 will be described as a sensor 30. In the vehicle 1, various sensors 30, such as an outside air temperature sensor, an intake air temperature sensor, a coolant temperature sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, an O.sub.2 sensor, a steering sensor, an air pressure sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a gyro sensor, and an obstacles sensor, are mounted. A detection value of the sensor 30 is output to an ECU 20 that performs processing using the detection value.” (Nakamura Para 0031), see also Abe Para 0025 and 0053), wherein
the standard value calculation unit calculates the standard value based on a plurality of detection values of the first attitude angle sensor acquired by the detection value acquisition unit (“The diagnosis apparatus 10 acquires the detection values of the sensors 30 mounted in the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information obtained through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Step S11). Next, the diagnosis apparatus 10 estimates appropriate values (hereinafter, simply referred to as “appropriate values”) of the detection values from the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 (Step S12). A specific example of the estimation will be described below. Then, the diagnosis apparatus 10 compares the detection values of the host vehicle 1-1 with the estimated appropriate values (Step S13), when both values deviate (Step S13—Yes), determines that an abnormality occurs in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S14), and when both values do not deviate (Step S13—No), determines that an abnormality does not occur in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S15).” (Nakamura Para 0037), see also Para 0040-0041).
The motivation of combining Nakamura and Abe is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 3, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the standard value calculation unit selects a plurality of mutually approximate detection values from the plurality of detection values of the first attitude angle sensor acquired by the detection value acquisition unit (“The appropriate value estimation unit 120 performs the processing of Step S12 described above. That is, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate values based on the detection values stored in the storage unit 140 and outputs the estimated appropriate values to the diagnosis unit 130. For example, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 sets an average value of a detection value x.sub.1 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-2 and a detection value x.sub.2 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-3 as an appropriate value x{circumflex over ( )} of the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0040), see also Nakamura Para 0041 and 0051-0052), and
the standard value is an average value of the plurality of selected detection values (“The appropriate value estimation unit 120 performs the processing of Step S12 described above. That is, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate values based on the detection values stored in the storage unit 140 and outputs the estimated appropriate values to the diagnosis unit 130. For example, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 sets an average value of a detection value x.sub.1 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-2 and a detection value x.sub.2 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-3 as an appropriate value x{circumflex over ( )} of the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0040), see also Nakamura Para 0041 and 0051-0052, and 0098).
In regards to claim 4, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 2, comprising:
a detection value storage unit that stores a detection value of the first attitude angle sensor determined to be normal (“The appropriate value estimation unit 120 performs the processing of Step S12 described above. That is, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate values based on the detection values stored in the storage unit 140 and outputs the estimated appropriate values to the diagnosis unit 130. For example, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 sets an average value of a detection value x.sub.1 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-2 and a detection value x.sub.2 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-3 as an appropriate value x{circumflex over ( )} of the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0040); and
a standard value storage unit that stores the standard value, wherein the standard value calculation unit calculates the standard value based on the detection value stored in the detection value storage unit (“The appropriate value estimation unit 120 performs the processing of Step S12 described above. That is, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate values based on the detection values stored in the storage unit 140 and outputs the estimated appropriate values to the diagnosis unit 130. For example, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 sets an average value of a detection value x.sub.1 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-2 and a detection value x.sub.2 acquired from the peripheral vehicle 1-3 as an appropriate value x{circumflex over ( )} of the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0040) and “The detection value and appropriate value acquisition unit 150 performs the processing of Steps S11, S121, and S122 described above. That is, the detection value and appropriate value acquisition unit 150 receives the detection information received by the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 40 through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication as input, acquires the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information, and when the number of peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 is equal to or less than the threshold, also acquires the appropriate values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3. Then, the acquired detection values and appropriate values are output to the storage unit 140.” (Nakamura Para 0064)),
the standard value stored in the standard value storage unit is updated based on a time point when the detection value of the first attitude angle sensor determined to be normal is acquired by the detection value acquisition unit (“In the diagnosis apparatus according to the above-described first aspect, the detection value and appropriate value acquisition unit may be configured to acquire positional information at the time of detection of the detection value of the first equipment and at the time of calculation of the appropriate value of the detection value of the first equipment. The appropriate value estimation unit may be configured to estimate the appropriate value of the detection value of the second equipment based on the detection value of the first equipment, the appropriate value of the detection value of the first equipment, and the positional information.” (Nakamura Para 0010), “The vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 40 outputs the received detection information to a diagnosis apparatus 10. While a frequency with which the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 40 transmits and receives the detection information is optional, in order to restrain any number of times of communication with the same vehicle, when communication is performed with the same vehicle once, communication may not be performed until a predetermined period elapses.” (Nakamura Para 0033), see also Nakamura Para 0040), and
the diagnosis unit determines presence or absence of the abnormality based on the updated standard value in the standard value storage unit and the detection value of the second attitude angle sensor acquired by the detection value acquisition unit (“The diagnosis apparatus 10 acquires the detection values of the sensors 30 mounted in the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information obtained through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Step S11). Next, the diagnosis apparatus 10 estimates appropriate values (hereinafter, simply referred to as “appropriate values”) of the detection values from the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 (Step S12). A specific example of the estimation will be described below. Then, the diagnosis apparatus 10 compares the detection values of the host vehicle 1-1 with the estimated appropriate values (Step S13), when both values deviate (Step S13—Yes), determines that an abnormality occurs in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S14), and when both values do not deviate (Step S13—No), determines that an abnormality does not occur in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S15).” (Nakamura Para 0037), see also Nakamura Para 0046).
In regards to claim 5, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 2,wherein the detection value acquisition unit acquires the detection value of the first attitude angle sensor each time a plurality of mutually different work vehicles each including the first attitude angle sensor sequentially stops at the predetermined position (“When the current position reaches the pre-registered primary reference point, the primary reference point identifying / correcting means 16d searches the absolute elevation data of the primary reference point database 17b, and calculates the relative elevation calculated value as the absolute elevation value. In addition, if there is a difference from the relative altitude calculation result, the difference is weighted with a function of the distance from the immediately preceding primary reference point to obtain a corrected altitude, which is recorded as road surface elevation measurement data 17c. It is a means to do.” (Abe Para 0053), “Next, a measurement vehicle equipped with a GPS, an inclination sensor, and an in-vehicle computer for collecting measurement results in real time travels on the road to be measured, and every time the vehicle reaches the set primary reference point, the inclination of the point is measured. The angle is measured (S32). The inclination value of the road surface is obtained in addition to the coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the primary reference point already collected and recorded. In FIG. 3, the inclination angle is abbreviated as the inclination in the description of each step.” (Abe Para 0025), “According to this system configuration, setting registration of the primary reference point, distribution of the information, actual traveling by a plurality of measuring vehicles, correction and editing of the actual measurement data, and provision of information to the used vehicle can be efficiently performed in parallel.” (Abe Para 0045)).
The motivation of combining Nakamura and Abe is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 6, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 1,wherein
the work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor and the work vehicle including the second attitude angle sensor are different work vehicles (“The diagnosis apparatus 10 acquires the detection values of the sensors 30 mounted in the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information obtained through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Step S11). Next, the diagnosis apparatus 10 estimates appropriate values (hereinafter, simply referred to as “appropriate values”) of the detection values from the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 (Step S12). A specific example of the estimation will be described below. Then, the diagnosis apparatus 10 compares the detection values of the host vehicle 1-1 with the estimated appropriate values (Step S13), when both values deviate (Step S13—Yes), determines that an abnormality occurs in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S14), and when both values do not deviate (Step S13—No), determines that an abnormality does not occur in the sensor 30 mounted in the host vehicle 1-1 (Step S15).” (Nakamura Para 0037), see also Nakamura Para 0046).
In regards to claim 7, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 6, comprising:
a management device that is disposed outside the work vehicle, wherein the management device includes the standard value calculation unit and the diagnosis unit (“FIG. 8 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of a system including the diagnosis apparatus according to the third embodiment. Each vehicle 1 includes the ECU 20, the equipment (in the third embodiment, sensor) 30, the display unit 50, and a wide area communication unit 60. The server 2 includes a wide area communication unit 21 and the diagnosis apparatus 10 (11). The server 2 may be a cloud server or may be a data center.” (Para 0080), “When the diagnosis apparatus 10 performs the diagnosis of the sensor 30 mounted in the vehicle 1-1, the detection value acquisition unit 110 acquires the detection values of the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1 and the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information received by the wide area communication unit 21, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate value based on the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3, and the diagnosis unit 130 compares the detection value and the appropriate value of the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1 to diagnose the operation state of the sensor 30. A diagnosis result may be stored inside the server 2 or may be output to the wide area communication unit 21 and transmitted from the wide area communication unit 21 to the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0084), see also Nakamura Figs 8 and 6),
the detection value of the first attitude angle sensor is transmitted from the work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor to the management device (“The wide area communication unit 60 modulates detection information about the sensor 30 mounted in the vehicle 1 using an electric wave in a frequency bandwidth allocated in advance and transmits the modulated detection information to the server 2 through a wide area communication network.” (Para 0081), see also Nakamura Figs 8 and 6), and
the detection value of the second attitude angle sensor is transmitted from the work vehicle including the second attitude angle sensor to the management device (“When the diagnosis apparatus 10 performs the diagnosis of the sensor 30 mounted in the vehicle 1-1, the detection value acquisition unit 110 acquires the detection values of the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1 and the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3 from the detection information received by the wide area communication unit 21, the appropriate value estimation unit 120 estimates the appropriate value based on the detection values of the peripheral vehicles 1-2, 1-3, and the diagnosis unit 130 compares the detection value and the appropriate value of the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1 to diagnose the operation state of the sensor 30. A diagnosis result may be stored inside the server 2 or may be output to the wide area communication unit 21 and transmitted from the wide area communication unit 21 to the diagnosis target vehicle 1-1.” (Nakamura Para 0084), see also Nakamura Figs 8 and 6).
In regards to claim 8, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 2,wherein
the work vehicle including the first attitude angle sensor and the work vehicle including the second attitude angle sensor are a same work vehicle “When the current position reaches the pre-registered primary reference point, the primary reference point identifying / correcting means 16d searches the absolute elevation data of the primary reference point database 17b, and calculates the relative elevation calculated value as the absolute elevation value. In addition, if there is a difference from the relative altitude calculation result, the difference is weighted with a function of the distance from the immediately preceding primary reference point to obtain a corrected altitude, which is recorded as road surface elevation measurement data 17c. It is a means to do.” (Abe Para 0053), “Next, a measurement vehicle equipped with a GPS, an inclination sensor, and an in-vehicle computer for collecting measurement results in real time travels on the road to be measured, and every time the vehicle reaches the set primary reference point, the inclination of the point is measured. The angle is measured (S32). The inclination value of the road surface is obtained in addition to the coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the primary reference point already collected and recorded. In FIG. 3, the inclination angle is abbreviated as the inclination in the description of each step.” (Abe Para 0025), and “Here, the inclination sensor 12 for measuring the inclination of the road may be a mechanical sensor, a magnetic sensor, a gyro sensor, an electrostatic sensor, an electrolytic sensor, a piezoelectric sensor, or an optical sensor, or a combination of any of them. Is used to perform high-accuracy measurement with noise removed.” (Abe Para 0056)).
The motivation of combining Nakamura and Abe is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claims 10-17 and 19-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claims 1-8 and 1-2, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Abe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baba et al. (US 20210001847; hereinafter Baba; already of record from IDS).
In regards to claim 9, Nakamura in view of Abe teaches of the management system for a work vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Nakamura in view of Abe does not specifically teach of wherein the work vehicle is a haul vehicle that hauls a load, and
the predetermined position includes a discharge position where the load is discharged from the haul vehicle to a crusher.
Baba, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the work vehicle is a haul vehicle that hauls a load (“The dump body 22 is a member on which a cargo is loaded. The dump body 22 is raised and lowered by the operation of a hoist cylinder which is the hydraulic cylinder. The dump body 22 is adjusted to at least one of a loading posture and a dumping posture by the operation of the hoist cylinder. The loading posture is a posture that enables loading of the cargo, and is a posture where the dump body 22 is lowered. The dumping posture is a posture for discharging the cargo, and is a posture where the dump body 22 is raised.” (Para 0024), see also Fig 1), and
the predetermined position includes a discharge position where the load is discharged from the haul vehicle to a crusher (“The loading site PA1 refers to an area where loading work for loading the cargo on the unmanned vehicle 2 is performed. At the loading site PA1, a loader 7 such as a hydraulic excavator operates. The discharging site PA2 refers to an area where discharging work for discharging the cargo from the unmanned vehicle 2 is performed. For example, a crusher 8 is provided at the discharging site PA2.” (Para 0040), “For example, when discharging the cargo loaded in the dump body 22 from the dump body 22, the hoist cylinder operates such that the dump body 22 changes from the loading posture to the dumping posture in the stopped state of the unmanned vehicle 2. After the dump body 22 is set in the dumping posture, the unmanned vehicle 2 starts traveling such that the entire cargo is discharged from the dump body 22. When the unmanned vehicle 2 in the stopped state starts with the dump body 22 in the dumping posture, the limitation of the travel speed Vs of the unmanned vehicle 2 is requested. The position of the dump body 22 is detected by the dump body sensor 45. The data acquisition unit 12 acquires the detection data of the dump body sensor 45 via the interface unit 11. The corrected command value calculation unit 13B can determine whether the dump body 22 is in the dumping posture based on the detection data of the dump body sensor 45.” (Para 0082)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle, as taught by Nakamura in view of Abe, to include being a haul vehicle that has a redetermined discharge position, as taught by Baba, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the vehicle is in a dumping posture (Baba Para 0082).
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujiwara et al. (US 20200072150) discloses of determining if a sensor failed when a threshold difference is detected between a first timing and a second timing of a sensor at a location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663