DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 10 December 2024. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent claims.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method, and claim 14 is directed to a display control system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong One
(Allowing a person to pick an item is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
(Viewing information for an item is practically implementable in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
A display control method that controls display information of an operation terminal, the display control method comprising: (Displaying on an operation terminal is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
causing a first screen of the operation terminal to display … a preregistered work vehicle (Displaying on an operation terminal is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). A work vehicle is a field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).)
causing a second screen of the operation terminal to display … (Displaying on an operation terminal is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and screens of a display which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein the predetermined information includes at least one of information related to a current surrounding environment of the work vehicle, information related to a current travel status of the work vehicle, and information related to a current work status of the work vehicle. (Viewing information for an item is practically implementable in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein a map is displayed on the first screen, and on the map, identification information of the work vehicle is displayed in a position that corresponds to a current position of the work vehicle. (Viewing information for an item is practically implementable in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein on the map, the identification information is displayed in a display mode that corresponds to a current state of the work vehicle. (Viewing information for an item is practically implementable in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein on the map, the display mode when the work vehicle is autonomously traveling and the display mode when the work vehicle has stopped autonomously traveling are different. (Viewing different information for an item is practically implementable in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein on the second screen, a capture image of a surrounding area of the work vehicle that has been captured by a camera installed on the work vehicle is displayed. (Displaying on a screen a captured image from a camera is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and a camera which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 8
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein on the map, an icon image each of a plurality of the preregistered work vehicles is displayed is displayed in a display mode corresponding to a current state of the work vehicle, and a capture image of a surrounding area of the work vehicle that has been captured by a camera installed on the work vehicle corresponding to the icon image that has been selected by the user from among a plurality of the icon images on the first screen is displayed on the second screen. (Displaying on a screen a captured image from a camera is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and a camera which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein on the first screen, identification information of a worker that has been preregistered with respect to the work vehicle is displayed in association with the identification information of the work vehicle. (Displaying on a screen is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and a camera which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein when the worker displayed on the first screen has been selected, an instruction screen that outputs a predetermined instruction to the worker is displayed. (Displaying on a screen is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and a camera which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 11
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the capture image is displayed such that a portion of a vehicle body of the work vehicle appears in the capture image. (Displaying on a screen is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites an operation terminal and a camera which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14
Similar analysis applies to claims 13 and 14, as claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan (US 2025/0093875 A1) hereinafter known as Radhakrishnan.
Regarding independent claim 1, Radhakrishnan teaches:
A display control method that controls display information of an operation terminal, the display control method comprising: (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 1 and ¶[0066]; Radhakrishnan teaches a terminal 400 (smartphone, tablet, PC).)
causing a first screen of the operation terminal to display a preregistered work vehicle so as to be selectable by a user; and (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 16 and ¶[0126]; Radhakrishnan teaches displaying preregistered vehicles with a map MP1.)
…
An embodiment of Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
causing a second screen of the operation terminal to display predetermined information related to the work vehicle that has been selected by the user. (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 17 and ¶[0127] and ¶[0132]; Radhakrishnan further teaches the user providing an input to start a recording of a new route.)
Radhakrishnan is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information of each vehicle to further a second screen to display information related to a work vehicle selected by the user. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow displaying additional information, as suggested by Radhakrishnan: ¶[0122].
Regarding claim 2, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 1.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein the predetermined information includes at least one of information related to a current surrounding environment of the work vehicle, information related to a current travel status of the work vehicle, and information related to a current work status of the work vehicle. (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 17 and ¶[0138]; Radhakrishnan teaches a live stream from one or more cameras.)
Regarding claim 3, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 1.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein a map is displayed on the first screen, and on the map, identification information of the work vehicle is displayed in a position that corresponds to a current position of the work vehicle. (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 16 and ¶[0127]; Radhakrishnan teaches selecting a work vehicle and displaying a map MP1. The map displays the position of the work vehicle.)
Regarding claim 4, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 3.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein on the map, the identification information is displayed in a display mode that corresponds to a current state of the work vehicle. (Radhakrishnan: ¶[0131]; Radhakrishnan teaches the display mode when the vehicle is traveling by recording positions.)
Regarding claim 5, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 4.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein on the map, the display mode when the work vehicle is autonomously traveling and the display mode when the work vehicle has stopped autonomously traveling are different. (Radhakrishnan: ¶[0130]-¶[0133]; Radhakrishnan teaches traveling mode and stopped mode.)
Regarding claim 6, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 1.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein on the second screen, a capture image of a surrounding area of the work vehicle that has been captured by a camera installed on the work vehicle is displayed. (Radhakrishnan: ¶[0138]; Radhakrishnan teaches the second screen including a live stream window.)
Regarding independent claim 13, Radhakrishnan teaches:
A display control method that controls display information of an operation terminal, the method comprising: (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 1 and ¶[0066]; Radhakrishnan teaches a terminal 400 (smartphone, tablet, PC).)
causing a first screen of the operation terminal to display a preregistered work vehicle; and (Radhakrishnan: Fig. 16 and ¶[0126]; Radhakrishnan teaches displaying preregistered vehicles with a map MP1.)
…
An embodiment of Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
causing a second screen of the operation terminal to display predetermined information related to the work vehicle if the work vehicle performing autonomous travel detects an obstacle, or if the work vehicle autonomously travels in a specific area. (Radhakrishnan: ¶[0161]; Radhakrishnan teaches autonomous travel in a specific area of a registered vehicle. Fig. 25 and ¶[0182] further teaches second screen.)
Radhakrishnan is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information of each vehicle to further a second screen to display information related to a work vehicle traveling in a specific area. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow displaying traveling information, as suggested by Radhakrishnan: ¶[0161] and ¶[0182].
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a display control system that performs the display control method of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Alalao (US 2020/0041994A1) hereinafter known as Alalao.
Regarding claim 7, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 6.
Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach but Alalao teaches:
wherein when the work vehicle detects an obstacle, a capture image among a plurality of capture images of the camera that includes the obstacle is identifiably displayed on the second screen. (Alalao: ¶[0253]; Alalao teaches capturing a video, indicating detected objects in the video, such as other vehicles, pedestrians, and objects.)
Radhakrishnan and Alalao are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information of each vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with further capturing an image of the obstacle as taught in Alalao. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Alalao because the combination would allow accentuating certain features depicted in the video, as suggested by Alalao: ¶[0237].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Tanabe (US 2017/0200332 A1) hereinafter known as Tanabe.
Regarding claim 8, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 3.
Radhakrishnan further teaches:
wherein on the map, an icon image … is displayed in a display mode corresponding to a current state of the work vehicle, and a capture image of a surrounding area of the work vehicle that has been captured by a camera installed on the work vehicle corresponding to the icon image that has been selected by the user from among a plurality of the icon images on the first screen is displayed on the second screen. (Radhakrishnan: Figs. 16-17 and ¶[0126] and ¶[0127] and ¶[0132]; Radhakrishnan teaches a map displaying the vehicle and a screen with the user providing an input to start a recording of a new route.)
Tanabe further teaches:
… each of a plurality of the preregistered work vehicles is displayed … (Tanabe: Fig. 7 and ¶[0073]; Tanabe teaches a map with a plurality of vehicles.)
Tanabe is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information for the vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with further a map that displays multiple vehicles as taught in Tanabe. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Tanabe because the combination would allow evaluating many ground vehicle in a specific region, as suggested by Tanabe: ¶[0028].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Carani (US 2008/0174485 A1) hereinafter known as Carani.
Regarding claim 9, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 3.
Carani further teaches:
wherein on the first screen, identification information of a worker that has been preregistered with respect to the work vehicle is displayed in association with the identification information of the work vehicle. (Carani: ¶[0075] and ¶[0087] and ¶[0089]; Carani teaches Assign People linking drivers and managers to tracking modem ids, vehicles, trucks, etc… and displaying.)
Carani is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information for the vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with further displaying the workers assigned to the vehicles as taught in Carani. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Carani because the combination would allow for a display that the operator configures to contain the necessary on one screen, as suggested by Carani: ¶[0087].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Carani in view of Roberts (US 2011/0300894 A1) hereinafter known as Roberts.
Regarding claim 10, Radhakrishnan in view of Carani further teaches the display control method according to claim 9.
Roberts further teaches:
wherein when the worker displayed on the first screen has been selected, an instruction screen that outputs a predetermined instruction to the worker is displayed. (Roberts: ¶[0038] and ¶[0048] and ¶[0066]; Roberts teaches selecting a driver and dispatching an assignment through an instruction screen. The MDT further shows the new assignment screen.)
Roberts is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information for the vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with allowing to select a worker and dispatching instructions as taught in Roberts. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Roberts because the combination would allow a system to wirelessly dispatch assignments to drivers of the fleet with a click of a mouse, as suggested by Roberts: ¶[0026].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Matsuzaki (US 2024/0341215 A1) hereinafter known as Matsuzaki.
Regarding claim 11, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 6.
Matsuzaki further teaches:
wherein the capture image is displayed such that a portion of a vehicle body of the work vehicle appears in the capture image. (Matsuzaki: Fig. 11A and ¶[0145]; Matsuzaki teaches displaying a portion of the vehicle.)
Matsuzaki is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information for the vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with displaying a portion of the vehicle in the image as taught in Matsuzaki. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Matsuzaki because the combination would allowing the user to identify the portion of the vehicle, as suggested by Matsuzaki: ¶[0145].
Regarding claim 12, Radhakrishnan further teaches the display control method according to claim 1.
Matsuzaki further teaches:
wherein when a switching request to a remote operation mode has been received by the operation terminal from a user, and a predetermined operation has been received by a remote operation device that can be remotely operated from a user in a state where a capture image of a surrounding area of the work vehicle that has been captured by a camera installed on the work vehicle is being displayed, the display control method switches to the remote operation mode. (Matsuzaki: Fig. 11A and ¶[0146]-¶[0147]; Matsuzaki teaches the displayed image includes a button for instructing to start remote maneuver and then perform the operation instructed by the user’s operation.)
Matsuzaki is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling work vehicles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a mobile terminal to control work vehicles which has a first screen displaying the status information for the vehicle and a second screen to displaying a live feed from multiple cameras as taught in Radhakrishnan with initiating remote mode as taught in Matsuzaki. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Radhakrishnan to include teachings of Matsuzaki because the combination would allow the user to check a state of surroundings of the work vehicle and start remote operation if necessary while viewing the displayed images, as suggested by Matsuzaki: ¶[0144].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights