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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 04/16/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-066007 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt to retrieve a certified copy under the priority exchange program occurred on 09/16/2025, this attempt failed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 and 02/816/2025 were filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 14 be found allowable, claims 13 and 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is directed to “an industrial vehicle” whereas claim 13 is directed to “a notification system” however their internal elements are so close that they cover the same invention. Both claims positively claim the industrial vehicle itself along with detection and notification devices and their corresponding functions. As such while their preambles differ the their scope of protection is substantially duplicate.
Claims 14 and 15 are non-transitory computer readable medium which cause a computer to function as the notification control and range setting part of claims 1 and 13 respectively. Thus they also have the same substantially duplicate scope for the same reasons as claims 1 and 13 have substantially duplicate scope.
One way to overcome this objection would be to not positively claim the “industrial vehicle” (i.e. remove the limitation of line 3) in claim 13. This would result in claim 13 being directed solely to the notification system and thus would have a different scope compared to claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detection device”, in claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, in claim 1 placeholder term “device” which is functionally claimed without any structural limitations as to performing the claimed function appearing in the claim. Understood to be a camera and its equivalents from [0014]. While claim 1 further recites that the detection device comprises “a range setting part” this doesn’t constitute a structural limitation for the overall device in that it does not recite or limit how the detection function is performed, only the range of that detection.
“notification control part”, understood to be a computer (processor) from [0019]
“mode selection part”, understood to be a button (GUI) displayed on the a display screen/touch screen from [0012]
“range setting part”, understood to be a computer (processor) from [0019]
“image processing part”, understood to be a processor from [0007]/[0014] (from the context of those paragraphs the “processing” of the image is understood to be computer processing)
“condition determination part”, understood to physically be a computer (processor) (Figure 2, element 16 as the other parts of the control device are computers implicitly this would mean that the determination part is aswell)
“display control part”, understood to be a computer/processor from [0071]-[0072] implicitly since it is an electronic display this control is done via a computer/processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Notification Device of claim 1 is not interpreted under 112(f) as while functionally claimed, the limitation that the notification is via a at least one of light or sound is considered to provide sufficient structure to how the notification is performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230074065 A1, Howells, “Working Machine”, and further in view of US 20180057329 A1, “MULTI-FIELD SCANNING TOOLS IN MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES”, Poschl et al and further in view of EP 0468805 A2 (included in IDS), Miles et al, “A Diagnostic System For A Material Handling Vehicle”.
Regarding Claim 1, Howells teaches “An industrial vehicle provided with a driver’s seat, the industrial vehicle h( [0102] Referring now to FIG. 3, each camera 32, 34, 36, 38 is configured to monitor an area in its respective field of view 40, 42, 44, 46. The one or more cameras 32, 34, 36, 38 may be arranged and configured so as to provide a 360° field of view around the working machine 10. Each camera 32, 34, 36, 38 relays the images of the monitored areas in the form of a camera output signal to a control system 76 (see FIG. 5). The camera output signals from the plurality of cameras 32, 34, 36, 38 are sent to the control system over a single stream. The control system is configured to generate an output signal for alerting an operator if it is determined that an animate object has been detected in the field of view of the at least one camera 32, 34, 36, 38. The output from the control system comprises activating an indicator, activating an alarm, and/or displaying one or more camera output signal on a display.);” a notification device configured to output an alarm by at least one of light and sound; a notification control part that causes the notification device to output the alarm upon detection of a detection target by the detection device;”( [0013] The output may be an alert to alert an operator of the working machine.
[0014] The alert may comprise an indicator, an alarm, a display, or another device.
[0015] The output from the control system may comprise activating an indicator or activating an alarm. The working machine may comprise an array of indicators, e.g. lights or speakers, arranged within an operator cab, and wherein the control system may be configured to indicate a position of the detected animate object relative to the operator cab via the array of indicators.” + [0102] alarm is in response to detecting a person in the image);
PNG
media_image1.png
614
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Howells however does not teach determining the presence of a person in the driver’s seat and the first and second mode and their respective range setting and detection as recite in the claim.
Poschl teaches an industrial vehicle (Abstract:” A materials handling vehicle comprises an operator compartment, a compartment tower, a multi-field scanning tool, and mechanisms that facilitate movement along a travel plane in a warehouse. The tool establishes a scan field, and, within scan field bounds, an occupancy detection field and an obstacle detection field.”) object detection when includes “a detection device configured to detect at least one of a person and an object present in a surrounding region of the industrial vehicle and a person present in the driver’s seat”( [0029] Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the scan field 52 comprises two obstacle detection fields 54 and 55 and an occupancy detection field 56. The multi-field scanning tool T (FIG. 1) uses the two obstacle detection fields 54 and 55 to identify objects along the side of, or approaching the side of the materials handling vehicle 10. The occupancy detection field 56 and the obstacle detection fields 54, 55 may be contiguous portions of the scan field 52. Alternatively, the occupancy detection field 56 and the obstacle detection fields 54, 55 may be non-contiguous portions of the scan field 52. The occupancy detection field 56 and the obstacle detection fields 54, 55 may collectively comprise a portion of the scan field 52.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
412
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Howells to include the operator presence detection of Poschl as part of the animate object detection system taught in Howells.
One would be motivated to implement the interior occupancy detection of Poschl in order to increase safety of operation of the device by increasing the areas which can be checked for objects/persons.
The above combination however would still lack the transitioning between a first and second modes with the range settings of the respective modes as recited in the claim 1.
Miles et al a materials handling vehicle which includes sequentially testing (changing between modes) of each subsystem. (Abstract:” The present invention features a diagnostic system and fail safe method for performing diagnostics tests on a plurality of components and subsystems of a material handling vehicle. The diagnostics are executed upon the vehicle in a quiescent, or non-operative state. The operational capacity of the critical components is tested prior to the vehicle going on line. Each particular subsystem of the vehicle is selected and tested in an ordered, diagnostic sequence. Each subsystem has a mechanism for activating it. The operational state of a particular subsystem is determined by sensing that subsystem in a predetermined sequence of testing events.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to further modify Howell (as modified with Poscl) to include the sequential testing of each system. Improve the safety of operation of the device by testing of each system in a failsafe way. Miles teaches this motivation in (Miles teaches this motivation in Columns 1-2, lines 54-19, “In accordance with the present invention, there is provided a diagnostic system and fail safe method for performing diagnostics tests on a plurality of components and subsystems of a material handling vehicle. The diagnostics are executed upon the vehicle in a quiescent, or non-operative state. The operational capacity of the critical components is tested prior to the vehicle going on line.
Each particular subsystem of the vehicle is selected and tested in an ordered, diagnostic sequence. Each subsystem has a mechanism for activating it. The operational state of a particular subsystem is determined by sensing that subsystem in a predetermined sequence of testing events. A predetermined voltage is applied to the mechanism for activating the subsystem once it has been determined that the subsystem is inactive. After a predetermined activation time, a measurement is performed to determine whether the subsystem has been activated and is responding properly to the activating procedures.
Various subsystems depend upon other components or subsystems for their proper operation. By providing an ordered diagnostic sequence, a potential trouble area is easily diagnosed.”)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Howell teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the detection device comprises: an imaging device configured to capture an image of the surrounding region and the driver’s seat to acquire imaging data; and an image processing part that detects the detection target based on the imaging data,”(Howell [0102] as cited above teaches the imaging based object detector with the modification from Poschl teaching the implementation of a operator occupancy sensing area/zone );” and the range setting part does not set a region corresponding to the driver’s seat in the imaging data as a region of interest of image processing performed by the image processing part in the first mode,”(From the modification with Poschl in view of Miles of claim 1 each section is sequentially tested with the others powered off thus as part of the testing there is a “first mode” in which the exterior occupancy imaging detection is tested is but the interior is still turned off);” and sets the region corresponding to the driver’s seat in the imaging data as the region of interest in the second mode.”(From the modification of Poschl in view of Miles in claim 1, as each subsystem is sequentially tested there will be a testing of the interior occupancy detection of Poschl (element 56 of Poschl) while the exterior detectors are turned off)
Regarding Claims 3, modified Howells teaches “further comprising: a condition determination part that performs transition to the second mode upon satisfaction of at least one additional condition in addition to an operation on the mode selection part for transitioning to the second mode.”( Miles, Column 5-7, lines 48-12, In this section of Miles the brake is checked if it engaged prior to testing each subsystem/transitioning between different subsystem tests (between modes), if it isn’t engaged a warning is sent to the operator)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Howells teaches “wherein the condition determination part sets, as the at least one additional condition, detection by a brake sensor that a parking brake of the industrial vehicle is in an engaged state.”( Miles, Column 5-7, lines 48-12, In this section of Miles the brake is checked if it engaged prior to testing each subsystem/transitioning between different subsystem tests (between modes), if it isn’t engaged a warning is sent to the operator,)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Howells teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising: a display device; and a display control part that causes the display device to display the additional condition that is not satisfied, “(Howells [0103] The working machine 10 includes a display. The display may be a touch screen display such that the display can be operated as an operator input. The display may be positioned within the operator cab 14.);”upon determination by the condition determination part that the mode selection part is operated for transitioning to the second mode but the at least one additional condition is not satisfied.”(Miles, Column 5-7, lines 48-12, In this section of Miles the brake is checked if it engaged prior to testing each subsystem, if it isn’t engaged a warning is sent to the operator, thus in the combination the warning would be outputted through the display system of Howells)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Howells teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the display device comprises a display of a touch panel type, and the mode selection part comprises a button displayed on the display.”( Howells [0103] The working machine 10 includes a display. The display may be a touch screen display such that the display can be operated as an operator input. The display may be positioned within the operator cab 14.)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Howell teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a travel control part that controls a travel device of the industrial vehicle to perform deceleration control or stop control of travel upon detection of the detection target by the detection device.”(Howell [0084] The control system may be configured to provide a gradual stop of the working machine if it is determined that an animate object has been detected, and wherein the control system is configured to provide a rate of gradual stop based on one or more of: a load carried by the working arm; and/or the position of the working arm.”)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Howell teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the notification device comprises: a light that outputs light; and a horn that outputs sound.”( Howell [0054] The output from the control system may comprise activating an indicator or activating an alarm. The working machine may comprise an array of indicators, e.g. lights or speakers, arranged within an operator cab, and wherein the control system may be configured to indicate a position of the detected animate object relative to the operator cab via the array of indicators.” )
Regarding Claim 12, modified Howell teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the industrial vehicle is a forklift.”(Howell [0094] Referring firstly to FIG. 1, an embodiment of the teachings includes a working machine 10. The working machine may be a load handling machine. In this embodiment, the load handling machine 10 is a telescopic handler. In other embodiments the load handling machine 10 may be a rotating telescopic handler, a forklift, an excavator, a skid-steer loader, a compact track loader, a wheel loader, or a telescopic wheel loader, a tractor, for example.)
Regarding Claim 13, as noted in the claim objection it is substantially duplicate to claim 1, as such it has the same grounds of rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15 they are non-transitory computer readable medium containing a program that causes a computer to function as a notification control and range setting part of claims 1 and 13 respectively. Howell’s control system is implemented via a computer (as also with Poschl and with Miles) as such the rejection of claim 1 is equally applicable to a non-transitory computer readable medium with a program.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Howells (Howells + Poschl + Miles) and further in view of US 11753036 B1, “Energy Consumption Control Systems And Methods For Vehicles”, Wimmershoff et al
Regarding Claim 9, modified Howells teaches “The industrial vehicle according to claim 2, further comprising: a directional lever for switching a travel direction of the industrial vehicle; and a lever sensor for detecting that the directional lever is at a forward position setting the travel direction to a forward direction, and that the directional lever is at a rear position setting the travel direction to a reverse direction,”( Howells [0037] The camera output signal to be displayed may be selected based on one or more of: the direction of movement of the working machine; the proximity of the animate objects detected by the cameras; +[0064] The direction of travel of the working machine may be based on a selected state of a forward/neutral/reverse (FNR) drive selector; and/or an angular position of a steering wheel.” Howells teaches a directional level (driver selector) and using the determined direction of travel from it);”
Howells however does not teach the selectively activating of the rear and forward imaging based on the direction of travel, instead it teaches operating of all imaging sensors and the selective displaying of hteir outputs based on the direction of travel (e.g. the rear imaging sensor still detects while traveling forward however its output is not prioritized).
Wimmershoff teaches a vehicle components control system which includes detecting the direction of travel and selectively activating or deactivating of forward and rear imaging sensors based on the detected travel direction. (Column 2, lines 42-50, “For example, the energy consumption adjuster may be configured to reduce the energy consumption associated with operation of at least one of the sensors by deactivating the sensor, reducing a frequency of operation of the sensor, and/or reducing a resolution of the sensor, thereby reducing energy consumption associated with operation of the sensor, while still maintaining a baseline level of sensing and processing to ensure safety of the vehicle.” Here teaches that reducing power consumption includes deactivating a sensor + Column 3, lines 09-19, “In another example, if the vehicle is traveling in a first direction such that one end of the vehicle is a trailing end of the vehicle, and the vehicle includes one or more sensors mounted at the trailing end of the vehicle and configured to generate sensor signals indicative of the environment to the side of and/or behind the vehicle, the energy consumption adjuster may be configured to reduce energy consumption associated with operation of one or more of the sensors mounted at the trailing end of the vehicle and/or the one or more processors associated with processing data received from the one or more sensors.” Here teaches deactivating of sensors based on the determined direction of travel (e.g. when a vehicle is traveling a forward direction, rearward sensors deactivate).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Howells to includes the selective deactivation/activation of sensors based on the direction of travel as taught by Wimmershoff, one would be motivated to implement this feature to reduce the power consumption and computer processing load on the system. Allowing for quicker detection speeds from the remaining activated sensors and/or allowing for a reduction in the total amount of processing power/RAM needed, reducing the cost of the system. Wimmershoff teaches this improvement in (Column 3, lines 20-30, “The energy consumption control systems and methods described herein may improve a functioning of a computing device associated with the vehicle, for example, by reducing the amount of computing resources required to operate sensors and/or operate processors without substantially hindering the ability of the vehicle to operate safely. In some examples, reducing energy consumption may also reduce processing time, reduce memory usage, and substantially maintain the ability of the vehicle to operate safely. These and other improvements to the functioning of a computer are discussed herein.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5 no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the at least one additional condition being the detection of a person (driver) via the seat sensor of the driver’s seat.
Regarding Claim 8 no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the alarms (of claim 1) being outputted in different configurations based on if a person is in the driver’s seat or not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20020190849 A1; US 20160264387 A1; US 20180016127 A1; US 11052909 B1; US 20230237809 A1; US 20230339734 A1; US 20250270078 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669