DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claim is independent or dependent. The claim recites:
A work vehicle comprising
the display system according to Claim 1.
The fee worksheet received July 8, 2025 lists two independent claims, apparently referring to claims 1 and 12. But claim 11 is ambiguous regarding whether it is independent or dependent. By reciting at the beginning of the claim: “A work vehicle comprising”, the claim implies it is independent. But by then adding “according to claim 1” the claim implies it is dependent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make the claim unclear regarding its dependency.
For examination purposes, claim 11 will be interpreted as written. The fee worksheet should be redone if three independent claims are recited on amendment.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868).
Regarding claim 1, Ratajczak discloses:
A display system configured to display, on a display, positions of a work vehicle and one or more unmanned aerial vehicles that are flying around the work vehicle, the display system comprising (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.):
a processor configured or programmed to (see paragraph 0100 for all the modules disclosed having a processor)
obtain position information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the position of the delivery truck 110 shown as an arrow. See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV being item 150 on delivery route 320.), and
to display the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles in a field displayed on the display, based on the position information (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain speed information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraph 0074 for the system knowing “the speed in which the delivery truck 110 is travelling…and the UAV 150 is travelling”), and
based on the speed information, to display, in the field, movement directions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles together with the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV’s route 320 and the stops that the UAV will make in order. Since the order of the stops are known, the direction the UAV will fly along the movement directions of the UAV is displayed. See paragraph 0030 for showing the “airborne delivery route and the return destination route” See also Fig. 4 and paragraph 0073 for the movement direction (or “delivery route 330”) of the work vehicle.).
Regarding claim 5, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 2.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
sequentially obtain the position information and the speed information of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraph 0055 for continuously monitoring and updating the work truck and UAV position in real-time), and
sequentially update the display of the positions and the movement directions of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field (see paragraph 0055 for continuously monitoring and updating the UAV position in real-time).
Regarding claim 6, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraph 0053 for determining the battery life and range of the UAV. See paragraph 0090 for displaying the real-time range of the UAV.), and
based on the operation information, display the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field (see paragraph 0053 for determining the battery life and range of the UAV. See paragraph 0090 for displaying the real-time range of the UAV. See also paragraph 0093 for providing a “bubble displayed to the user” of the range of the UAV. See paragraph 0094 for the bubble radius representing the range of the UAV based on battery life.).
Regarding claim 7, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 6.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 6, wherein
the operating state includes at least one of
content of the work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle,
whether the unmanned aerial vehicle is flying in autonomous mode,
a remaining flight time of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or
a remaining energy of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for determining the battery life and range of the UAV. See paragraph 0090 for displaying the real-time range of the UAV. See also paragraph 0093 for providing a “bubble displayed to the user” of the range of the UAV. See paragraph 0094 for the bubble radius representing the range of the UAV based on battery life.).
Regarding claim 9, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
obtain information of a map of an area where the work vehicle is located (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0045 for obtaining a map),
generate a map image that overlays the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles on the map (see Fig. 3), and
display the map image in the field (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further discloses:
The display system according to Claim 1, further comprising
the display (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.).
Regarding claim 11, Ratajczak discloses:
A work vehicle comprising (see Fig. 2 for vehicle 110.)
the display system according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1. See also Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.).
Regarding claim 12, Ratajczak discloses:
A display method (see claim 11) in a system including a work vehicle and one or more unmanned aerial vehicles flying around the work vehicle, the display method comprising:
obtaining position information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the position of the delivery truck 110 shown as an arrow. See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV being item 150 on delivery route 320.); and
displaying positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles in a field shown on a display based on the position information (see Fig. 3).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868) in view of Dachi (JP2019/175312A).
Regarding claim 3, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to Claim 2.
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
display the position and the movement direction of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles with the position of the work vehicle as a center in the field.
However, Dachi teaches:
display the position and the movement direction of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles with the position of the work vehicle as a center in the field (see Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Dachi. The motivation for doing so would be to easily check and confirm the surrounding situation of the vehicle, as recognized by Dachi (see pages 5 and 6 of the applicant-provided English translation of Dachi).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868) in view of Downs (US2017/0277392).
Regarding claim 4, Ratajczak teaches the display system according to claim 2.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
display icons of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 for the icons 110 of the work vehicle and 150 of the UAV. See paragraph 0087 teaching that “several UAVs …may be associated with the delivery truck 110” such that more than one UAV launches from the truck.), and
arrows indicating the movement directions of the work vehicle (see Fig. 3 for icon 110.)
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
arrows indicating the movement directions of the examiner has double struck through this phrase to clearly show what the examiner is arguing is and is not taught by the cited prior art in the interest of a clear detailed action for compact prosecution.)
each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field.
However, Downs teaches:
arrows indicating the movement directions of
each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field (see Downs, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0019 for teaching that the arrows, such as arrow 124 is “an arrow…to indicate a direction of travel” of the UAV.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Downs. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the user to consult a single screen instead of separate screens to obtain the needed information, as recognized by Downs (see paragraph 0001).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868) in view of Cantrell et al. (US2019/0268720).
Regarding claim 8, Ratajczak discloses the display system according to claim 1.
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
output an alert to the display when any unmanned aerial vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the position of the work vehicle.
However, Cantrell teaches:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
output an alert to the display when any unmanned aerial vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the position of the work vehicle (see Figs. 3 and 6 and paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Cantrell. The motivation for doing so would be to promote human safety and comfort, as recognized by Cantrell (see paragraph 0003).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Lee et al. (US2018/0143627). Teaches battery life, direction, location, a map superimposed, and displaying the status of battery life on display.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hou (US2022/0170746). Teaches a least displaying an icon of a UAV position and an arrow indicating the route.
PNG
media_image3.png
622
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights