DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on December 5, 2024, and claims foreign priority to JP2023-211083, filed in Japan on December 14, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (see the certified copy received on January 15, 2025), and thus the effective filing date is December 14, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges two Information Disclosure Statements submitted on December 5, 2024 and July 24, 2025, respectively. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-6 are pending in the case; Claim 1 is an independent claim. This action is made non-final.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action.
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) 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: “a detection value receiver configured to …,” “a limit value manager configured to …,” “an urgency degree calculator configured to …,” and “a state quantity display section to display …,” in Claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/0196643 A1), Figs. 5 and 6 (elements 51, 71, and 72), ¶¶ 0030-31, 0039-48) describing components of a control unit 5, but as discussed with respect to § 112(b) rejection (see below), it is not clear what these components are structurally). For the purposes of examination, these components are being considered as computing components (implemented in hardware or in a combination of hardware and software) (see also discussion of § 112(b), below).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
A state quantity display system for displaying a quantity of a state of a work vehicle, the state quantity display system comprising:
a detection value receiver configured to receive information on a detection value of a state quantity of each of a plurality of components of a work vehicle;
a limit value manager configured to manage at least one limit value associated with the state quantity;
an urgency degree calculator configured to normalize the detection value based on the at least one limit value to calculate a notification-urgency degree; and
a display controller configured to select from among the detection values a first detection value for which the notification-urgency degree is highest and cause a state quantity display section to display the first detection value.
Step 1 – Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a system (a machine) thus it falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mathematical concepts and/or mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one, of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a judicial exception in terms of “mathematical concepts” and/or “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are “mathematical calculations” and/or can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) and (a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of managing limit values, normalizing the detection value based on a limit value to calculate a notification-urgency degree. These steps, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical calculations and/or cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (or by a human using a pen and paper). Nothing in the claim, other than a nominal recitation of “manager” or ”calculator” precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind (or by using a pen and paper). For example, the claim encompasses a person normalizing detected values based on limit values and comparing such values to determine the highest value.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept and/or a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two evaluation – Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the receiving and displaying steps, but these appear to be insignificant extra solution activities because they are recited at a high level of generality and amount to “gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result.” The recitation of “a limit value manager” and “an urgency degree calculator” (see § 112(f) Interpretation, above regarding interpreting these limitations as computing components), merely automates the recited managing, normalizing, and calculating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea2.
Step 2B – Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong two, above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity or merely using a computer to apply the abstract idea, thus the same analysis applies here in 2B. With respect to “a limit value manager” and “an urgency degree calculator,” mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). With respect to the receiving and displaying steps, these are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or whether they amount to more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The instant Specification does not provide any indication that receiving of detection value information, or selecting a value to display, is anything other than a conventional data being acquired, processed, and displayed in a vehicle display system, and the courts have recognized “necessary data gathering and outputting” (Mayo) and/or “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” (Electric Power Group) are activities that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or amount to field of use and technological environment (see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (g-h)). There are no improvements of a computer or a technical field recited in the claim and there is no particular transformation of one thing into another. See MPEP § 2106.05(a-e).
Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible under § 101.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-5, these claims are directed to the state quantity display system (Step 1: Yes) and they recite subject matter that falls within “mathematical concepts” and/or “mental processes” grouping (Step 2A, prong one), but they do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” (Step 2A, prong two) and do not recite additional elements that add an inventive concept to the claims (Step 2B). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under § 101. The respective dependent claims recite additional features further describing the limit values (Claim 2), graphical display of the detection value (Claims 3 and 4), and components for which the detection values are received (Claim 5), but even in combination, the additional elements recited in these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For example, Claim 3 recites “to display the first detection value in a graphic form indicative of a relation between the detection value and the first limit value…,” but this is still recited at a high level of generality and amounts merely “displaying the result”, similar to the “cause a state quantity display section to display the first detection value” of Claim 1 which is only describing an insignificant post-solution activity and/or field of use.
With respect to Claim 6, this claim is directed to a work vehicle comprising a state quantity display system according to Claim 1 (Step 1: Yes), but is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1, above, as “work vehicle” is interpreted as generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under § 101.
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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 1-6, independent Claim 1 recites limitations “a detection value receiver configured to …,” “a limit value manager configured to …,” “a state quantity display section to display …,”and “an urgency degree calculator configured to …,” and these limitations appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform these functions. It is noted that the instant Specification illustrates the detection value receiver as an input-output processor (element 51) and the limit value manager and the urgency degree calculator as components of a state quantity display unit (see element 7), which are all illustrated as being a part of a control unit (element 5), but there does not appear to be any explicit disclosure or requirement that the control unit (and similarly, the state quantity display unit) is implemented, at least in part, in hardware (see Specification (as published in US 2025/0196643 A1), Figs. 5 and 6, ¶¶ 0030-31, 0039-48), thus a skilled artisan would not be able to readily understand which structure (or structures) are required to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, Claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Dependent Claims 2-6 fail to cure the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus also rejected under § 112(b) under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oltheten et al. (hereinafter Oltheten), US 2014/0246537 A1, published on September 4, 2014.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Oltheten teaches a state quantity display system for displaying a quantity of a state of a work vehicle, the state quantity display system comprising:
a detection value receiver configured to receive information on a detection value of a state quantity of each of a plurality of components of a work vehicle (see Figs. 3 (element 310), 6 (“Inputs”), ¶¶ 0020-21, showing receiving multiple sensor inputs for corresponding components).
a limit value manager configured to manage at least one limit value associated with the state quantity (see Fig. 3 (element 320), ¶¶ 0023-25, 0042, showing a prioritization criterion for determining the most important/urgent measurement, such as the highest temperature in relevant components, as well as determining other thresholds regarding the measurements).
an urgency degree calculator configured to normalize the detection value based on the at least one limit value to calculate a notification-urgency degree (see Figs. 3 (element 340), 6 (element 620), ¶¶ 0023, 0025-26, 0042-43, showing that a determination is made based on the prioritization criterion, such as selecting the measurement with the highest value as the most important measurement).
a display controller configured to select from among the detection values a first detection value for which the notification-urgency degree is highest and cause a state quantity display section to display the first detection value (see Figs. 3 (element 350), 5B, ¶¶ 0027, 0029, showing that information representative of the measurement for the selected component is displayed; see also Fig. 6 (element 630), ¶¶ 0033-34, showing the output engine).
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.
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.
8. Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltheten.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Oltheten discloses the state quantity display system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Oltheten does not appear to explicitly disclose “a second limit value for a stop of the component,” Oltheten at least suggests recognizing and utilizing upper limits and normal operating levels of inputs, where such limits are based on operating condition of the vehicle (see ¶¶ 0021-22) such that the vehicle operator would be able to determine the quantity and/or the state of any given input, and would readily be able to determine whether a value is within a normal operating range (i.e., less than or equal to a first limit value), or approaching an upper limit (see Fig. 5). A skilled artisan would understand that a gauge/dial (see Fig. 5) displaying a state quantity of a vehicle component, such as displaying a temperature of a component, could be presented in a manner that clearly correlates different limit values with the state quantity in order to allow the user to readily determine a status of a given measurement (see ¶¶ 0031-32). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify a particular gauge with a desired design when considering Oltheten in order to present and correlate different limit values with respect to the quantity/state of a corresponding input (see ¶¶ 0031-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Oltheten discloses the state quantity display system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Oltheten does not appear to explicitly discuss wherein: the plurality of components comprises at least two of a battery, a motor, an inverter, a cooler, and a hydraulic device, and the state quantity is a temperature of each of the at least two components, Oltheten makes it clear that performance of various components can be monitored, and that a measurement of component performance may include any measurement indicative or performance of the component (see ¶¶ 0014, 0030). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would understand that various components can be monitored (for any measurable parameter), and that a particular selection of such components would be a design choice. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the information displayed on the gauges to include data from different components, such as a battery, a motor, a hydraulic device, etc., when considering Oltheten in order to present relevant values to the user in the efficient manner as suggested by Oltheten (see ¶¶ 0030-32).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, while Oltheten illustrates that the “single-gauge monitoring” is implemented in a rotorcraft, Oltheten clearly suggests that the system described therein can be implemented in other vehicles (see ¶ 0013), and a skilled artisan would understand that there is nothing in Oltheten that would preclude the “single-gauge monitoring” described therein from being implemented in a work vehicle, or any other vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to monitor any desired detection value of such vehicle, because the “single-gauge monitoring” takes up less space and allows the operator to monitor less gauges (see ¶¶ 0031-32).
9. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltheten in view of Voto et al. (hereinafter Voto), US 6,441,726 B1, issued on August 27, 2002.
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Oltheten teaches the state quantity display system according to claim 2, as discussed above, and at least suggests wherein: the display controller causes the state quantity display section to display the first detection value in a graphic form (see Fig. 5B (element 500)) and while Oltheten does not appear to explicitly illustrate [the graphic form] indicative of a relation between the detection value and the first limit value and a relation between the detection value and a second limit value, a skilled artisan would understand that the “gauge 500” displayed in Oltheten could be modified to display a particular design of a desired gauge, and that such gauge could explicitly indicate or distinguish different values or ranges on the gauge, as illustrated by the teachings of Voto (see also discussion of Claim 2, above).
Voto is directed towards a configurable warning system for a vehicle instrument cluster (see Voto, Abstract, col. 1, lines 7-10). Voto teaches that a temperature gauge can have two or more indicator bands indicating when the temperature is within a desired operating range and when it exceeds the desired operating range (see Voto, Fig. 2, col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 25, further teaching that the bands can be color coded and that an indicator can be provided to indicate that the temperature is dangerously high (i.e., a stop value)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, with a reasonable expectation of success, at the time the instant Application was filed, to incorporate the gauge described in Voto in the single-gauge monitoring of Oltheten, in order provide an effective warning and monitoring system for the vehicle operator (see Voto, col. 1, lines 39-64).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Oltheten in view of Voto teaches the state quantity display system according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further teaches, under the same rationale to combine as discussed above, wherein: the graphic form is a gauge chart comprising a first range and a second range, the first range extending to the first limit value and having a first color, the second range extending from the first limit value to the second limit value and having a second color different from the first color (see Voto, Fig. 2, col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 25).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Shirasaki et al. (US 4,442,424), suggesting displaying different indicators based on the detected values, such as enlarging the corresponding data display when a threshold is met (see Figs. 5-7, col. 8, line 47 – col. 9, line 20). See also Hoffman et al. (US 5,374,917), suggesting programmable gauges for various indicators having different levels/limits (see Figs. 3-4, col. 7, line 58 – col. 8, line 9). See also Hauler et al. (US 6,721,634 B1), suggesting adjusting of the display data based on the ascertained max scale values (see Figs. 9-10, col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 5, col. 9, line 21 – col. 10, line 63). See also Shimizu (US 2016/0265196 A1), suggesting display of different indicators and corresponding priority levels, based on detected abnormalities (see Figs. 8, 9, ¶ 0063).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 It is noted that Claim 1 also recites “a display controller configured to…” but this is not interpreted under § 112(f) because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what a controller is and that it provides a sufficient structure. With respect to “a detection value receiver,” while a skilled artisan could interpret a receiver as an antenna or a transceiver (which would be well known structures), it is not clear that the recited term uses the “receiver” structurally (instead, it appears to simply describe a function).
2 It is noted that incorporating an explicit vehicle control into the claim (to act in response to the first detection value, such as stopping the work vehicle when the first detection value reaches a warning level (see Specification (as published), ¶¶ 0009, 0048)), would be considered as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, and would thus render the claim eligible under § 101.