DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 8/15/2025.
In the amendment Claims 1 and 3-8 remain pending. Claim 2 remains canceled. Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 with cited references of Onishi (U.S. Pub 2020/0053321) in view of Byrnes (U.S. Pub 2022/0050455) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following grammatical error: The claims recite “…working protion…”, instead of “portion”, which is a spelling error. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims recite “enable recognition” & “visually and easily recognize”, however one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine what image resolution, frame rate, field of view, image processing or display size and/or configuration would enable recognition, has the specification lacks such disclosure. Thus, recognition is a subjective user experience that describes user perception that depends on numerous factors such as operator training, experience, vision characteristics etc., in addition user perception is not reproducible or objectively measurable. Enablement requires how to build the system versus operator making good decisions from display analysis.
7. Dependent claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claims.
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.
8. Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 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.
The claims recite: “…at least some of the imaging devices partially are overlapped with each other…” & “…enable an operator of the remote operation device to recognize…” & “…to visually and easily recognize a working portion…”
However, these terms are ambiguous has used in the claims. It is unclear how the ranges are determined to be overlapped with each other. The claims lack any algorithm to determine overlap of ranges, for example: is it based on a minimum threshold that defines a substantial shared viewing area or a minimal overlap wherein cameras barely see the same area? In addition, reciting “at least some” does not clarify which cameras must overlap.
Furthermore, enabling the operator to recognize a relative position & to visually and easily recognize is vague and impossible to determine. No technical structure is provided has “enabling” is based on operator decision. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
9. Dependent claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, because they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 and Dependent claims 3-4 and 6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 5 recite “A work assisting system including a work machine…” (i.e., machine). While Claims 7 and 8 recite “A method for selecting an imaging device…” (i.e., process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claim 7 recites similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites:
A work assisting system including a work machine, a remote operation device for remotely operating the work machine, a plurality of imaging devices which are placed at predetermined positions in a work site, and a work assisting server which has mutual communication function with each of the work machine, the remote operation device, and the imaging devices the work assisting system comprising:
A display device provided at the remote operation device and configured to display a selected captured image from among respective captured images from the plurality of imaging devices [Apply it, 2106.05(f)],
One or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, the one or more processor execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the work assisting server to: receive respective captured images from the plurality of imaging devices, wherein each imaging device has an imaging range and the imaging ranges of at least some of the imaging devices partially are overlapped with each other [extra solution activity, data gathering 2106.05(g)];
Select from among the plurality of imaging devices, candidate imaging devices in which a position of the work machine is included in the imaging range defined from a preset viewing angle of each of the plurality of imaging devices, and causes the candidate imaging devices to transmit respective captured images thereof to the work assisting server [Apply it, 2106.05(f)];
Determine an actual movement of the work machine based on at least one of a position and a size of the work machine included in the respective captured images from the candidate imaging devices [mental process/step];
Determine a plurality of selected imaging device from among the candidate imaging devices, wherein the determination of the selected imaging device is based on the selected imaging device having an imaging range including an optimal direction or size of the work machine based on the actual movement of the work machine, wherein the selected imaging devices provide images, as the selected captured images, which enable an operator of the remote operation device to recognize a relative position of the work machine and to visually and easily recognize working portion of the work machine when a change in work content occurs [mental process/step];
Cause the selected imaging device to provide the captured image thereof to the plurality of display devices [Apply it, 2106.05(f)];
Receive control input from the remote operation device based on actuation of a remote operation lever of the remote operation device by the operator of the remote operation device in view of the captured image being displayed on the plurality of display device [Apply it, 2106.05(f)]; and
control the work machine according to the control input received from the remote operation device [Apply it, 2106.05(f)].
Independent claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claim 8 recites similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 recites:
A work assisting system including a work machine, a remote operation device for remotely operating the work machine, a plurality of imaging devices which are placed at predetermined positions in a work site to image a captured image and a work assisting server which has mutual communication function with each of the work machine, the remote operation device, and the imaging devices, the work assisting system comprising:
a plurality of display devices provided at the remote operation device and configured to respectively display one of selected captured image from among respective captured images from the plurality of imaging devices wherein each imaging device has an imaging range and the imaging ranges of at least some of the imaging devices partially overlapped with each other [Apply it, 2106.05(f)],
one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the work assisting server to: select from among the plurality of imaging devices, candidate imaging devices in which a position of the work machine is included in the imaging range defined from a preset viewing angle of each of the plurality of imaging devices, and causes the candidate imaging devices to transmit respective captured images thereof to the work assisting server [Apply it, 2106.05(f)];
determine a work content of the work machine including the respective images from the candidate imaging devices [mental process/step];
determine a plurality of selected imaging devices from among the candidate imaging devices, wherein the determination of the selected imaging device is based on the selected imaging device being able to obtain an optimal imaging range to enable recognition of the work content, wherein the selected imaging devices provide images, as the selected captured images, which enable an operator of the remote operation device to visually and easily recognize a working protion of the work machine in accordance with a change in work content; [mental process/step]
cause the selected imaging device to provide the captured image thereof to the display device [Apply it, 2106.05(f)];
receive control input from the remote operation device based on actuation of a remote operation lever of the remote operation device by an operator of the remote operation device in view of the captured image being displayed on the display device [Apply it, 2106.05(f)]; and
control the work machine according to the control input received from the remote operation device [Apply it, 2106.05(f)].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental
process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of
the limitation in the human mind.
The claims recite determining an actual movement of the work machine based on its position and size from the captured images in addition to the remote operator being able to recognize position of the machine and to visually and easily recognize working portion during operation. This amounts to a mental process of a user evaluating filtered video to make a judgement about the work machine so the operator can make a good decision for remote control. The mental process involves observations of filtered video data based on range, evaluation of work machine positions and judgements/opinions regarding remote control input from the remote operation device.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “receive respective captured images”, The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use an imaging device to capture image data. In particular captured image data from an imaging device and providing it to a display device amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a “imaging devices “including “display device”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “configured to display a selected captured image” & “Select from among plurality of imaging devices” & “Cause the selected imaging device to provide” & “receive control input” & “control the work machine according to the control input” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims make a selection of an imaging device determined to have the best view of the work machine. However, this step is simply using a computer to perform generic data selection of a view to be provided to an operator display. In addition, receiving control input and actuation of a remote operation lever by an operator to remotely control the work machine amounts to use of a generic control mechanism has a conventional tool for performing the function. There is no specific improvement in how the lever remotely controls the machine that would transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 3 and 6-do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe that determining a selected imaging device is based on the selected imaging device that captures a side image or zoomed out image of the work machine during operation. However, a user can view the image data and mentally make a judgement as to whether the orientation of the work machine is at its side (mental process). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 4 -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes determining two or more selected imaging device based on respective viewing angles with different directions of the work machine. However, a user can make an observation of captured image data and make a judgement that a particular image provides a better view of the work machine that is closer thereby having an optimal range and selecting the device that provided the image (mental/process). In addition to outputting the selected captured image to a display device which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed 8/15/2025 have been considered but are moot regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of the withdrawal. However, arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection have been addressed below.
Applicant argues: …reciting the control of the work machine eliminates the sec. 101 concerns. (see pg. 12)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees: Applicants claims amount to providing filtered video data of a work machine based on optimal parameters so that an operator can make better decisions for remote operation/control. The claims fail to recite any specific technical coordination between camera selection algorithms and control mechanism instead it simply describes sequential steps of data collection, analyzing the data, displaying and human acts in a field of use which is analogous to Electric Power Group. The entire operator portion of the claim falls under mental process of evaluating filtered image data and making a decision and using remote control to operate the work machine. Simply reciting that the work machine is being controlled via lever amounts to “apply it” via generic control mechanism once the operator has made judgements and decisions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
11/10/2025