Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/858,371

SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING IMAGE AROUND WORK VEHICLE, METHOD, AND WORK VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Examiner
MANCHO, RONNIE M
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Komatsu Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
729 granted / 963 resolved
+23.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 963 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 11772941) in view of Coats (US Pub 2009/0259400). Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a system for displaying a peripheral image of a work vehicle including a vehicle body (display peripheral images of work vehicle body and worksite; figs. 1-9; col. 1, lines 42 to col. 2, lines 24; col. 3, lines 19-25), and front wheels that are attached so as to be steerable to a front end part of the vehicle body (figs. 1-9; col. 4, lines 15-21), the system comprising: a steering angle sensor (col. 2, lines 40-45) configured to detect a steering angle of the front wheel (col. 2, lines 40-45; col. 4, lines 15-21); a plurality of cameras that are provided on the vehicle body to image in different directions (col. 3, lines 19-25); a display (48, fig. 2) device (abstract; col. 1, lines 42-63; col. 5, lines 51; col. 8, lines 30-49); and a processor, wherein the processor selects any one of images captured by the plurality of cameras, and outputs a signal for playing the selected image on the display device (col. 9, lines 3 to col. 10, lines 24). Hayashi discloses a system for displaying a peripheral image, but did not particularly recite the limitation, “….processor selects any one of images captured by the plurality of cameras based on the steering angle of the front wheel…”. However, Coats discloses a system for displaying a peripheral image of a work vehicle including a vehicle body (display peripheral images of work vehicle body and worksite; figs. 1-9; sec 0019, 0021, 0026, 0034-0037), the system comprising: a processor (30, 40; figs. 2&4; sec 0033), wherein the processor selects any one of images captured (sec 0042 and table 6) by a plurality of cameras (sec 0034, 0042) based on a steering angle of a front wheel (sec 0042 and table 6), and outputs a signal for playing the selected image on the display device (sec 0042 and table 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hayashi to include a processor, wherein the processor selects any one of images captured by a plurality of cameras, based on a steering angle of a front wheel, and outputs a signal for playing the selected image on the display device. Such a modification Hayashi by Coasts will provide improved collision avoidance because a wider angle of viewing obstacles around blinds spots and other areas that Hayashi may have missed since Hayashi does not account for obstacles on the right side and under the carriage of the vehicle as taught by (see Coats sec 0004). Regarding claim 2, Coasts teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein: the plurality of cameras include a first camera (sec 0034, 0042) that is provided at the front end part of the vehicle body and images a left front side of the work vehicle (sec 0034, 0042), and a second camera (sec 0034, 0042) that is provided at the front end part of the vehicle body and images a right front side of the work vehicle (sec 0034, 0042), and the processor (30, 40; figs. 2&4; sec 0033) selects either one of an image captured by the first camera or an image captured by the second camera based on the detected steering angle of the front wheel (sec 0042 and table 6). Regarding claim 3, Coasts teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein: the processor (sec 0034, 0042) selects either one of the image captured by the first camera or the image captured by the second camera, by comparing the steering angle of the front wheels with a threshold value (sec 0042 and table 6; see steering angle on neutral, neither on the right or on the left), and the threshold value is different from a steering angle of the work vehicle during straight moving (forward movement and steering in neutral implies moving straight; sec 0042 and table 6). Regarding claim 4, Coasts teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein: the work vehicle includes a power transmission device configured to switch between forward movement and rearward movement, and the processor, in a case where a command signal to switch the power transmission device to forward movement is received (sec 0042 and table 6; see steering angle on neutral, neither on the right or on the left inplies transmission is switched between forward movement and rearward movement), selects any one of the images captured by the plurality of cameras based on the steering angle of the front wheel (sec 0042 and table 6; see steering angle on neutral, neither on the right or on the left). Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses work vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (display peripheral images of work vehicle body and worksite; figs. 1-9; col. 1, lines 42 to col. 2, lines 24; col. 3, lines 19-25), front wheels that are attached so as to be steerable to a front end part of the vehicle body (figs. 1-9; col. 4, lines 15-21); a cab (13, fig. 1; col. 3, lines 66 to col. 4, lines 6) that is supported by the vehicle body to be disposed on a rear side of the front wheel (13, fig. 1); a steering angle sensor (col. 2, lines 40-45) configured to detect a steering angle of the front wheel (col. 2, lines 40-45; col. 4, lines 15-21); a plurality of cameras that are provided on the vehicle body to image in different directions (col. 3, lines 19-25); a display (48, fig. 2) device that is provided in the cab (abstract; col. 1, lines 42-63; col. 5, lines 51; col. 8, lines 30-49); and a processor, wherein the processor selects any one of images captured by the plurality of cameras and outputs a signal for displaying the selected image on the display device (col. 9, lines 3 to col. 10, lines 24). Hayashi discloses a system for displaying a peripheral image, but did not particularly recite the limitation, “….processor selects any one of images captured by the plurality of cameras based on the steering angle of the front wheel…”. However, Coats discloses a system for displaying a peripheral image of a work vehicle including a vehicle body (display peripheral images of work vehicle body and worksite; figs. 1-9; sec 0019, 0021, 0026, 0034-0037), the system comprising: a processor (30, 40; figs. 2&4; sec 0033), wherein the processor selects any one of images captured (sec 0042 and table 6) by a plurality of cameras (sec 0034, 0042) based on a steering angle of a front wheel (sec 0042 and table 6), and outputs a signal for displaying the selected image on the display device (sec 0042 and table 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hayashi to include a processor, wherein the processor selects any one of images captured by a plurality of cameras, based on a steering angle of a front wheel, and outputs a signal for playing the selected image on the display device. Such a modification Hayashi by Coasts will provide improved collision avoidance because a wider angle of viewing obstacles around blinds spots and other areas that Hayashi may have missed since Hayashi does not account for obstacles on the right side and under the carriage of the vehicle as taught by (See Coats sec 0004). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 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. Claim 5 the system according to claim 1, wherein: the work vehicle includes a parking brake, and in a case where a command signal for releasing the parking brake is received, the processor selects any one of the images captured by the plurality of cameras based on the steering angle of the front wheel. Claim 6. The system according to claim 1, wherein: the vehicle body of the work vehicle includes a rear vehicle body and a front vehicle body that is swingably coupled to the rear vehicle body, the system further comprises an articulation angle sensor configured to detect an articulation angle of the front vehicle body with respect to the rear vehicle body, and the processor selects any one of the images captured by the plurality of cameras based on a sum of the steering angle and the articulation angle. Claim 7. A method for displaying a peripheral image of a work vehicle including a vehicle body, front wheels that are attached so as to be steerable to a front end part of the vehicle body, a steering angle sensor configured to detect a steering angle of the front wheel, a plurality of cameras that are provided on the vehicle body to image in different directions, and a display device, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring the steering angle of the front wheels detected by the steering angle sensor; selecting any one of images captured by the plurality of cameras based on the steering angle of the front wheel; and outputting a signal for displaying the selected image on the display device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the prior art below. US 20160257252 A1 US 10421400 B2 US 20180027179 A1 US 20200231210 A1 JP 2017046277 A EP 3272586 B1 Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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. /RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600242
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD OF CONTROLLING FUTURE BRAKING CAPACITY OF A VEHICLE TRAVELLING ALONG A ROAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597350
COLLISION ALERT DEVICE AND COLLISION ALERT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594682
WIRE-BODY FIXING MEMBER, WIRE-BODY-EXTENSION FIXING MEMBER, AND WIRE-BODY FITTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582490
REAL TIME IMAGE GUIDED PORTABLE ROBOTIC INTERVENTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583334
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PREDICT AND APPLY REGENERATIVE BRAKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+3.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 963 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month