DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed November 4th, 2025. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 4th, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 4th, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body” in lines 6-7 of the claim which presents an antecedent basis issue as claim 1 also recites “a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body” in line 3 of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: “detection unit that detects a slip of a traveling body” in claims 1-3, “a first movement amount estimation unit that outputs a first value” and “a second movement amount estimation unit that estimates a second value” in claim 2, and “a control unit that outputs a control signal” in claims 6, 12, and 13.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “detection unit that detects a slip of a traveling body”, “a first movement amount estimation unit that outputs a first value”, “a second movement amount estimation unit that estimates a second value”, and “a control unit that outputs a control signal” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only recitation of a “detection unit” is in paragraph 0005 of the specification which recites “According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a work vehicle detection system includes a detection unit that detects a slip of a traveling body of a work vehicle based on vehicle body data including at least a value related to power of the traveling body and a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body” which is insufficient for a showing of corresponding structure. The closest the specification gets to reciting structure for the first and second movement amount estimation units is in page 15 paragraph 0029 which states that a “processor 410 includes… a first movement amount estimation unit 414, a slip determination unit 416, and an output unit 417 by executing a program” and FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 shows that the processor 410 includes the second movement amount estimation unit 415. The examiner notes that this is insufficient for a showing of corresponding structure as paragraph 0029 of the specification implies that the first and second movement amount estimation units are programs that are executed rather than hardware components of the processor 410. The closest the original disclosure gets to reciting structure for the control unit is FIG. 7, which shows that the processor 410 includes the control unit 418. The examiner notes that this is insufficient for a showing of corresponding structure as paragraph 0029 of the specification implies that the components of the processor 410 are programs that are executed rather than hardware components of the processor 410. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the determination unit, the first movement amount estimation unit, the second movement amount estimation unit, and the control unit are all general computer components that are programmed to perform the steps of the invention.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of system.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The system of claim 1 is performing a mental process and mathematical calculation. The mental process of claim 1 merely consists of detecting a slip of a traveling body of a work vehicle based on vehicle body data including at least a value related to power of the traveling body and a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body which under its BRI consists of comparing the desired speed and motion of a vehicle as calculated from a rotational speed of the wheels and calculating the difference between it and the actual speed and motion of the vehicle to determine if the vehicle is slipping. For example, a college graduate in mechanical engineering can take known and received values of the vehicle’s wheel circumference and wheel rotational speed to calculate the speed the vehicle is traveling and compare it to the vehicle’s actual speed and determine that the vehicle is slipping if the two values are not the same.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional element of [a] work vehicle detection system comprising a detection unit which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely indicating the field of use of the claimed mental process and mathematical calculations. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely limiting the abstract idea of detecting the slip of a vehicle to a work vehicle with a detection unit.
Step 2b:
The additional element of [a] work vehicle detection system comprising a detection unit, which was considered mere indication of field of use in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is merely indicating that the abstract idea be applied to a specific field of use. For example, the MPEP provides that “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)”. See MPEP 2106.01(h)(iii) “Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199”.
Claims 2-13 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same abstract ideas of claim 1 but with the additional elements of a first movement amount estimation unit that outputs a first value related to a movement amount of the traveling body by inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output a value related to a movement amount from the vehicle body data; and a second movement amount estimation unit that estimates a second value related to a movement amount of the traveling body based on a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as these are merely indication of a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same abstract ideas of claim 1 but with the additional mathematical calculation step of the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a value obtained by inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output presence or absence of the slip of the traveling body from the vehicle body data.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 9, claims 4, 8, and 9 recite the same abstract ideas of claims 1, 2, and 3 but with the additional element of the vehicle body data further includes a value related to a state of a work machine of the work vehicle which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant pre-solution activity of limiting the type of data being manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 11, claims 5, 10, and 11 recite the same abstract ideas of claims 1, 2, and 3 but with the additional element of the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant pre-solution activity of limiting the source of data being manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 13, claims 6, 12, and 13 recite the same abstract ideas of claims 1, 2, and 3 but with the additional element of a control unit that outputs a control signal of the work vehicle based on a detection result of the slip which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of computers of receiving and transmitting signals. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same abstract ideas of claim 1 but with the is in the statutory category of method.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-13 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
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.
(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, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eastman; Briton T. (US Pub. No. 20240017727 A1), herein after Eastman.
Regarding claim 1, Eastman recites [a] work vehicle detection system comprising a detection unit that detects a slip of a traveling body of a work vehicle based on vehicle body data including at least a value related to power of the traveling body and a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body (examiner interprets that the "value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body" can include the rotation speed of the wheels of the traveling body) (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate; Para. 0038, teaching the actual vehicle speed measurement can be measured by a work vehicle movement monitoring system that uses data from global positioning systems or ground radar systems; and Para. 0050, teaching that the predicted vehicle speed measurement can be based on the predicted vehicle wheel rotational speed as supplied to the wheels of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Eastman remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle body data further includes a value related to a state of a work machine of the work vehicle (Eastman: Para. 0051, teaching that the actual vehicle speed measurement and predicted vehicle speed measurement required are based on an assumption that the vehicle is in operation).
Regarding claim 6, Eastman remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, comprising a control unit that outputs a control signal of the work vehicle based on a detection result of the slip (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 recites [a] work vehicle detection method comprising a step of detecting a slip of a traveling body of a work vehicle based on vehicle body data including at least a value related to power of the traveling body and a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body (examiner interprets that the "value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body" can include the rotation speed of the wheels of the traveling body) (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate; Para. 0038, teaching the actual vehicle speed measurement can be measured by a work vehicle movement monitoring system that uses data from global positioning systems or ground radar systems; and Para. 0050, teaching that the predicted vehicle speed measurement can be based on the predicted vehicle wheel rotational speed as supplied to the wheels of the vehicle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Heo et al. (US Pub. No. 20200277750 A1), herein after Heo.
Regarding claim 2, Eastman remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, comprising: a first movement amount estimation unit that outputs a first value related to a movement amount of the traveling body by inputting the vehicle body data to a [calculation] to output a value related to a movement amount from the vehicle body data; and a second movement amount estimation unit that estimates a second value related to a movement amount of the traveling body based on a value related to a rotation speed of the traveling body (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate; Para. 0038, teaching the actual vehicle speed measurement can be measured by a work vehicle movement monitoring system that uses data from global positioning systems or ground radar systems; and Para. 0050, teaching that the predicted vehicle speed measurement can be based on the predicted vehicle wheel rotational speed as supplied to the wheels of the vehicle).
Eastman is silent to inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output a value related to a movement amount from the vehicle body data; and wherein the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a deviation between the first value and the second value.
In a similar field, Heo teaches a first movement amount estimation unit that outputs a first value related to a movement amount of the traveling body by inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output a value related to a movement amount from the vehicle body data (Heo: Para. 0094, teaching that data from the sensors of a work vehicle that collect vehicle speed and traction force of the tire are used as learning data for determining tire slip using a neural network) for the benefit of improving the accuracy prediction of tire slip.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the detection of wheel slip from Eastman to utilize a neural network trained to predict wheel slip, as taught by Heo, for the benefit of improving the accuracy prediction of tire slip.
Eastman in view of Heo are silent to wherein the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a deviation between the first value and the second value.
In a similar field, Tsukamoto teaches wherein the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a deviation between the first value and the second value (Tsukamoto: Para. 0064, teaching comparing the speed of a vehicle to the rotational speed given to the wheels and determining if slip has occurred based on a vehicle speed not being obtainable but the wheels are rotating with a rotational speed) for the benefit of improving detection of wheel slip.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the wheel slip detection based on vehicle speed and wheel rotation speed from Eastman in view of Heo by detecting the wheel slip by comparing the vehicle speed and wheel rotation speed, as taught by Tsukamoto, for the benefit of improving detection of wheel slip.
Regarding claim 8, Eastman, Heo, and Tsukamoto remain as applied as in claim 2, and Eastman goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle body data further includes a value related to a state of a work machine of the work vehicle (Eastman: Para. 0051, teaching that the actual vehicle speed measurement and predicted vehicle speed measurement required are based on an assumption that the vehicle is in operation).
Regarding claim 12, Eastman, Heo, and Tsukamoto remain as applied as in claim 2, and Eastman goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 2, comprising a control unit that outputs a control signal of the work vehicle based on a detection result of the slip (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate).
Claims 3, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heo.
Regarding claim 3, Eastman remains as applied as in claim 1, however Eastman is silent to [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a value obtained by inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output presence or absence of the slip of the traveling body from the vehicle body data.
In a similar field, Heo teaches [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a slip of the traveling body based on a value obtained by inputting the vehicle body data to a learned model learned to output presence or absence of the slip of the traveling body from the vehicle body data (Heo: Para. 0094, teaching that data from the sensors of a work vehicle that collect vehicle speed and traction force of the tire are used as learning data for determining tire slip using a neural network) for the benefit of improving the accuracy prediction of tire slip.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the detection of wheel slip from Eastman to utilize a neural network trained to predict wheel slip, as taught by Heo, for the benefit of improving the accuracy prediction of tire slip.
Regarding claim 9, Eastman and Heo remain as applied as in claim 3, and Eastman goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 3, wherein the vehicle body data further includes a value related to a state of a work machine of the work vehicle (Eastman: Para. 0051, teaching that the actual vehicle speed measurement and predicted vehicle speed measurement required are based on an assumption that the vehicle is in operation).
Regarding claim 13, Eastman and Heo remain as applied as in claim 3, and Eastman goes on to further teach [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 3, comprising a control unit that outputs a control signal of the work vehicle based on a detection result of the slip (Eastman: Para. 0037, teaching determining for a work vehicle a difference between an actual vehicle speed measurement and a predicted vehicle speed measurement to detect slippage of a wheels and controlling the speed of the wheels to compensate).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurata et al. (US Pub. No. 20220192075 A1), herein after Kurata.
Regarding claim 5, Eastman remains as applied as in claim 1, however Eastman is silent to [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle.
In a similar field, Kurata teaches [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle (Kurata: Para. 0047, teaching the use of cameras to determine the position and speed of a work vehicle) for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the tire slip detection based on the vehicle’s speed and wheel rotation speed from Eastman to collect data regarding the vehicle’s location speed using cameras, as taught by Kurata, for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman in view of Heo in further view of Tsukamoto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kurata.
Regarding claim 10, Eastman, Heo, and Tsukamoto remain as applied as in claim 2, however they are silent to [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle.
In a similar field, Kurata teaches [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle (Kurata: Para. 0047, teaching the use of cameras to determine the position and speed of a work vehicle) for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the tire slip detection based on the vehicle’s speed and wheel rotation speed from Eastman in view of Heo in further view of Tsukamoto to collect data regarding the vehicle’s location speed using cameras, as taught by Kurata, for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman in view of Heo as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kurata.
Regarding claim 11, Eastman and Heo remain as applied as in claim 3, however they are silent to [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 3, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle.
In a similar field, Kurata teaches [t]he work vehicle detection system according to claim 3, wherein the vehicle body data further includes measurement data of an imaging device that images an outside of the work vehicle (Kurata: Para. 0047, teaching the use of cameras to determine the position and speed of a work vehicle) for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the tire slip detection based on the vehicle’s speed and wheel rotation speed from Eastman in view of Heo to collect data regarding the vehicle’s location speed using cameras, as taught by Kurata, for the benefit of being able to indirectly measure the state of the tire without needing internal sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asano et al. (US Patent No. 9823111 B2) teaches detecting a slip of a vehicle by comparing the deviation between a predicted yaw rate of a vehicle and the actual yaw rate of the vehicle.
Markkula; Gustav (US Pub. No. 20160001784 A1) teaches detecting a vehicle skidding by comparing the deviation between a predicted yaw rate of a vehicle and the actual yaw rate of the vehicle.
Sundaram et al. (US Pub. No. 20070260383 A1) teaches detecting a vehicle slipping based on a determination of the vehicle’s predicted speed and yaw rate and the actual vehicle speed and yaw rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
