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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on December 9, 2024. Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/09/2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) 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: “a vehicle state detecting section configured to detect...”, “an abnormality detecting section configured to detect...”, “an abnormal state determination section configured to determine...”, and “an output period pattern determination section configured to determine...” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: various sensors (e.g., an engine sensor, a shift sensor, an operation detection sensor, a driver sensor) as a vehicle state detecting section; and the control unit 5 including various functional sections as an abnormality detecting section, an abnormal state determination section, and an output period pattern determination section. These functional sections are achieved by software, hardware, or both of them (see Fig. 3 and specification at para. [0017]-[0019]).
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. Note, Applicant may incorporate claims 18 and 23 into independent claims 1 and 13, respectively, to remove the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0025560; hereinafter, “Matsuzaki”) in view of Ito (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192097).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuzaki discloses a work vehicle (Figs. 1-3, work vehicle is a tractor), comprising:
a vehicle state detecting section configured to detect a vehicle state and output a state detecting signal (e.g., para. [0025]: a tractor/work vehicle including “a group of travelling work state detection sensors 8” connected to the input processing unit 7B. The sensors detect vehicle body states and travel states including “vehicle speed, a transmission state, an inclination of the vehicle body, and a residual fuel quantity”, as well as work-system and engine-system states. These sensors provide state signals to the controlling unit 5);
an abnormality detecting section configured to detect a vehicle abnormality based on the state detecting signal (e.g., para. [0028]: “an abnormality processing module 60” configured to control abnormalities occurring during travelling work based on signals received from the various detection sensors);
an abnormal state determination section configured to determine an abnormal state of the vehicle abnormality thus detected (e.g., para. [0030]: discloses determining both an “early abnormality” and an “actual abnormality that is more serious than the early abnormality”);
an output period pattern determination section configured to determine one output period pattern based on the abnormal state (e.g., para. [0030]: notifications of abnormalities may be distinguished using “a drive pattern of the lamps and the buzzer, such as different intermittent drive intervals”); and
an acoustic device a notification device 73 including a speaker and buzzer drive signal used for abnormality notification).
Matsuzaki fails to explicitly disclose determining one output period pattern from a plurality of output period patterns of simple audible sound, based on the abnormal state, and repeatedly outputting the simple audible sound based on the one output period pattern determined by the output period pattern determination section as abnormality notification sound.
However, Ito is in the field of vehicle control apparatus (para. [0001]) and teaches: determine one output period pattern from a plurality of output period patterns of simple audible sound, based on the abnormal state (discloses multiple warning sound patterns having different repetition periods depending on the abnormal state, including a single warning sound (para. [0110]); repeated warning sounds with a 0.7 second period (para. [0113]); repeated warning sounds with a 0.4 second period (para. [0126]); and repeated warning sounds with a 0.2 second period (para. [0131])), and
repeatedly output the simple audible sound based on the one output period pattern determined by the output period pattern determination section as abnormality notification sound (see e.g., para. [0113], [0121], [0127], [0132]: speaker 70 repeatedly generates warning sounds according to the selected warning sound patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multiple periodic warning sound patterns of Ito into the abnormality notification system of Matsuzaki in order to provide distinguishable audible notifications corresponding to different abnormality severities, thereby improving operators’ situational awareness, sense of urgency, and safety response.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuzaki discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1. Matsuzaki discloses the notifications of abnormalities can be distinguished with a drive pattern of lamps and the buzzer, such as different intermittent drive intervals (para. [0030]), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of output period patterns each define an output time and a stopping time of the simple audible sound in a repetition period.
However, Ito is in the field of vehicle control apparatus (para. [0001]) and teaches: wherein: the plurality of output period patterns each define an output time and a stopping time of the simple audible sound in a repetition period (discloses repeated warning sound patterns having defined repetition periods, including warning sounds repeatedly generated with periods of 0.7 second (para. [0113]); 0.4 second (para. [0126]), and 0.2 second (para. [0131]). These intermittent repeated warning patterns implicitly include sound ON periods (output times) and sound OFF periods (stopping times) within each repetition cycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the periodic intermittent warning sound patterns of Ito into the buzzer notification system of Matsuzaki in order to provide distinguishable audible notifications patterns corresponding to different abnormality conditions and improve operator recognition of warning severity.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuzaki discloses the work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein: the vehicle state comprises a vehicle driving state, a vehicle operation state, vehicle driving states and vehicle operation states are detected by the travel system sensors, work-system sensors, and engine-system sensors; para. [0029]: determining whether the vehicle is operated in unmanned or manned mode using the automatic/manual switch and seat switch), and
discloses notifying both the driver and a supervisor thorough the notification device 73; para. [0030]: notifying abnormalities outside the work vehicle).
Matsuzaki fails to explicitly disclose driver state monitoring and adjusting sound volume based on abnormality severity.
However, Ito is in the field of vehicle control apparatus (para. [0001]) and teaches: driver states including distracted state and abnormality state determined by VCECU 20 (para. [0106]-[0144]), and adjusting sound volume based on abnormality severity (para. [0113], [0126], [0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the driver state monitoring of Ito into the work vehicle abnormality control system of Matsuzaki in order to improve safety by detecting abnormal driver conditions in addition to vehicle operating conditions. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to increase the audible notification intensity or volume for higher severity abnormal states in the combined system so that serious abnormalities could be recognized by nearby personnel outside the vehicle, thereby improving safety and emergency responsiveness.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuzaki in view of Ito discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the abnormal state comprises a type of the vehicle abnormality and an abnormality level of the vehicle abnormality (Matsuzaki discloses different types of abnormalities associated with travel systems, work-systems, engine-systems through various sensors (para. [0025]) and distinguishing between an “early abnormality” and an “actual abnormality that is more serious than the early abnormality” (para. [0030]), thereby teaching abnormality levels; Ito discloses progressively escalating abnormal conditions and warning stages, including distracted state and abnormality state, with corresponding increasing warning intensities, para. [0111]-[0135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify abnormalities by both type and severity level in order to provide differentiated warning responses and improve the effectiveness of abnormality notification and vehicle safety management.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuzaki discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1. Matsuzaki discloses distinguishing between early abnormalities and more serious actual abnormalities (para. [0030]) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the abnormal state comprises a notification priority level, and an abnormal state with a highest notification priority level is notified preferentially.
However, Ito is in the field of vehicle control apparatus (para. [0001]) and teaches: wherein: the abnormal state comprises a notification priority level, and an abnormal state with a highest notification priority level is notified preferentially (para. [0107]-[0135]: discloses progressively stronger notifications corresponding to increasingly severe abnormality states, including first alert notifications, second alert notifications, first warnings, second warnings, and third warnings, thereby teaching prioritization of higher-severity abnormal states).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification priority levels of Ito into the buzzer notification system of of Matsuzaki in order to prioritize notifications associated with more severe abnormal states in order to ensure that the most urgent safety conditions receive immediate operator attention and response.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuzaki discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a display device configured to display a code or a message indicative of the abnormal state generating display signals and buzzer drive signals for abnormality notification).
Matsuzaki fails to explicitly disclose display a code or a message indicative of the abnormal state at the same time that the simple audible sound is output.
However, Ito is in the field of vehicle control apparatus (para. [0001]) and teaches: a display device configured to display a code or a message indicative of the abnormal state at the same time that the simple audible sound is output (see e.g., para. [0108], [0111], [0121], [0127], [0132]: discloses simultaneously displaying warning screen images/messages while outputting warning sounds through the speaker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneous visual and audible abnormality notifications as taught by Ito into the system of Matsuzaki in order to improve operator awareness and ensure reliable recognition of abnormal conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuzaki discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the acoustic device is a buzzer (e.g., para. [0030]: “a buzzer drive signal” for abnormality notification).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Takano (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0015827) discloses a vehicle warning control apparatus for sounding a horn of a vehicle when a drive has fallen into an abnormal state in which the driver loses an ability to drive the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights