DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of 21 October 2025. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 23 July 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 & 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizuno teaches A work machine comprising (see at least [¶021]):
one or more processors; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including (see at least [¶031-036])
Mizuno does not explicitly teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time.
However, Noro does teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time (Determining that an operator/driver of a work machine has not performed a safety check around the machine for more than a desired predetermined time. see at least [¶029-030, 072-074 & 0116]).
Noro would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation in vehicles/machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno to use the technique of determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time as taught by Noro. Doing so would lead to reduce a degradation in safety quality while controlling a vehicle (see at least [¶070]).
Mizuno and Noro do not explicitly teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine.
However, Fujikawa does teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine (Prompting the driver/operator to perform a safety check around the work machine with an alert, upon determining that a safety check has not been performed for more than a predetermined time amount due to the operator/driver being distracted. see at least [¶031 & 045]),
Fujikawa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle/machine safety display for distracted operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno and Noro to use the technique of prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine as taught by Fujikawa. Doing so would lead to an improved warning system for keeping an operator alert to their surroundings (see at least [¶46]).
Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa do not explicitly teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device.
However, Hageman does teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating (the work machine operation can include controlling the hydraulic actuator), once it is determined that an operator is asleep, distracted or fatigued and thus has not performed a safety check after a desired time period. In addition, it would be obvious to add this restricting of the machine to the alert system found in Fujikawa. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]),
said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating, which can include deactivating/stopping the work machine or reducing the operating speed of the work machine. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]).
Hageman would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling a work machine based on an operator characteristic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa to use the technique of starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device as taught by Hageman. Doing so would lead to improved control of a work machine when an operator is inattentive (see at least [¶045]).
Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman do not explicitly teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine.
However, Kiyota does teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine (The safety check involves an operator directly visually checking an area around the work machine for a possible object/person. see at least [¶0104-0111]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of having, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine as taught by Mizuno. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Regarding Claim 5, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Mizuno teaches an imaging device configured to image views around the work machine (see at least [¶024-025]);
and a display device configured to display image information representing at least one view of a side or a rear side of the work machine based on an output of the imaging device, wherein the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator includes checking of the image information displayed on the display device (A display is used to show the views captured by the cameras on the work machine and these views are used to perform the safety check by an operator. see at least [¶032, 036 & 066-071]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Nora does teach performing notification of a warning to the operator upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time (Providing a notification warning to a driver/operator after determining that an operator/driver of a work machine has not performed a safety check around the machine for more than a desired predetermined time. see at least [¶029-030, 072-074 & 0116]).
Noro would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation in vehicles/machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota to use the technique of performing notification of a warning to the operator upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time as taught by Noro. Doing so would lead to reduce a degradation in safety quality while controlling a vehicle (see at least [¶070]).
Regarding Claim 9, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Kiyota does teach acquiring information relating to a surrounding condition of the work machine (Acquiring information on the surroundings of the work machine. see at least [¶096-099]);
detecting a predetermined object around the work machine based on the acquired information (Determining if a person is detected around the work machine. see at least [¶0102-0103]);
prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine when the predetermined object is detected (Prompting an operator to perform a safety check when a person id detected nearby the work machine. see at least [¶0103-0108]);
and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine at the intervals of the predetermined time when the predetermined object is not detected (The operator is asked to perform a safety check around the work machine within a predetermined time that the object may no longer be detected. see at least [¶0103-0111]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of acquiring information relating to a surrounding condition of the work machine; detecting a predetermined object around the work machine based on the acquired information; prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine when the predetermined object is detected; and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine at the intervals of the predetermined time when the predetermined object is not detected as taught by Kiyota. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Kiyota does teach prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine when the work machine is in a predetermined condition that is relatively suitable for the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine (Prompting an operator to perform a safety check around the work machine when it is deemed appropriate to perform the check, such as when it is fully restricted. see at least [¶0105-0108]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine when the work machine is in a predetermined condition that is relatively suitable for the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine as taught by Kiyota. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as shown above, Furthermore, Kiyota teaches determining that the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine when the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine in a predetermined condition that is relatively suitable for the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine (Determining that an operator has performed a safety check around a work machine when it is deemed appropriate to perform the check, such as when it is fully restricted. see at least [¶0105-0108]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of determining that the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine when the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine in a predetermined condition that is relatively suitable for the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine as taught by Kiyota. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122) in further view of Hyuga (US 20200064834).
Regarding Claim 2, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota do not explicitly teach acquiring information about a presence or an absence of the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator.
However, Hyuga does teach acquiring information about a presence or an absence of the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator (The system is able to determine if a driver has performed the visual safety check around the vehicle/work machine by viewing the appropriate visual confirmation areas. see at least [¶072-074]).
Hyuga would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation by a vehicle driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota to use the technique of acquiring information about a presence or an absence of the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator as taught by Hyuga. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety confirmation of the vehicle surroundings (see at least [¶015]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman, Kiyota and Hyuga teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, Furthermore, Hyuga teaches detecting a line of sight of the operator, wherein the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator includes a state in which the line of sight of the operator is viewing at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine for a certain period of time or more (The system is able to determine if an operator has performed an appropriate safety check around a vehicle by determining if an operator has viewed a visual confirmation area for an appropriate amount of time with their sight. see at least [¶074-076]).
Hyuga would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation by a vehicle driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota to use the technique of detecting a line of sight of the operator, wherein the safety check around the work machine performed by the operator includes a state in which the line of sight of the operator is viewing at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine for a certain period of time or more as taught by Hyuga. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety confirmation of the vehicle surroundings (see at least [¶015]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122) in further view of Hyuga (US 20200064834) in further view of Nagamine (US Publication 20170021769).
Regarding Claim 4, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman, Kiyota and Hyuga teach all of the limitations of Claim 2 as shown above, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman, Kiyota and Hyuga do not explicitly teach receiving a predetermined input indicating that the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine.
However, Nagamine does teach receiving a predetermined input indicating that the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine (The operator can input through a button to show that they have performed a safety check after being warned by the system of a lack of a safety check. see at least [¶0120, 0122, 0125, 0128, 0131 & 0134]).
Nagamine would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of prompting for a safety check in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman, Kiyota and Hyuga to use the technique of receiving a predetermined input indicating that the operator has performed the safety check around the work machine as taught by Nagamine. Doing so would lead to improved prompting of a safety check without harassing a driver (see at least [¶01]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122) in further view of Matsuda (US 20190351900).
Regarding Claim 7, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as shown above, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota do not explicitly teach wherein the process continues to perform said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator until the operator performs the safety check around the work machine, after the process starts said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator.
Matsuda teaches wherein the process continues to perform said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator until the operator performs the safety check around the work machine, after the process starts said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator (Continuously prompting the driver/operator to perform a safety check around the work machine by stopping/restricting the work machine from operating (with the restriction being put in place to limit user control over the vehicle/machine) and thus not allowing the vehicle to move until the driver/operator performs and confirms the safety check. see at least [¶022, 056, 072-077 & 094-095]),
Matsuda would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle/machine safety confirmation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota to use the technique of having the process continues to perform said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator until the operator performs the safety check around the work machine, after the process starts said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating and the notification of the warning to the operator as taught by Matsuda. Doing so would lead to improved safety and usability when using a machine in an environment (see at least [¶07]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Mizuno ‘397) (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122) in further view of (Mizuno ‘535) (US Publication 20180211535).
Regarding Claim 8, Mizuno ‘397, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Mizuno ‘397, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota do not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined time varies with work contents or operation conditions.
However, Mizuno ‘535 does teach wherein the predetermined time varies with work contents or operation conditions (The length of time for a safety check can vary depending on the vehicle operating conditions. see at least [¶048-049, 052-053 & 073]).
Mizuno ‘535 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle driver alerts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mizuno ‘397, Noro, Fujikawa, Hageman and Kiyota to use the technique of having the predetermined time varies with work contents or operation conditions as taught by Mizuno ‘535. Doing so would lead to improved safety by having a driver confirm their surroundings in a vehicle (see at least [¶07-012]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa (US Publication 20190241124) in view of Mizuno (US Publication 20190249397) in view of Noro (US 20190059791) in view of Fujikawa JP2018169481A (English Translation) in view of Hageman BR102020000713A2 (English Translation) in further view of Kiyota (US Publication 20180209122).
Regarding Claim 12, Izumikawa teaches A work machine management system comprising (see at least [¶051-053]):
a work machine (A work machine. see at least [¶026]):
and an information processing device (A processing device in the management system controller. see at least [¶055]),
Izumikawa does not explicitly teach the information processing device including an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, the operation device being configured to receive a remote-control operation of an operator to remotely control the work machine; a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device, and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine, a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device, one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including.
However, Mizuno does teach the information processing device including an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, the operation device being configured to receive a remote-control operation of an operator to remotely control the work machine (A remote controller is used to control a work machine and its components. see at least [¶074]):
a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device (The remote controller is able to receive images of views based on the surroundings of the work machine. see at least [¶073-076]),
and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine (A remote controller is used to control a work machine and signals are sent from the controller to the work machine. see at least [¶073-074]);
a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device (A display device is able to display views of the surrounding of a work machine based on images received from the imaging devices. see at least [¶032-034 & 073-077]);
one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including (see at least [¶031-036])
Mizuno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of work machine safety checking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa to use the technique of having the information processing device including an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, the operation device being configured to receive a remote-control operation of an operator to remotely control the work machine; a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device, and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine, a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device, one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including as taught by Mizuno. Doing so would lead to improved safe operation of a work machine (see at least [¶071]).
Izumikawa and Mizuno do not explicitly teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time.
However, Noro does teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time (Determining that an operator/driver of a work machine has not performed a safety check around the machine for more than a desired predetermined time. see at least [¶029-030, 072-074 & 0116]).
Noro would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation in vehicles/machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa and Mizuno to use the technique of determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time as taught by Noro. Doing so would lead to reduce a degradation in safety quality while controlling a vehicle (see at least [¶070]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno and Noro do not explicitly teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine.
However, Fujikawa does teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine (Prompting the driver/operator to perform a safety check around the work machine with an alert, upon determining that a safety check has not been performed for more than a predetermined time amount due to the operator/driver being distracted. see at least [¶031 & 045]),
Fujikawa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle/machine safety display for distracted operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno and Noro to use the technique of prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine as taught by Fujikawa. Doing so would lead to an improved warning system for keeping an operator alert to their surroundings (see at least [¶46]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa do not explicitly teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device.
However, Hageman does teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating (the work machine operation can include controlling the hydraulic actuator), once it is determined that an operator is asleep, distracted or fatigued and thus has not performed a safety check after a desired time period. In addition, it would be obvious to add this restricting of the machine to the alert system found in Fujikawa. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]),
said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating, which can include deactivating/stopping the work machine or reducing the operating speed of the work machine. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]).
Hageman would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling a work machine based on an operator characteristic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa to use the technique of starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device as taught by Hageman. Doing so would lead to improved control of a work machine when an operator is inattentive (see at least [¶045]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman do not explicitly teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine.
However, Kiyota does teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine (The safety check involves an operator directly visually checking an area around the work machine for a possible object/person. see at least [¶0104-0111]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of having, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine as taught by Mizuno. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Regarding Claim 13, Izumikawa teaches A work machine management system comprising (see at least [¶051-053]):
a work machine (A work machine. see at least [¶026]):
and an information processing device, the information processing device including (A processing device in the management system controller. see at least [¶055]),
Izumikawa does not explicitly teach a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device, and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine, a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device, one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including.
However, Mizuno does teach a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device (The remote controller is able to receive images of views based on the surroundings of the work machine. see at least [¶073-076]),
and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine (A remote controller is used to control a work machine and signals are sent from the controller to the work machine. see at least [¶073-074]);
a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device (A display device is able to display views of the surrounding of a work machine based on images received from the imaging devices. see at least [¶032-034 & 073-077]);
one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including (see at least [¶031-036])
Mizuno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of work machine safety checking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa to use the technique of providing a communication device configured to receive, from the work machine, image information from an imaging device that images views around the work machine, or image information of at least one of a side or a rear side of the work machine generated based on an output of the imaging device, and transmit a signal relating to an operation condition of the operating device operated by the operator to the work machine, a display device configured to display the image information representing at least one view of the side or the rear side of the work machine based on the image information received by the communication device, one or more processors: and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a process including as taught by Mizuno. Doing so would lead to improved safe operation of a work machine (see at least [¶071]).
Izumikawa and Mizuno do not explicitly teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time.
However, Noro does teach determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time (Determining that an operator/driver of a work machine has not performed a safety check around the machine for more than a desired predetermined time. see at least [¶029-030, 072-074 & 0116]).
Noro would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of safety confirmation in vehicles/machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa and Mizuno to use the technique of determining whether a condition in which an operator of the work machine has not performed a safety check around the work machine exceeds a predetermined time as taught by Noro. Doing so would lead to reduce a degradation in safety quality while controlling a vehicle (see at least [¶070]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno and Noro do not explicitly teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine.
However, Fujikawa does teach and prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine (Prompting the driver/operator to perform a safety check around the work machine with an alert, upon determining that a safety check has not been performed for more than a predetermined time amount due to the operator/driver being distracted. see at least [¶031 & 045]),
Fujikawa would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle/machine safety display for distracted operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno and Noro to use the technique of prompting the operator to perform the safety check around the work machine as taught by Fujikawa. Doing so would lead to an improved warning system for keeping an operator alert to their surroundings (see at least [¶46]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa do not explicitly teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device.
However, Hageman does teach and starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating (the work machine operation can include controlling the hydraulic actuator), once it is determined that an operator is asleep, distracted or fatigued and thus has not performed a safety check after a desired time period. In addition, it would be obvious to add this restricting of the machine to the alert system found in Fujikawa. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]),
said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device (Restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating, which can include deactivating/stopping the work machine or reducing the operating speed of the work machine. see at least [¶018, 030, 035-036, 045-046, 049 & 068]).
Hageman would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling a work machine based on an operator characteristic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro and Fujikawa to use the technique of starting restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating in response to an operation of an operation device for operating a hydraulic actuator of the work machine, upon determining that the condition in which the operator has not performed the safety check around the work machine exceeds the predetermined time, said restricting or prohibiting the work machine from operating including at least one of making an operation speed of the work machine slower than a normal speed in response to the operation of the operation device or deactivating the operation of the work machine and maintaining a deactivated condition of the work machine regardless of the operation of the operation device as taught by Hageman. Doing so would lead to improved control of a work machine when an operator is inattentive (see at least [¶045]).
Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman do not explicitly teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine.
However, Kiyota does teach wherein, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine (The safety check involves an operator directly visually checking an area around the work machine for a possible object/person. see at least [¶0104-0111]).
Kiyota would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surrounding monitoring of a work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Izumikawa, Mizuno, Noro, Fujikawa and Hageman to use the technique of having, in the safety check, the operator directly or indirectly visually checks an area around the work machine for safety between the work machine and an object in the area around the work machine as taught by Mizuno. Doing so would lead to improved removal of restrictions on a work machine by checking if the surroundings are safe (see at least [¶0130]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667