DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Y 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 Claims
This office action is made in response to Applicant’s remarks filed on --7/25/2025. Claims 1-13 have been amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, Applicant's amended claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed in the corresponding section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach, "selecting/creating the “patch” and the “presets” which are a “a subordinate concept of the patch," (Remarks at pg. 12). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
Namely, Wataya teaches selecting a plurality of pieces of setting information that have been associated with one another as presets (e.g. at least setting items W1-W8, see e.g. at least ¶ 451-458, Fig. 19, and related text),
create a patch corresponding to the presets such that the presets are a subordinate concept of the patch (e.g. at least list display portions 131-133, groups 1-3, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 459-469, 481, Fig. 20, and related text, instructing the storage portion to store a current setting information set by the operation switch 190 when the setting command portion 191 is operated on the setting screen M9).
Applicant also asserts that the cited prior art does not teach, "displaying the “patch setting screen that receives a selection of the patch” or controlling the work machine “based on the selection of the patch and the pieces of setting information that have been selected as the presets corresponding to the patch," (Remarks at pg. 13). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
Namely, Wataya teaches displaying a patch setting screen that receives a selection of the patch (e.g. at least one-touch setting screen M9, see e.g. at least ¶ 451-458, 462-465, 481, Fig. 19, and related text, selecting the list display portions 131-133),
wherein the CPU is configured to control the work machine based on the selection of the patch and the pieces of setting information that have been selected as the presets corresponding to the patch (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 472, 478, Fig. 1C, and related text, receiving and accepting the setting information of the predetermined setting item changed by the operation switch 190 among the plurality of acquired setting information, and executing control with setting information).
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.
Claims 2-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites: "The work machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a patch reader that is configured to be controlled by the CPU and read the patch from the storage;
a presets reader that is configured to be controlled by the CPU and read the presets from the storage; and
a display controller that is configured to display, on a display, the patch that has been read by the patch reader or the presets that have been read by the presets reader, based on signals that have been output from the CPU."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a patch reader that is configured to be controlled …”
“a presets reader that is configured to be controlled …”
“a display controller that is configured to display …”
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. 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.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“a patch reader that is configured to be controlled …”
“a presets reader that is configured to be controlled …”
“a display controller that is configured to display …”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a patch reader that is configured [intended to be controlled by the CPU and read the patch from the storage];
a presets reader that is configured [intended to be controlled by the CPU and read the presets from the storage]; and
a display controller that is configured [intended to display, on a display, the patch that has been read by the patch reader or the presets that have been read by the presets reader, based on signals that have been output from the CPU]."
Claims 4-10 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The work machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a patch selector that is configured to be controlled by the CPU and select the patch in the storage; and
a presets selector that is configured to be controlled by the CPU and select one of the presets that have been associated with of the patch."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a patch selector that is configured [intended to be controlled by the CPU and select the patch in the storage]; and
a presets selector that is configured [intended to be controlled by the CPU and select one of the presets that have been associated with of the patch]."
Claim 4 recites: "The work machine of claim 2, further comprising:
a patch reading switch that outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch reader; and
a presets reading switch that outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets reader."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 2, further comprising:
a patch reading switch [that is intended to output outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch reader]; and
a presets reading switch [that is intended to output outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets reader]."
Claims 5-10 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 5 recites: "The work machine of claim 4, further comprising:
a patch selection switch that outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch selector; and
a presets selection switch that outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets selector."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 4, further comprising:
a patch selection switch [that is intended to output outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch selector]; and
a presets selection switch [that is intended to output outputs, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets selector]."
Claims 6-10 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 11 recites: "The work machine of claim 1, wherein the display comprises an operation panel that displays presets buttons and receives a user operation, wherein the CPU is configured to determine, once the one of the presets buttons is pressed by the user operation, the one or more of the setting items as one of the presets corresponding to the one of the presets buttons,
the operation panel displays the one or more of the setting items, and
the CPU is configured to add or remove a setting item to or from the presets once the operation panel receives a user operation to add or remove that setting item to or from the one or more of the setting items."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the one of the presets buttons”
“the one or more of the setting items”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 1, wherein the display comprises an operation panel that displays presets buttons and receives a user operation, wherein the CPU is configured to determine, once the one of the presets buttons is pressed by the user operation, the one or more of the setting items as one of the presets corresponding to the one of the presets buttons,
the operation panel displays the one or more of the setting items, and
the CPU is configured to add or remove a setting item to or from the presets once the operation panel receives a user operation to add or remove that setting item to or from the one or more of the setting items."
Claims 12-13 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 12 recites: "The work machine of claim 11, wherein the operation panel further displays patch buttons and receives a user operation, and
the CPU is configured to determine, once the one of the patch buttons is pressed by the user operation, the patch corresponding to the one of the patch buttons."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The work machine of claim 11, wherein the operation panel further displays patch buttons and receives a user operation, and
the CPU is configured to determine, once the one of the patch buttons is pressed by the user operation, the patch corresponding to the one of the patch buttons."
Claim 13 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wataya (US 2019/0373806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wataya discloses a work machine (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1A-1C, and related text), comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) (e.g. at least control device 40, see e.g. at least ¶ 100, Fig. 1C, and related text) that is configured to:
store, in a storage (e.g. at least storage portion 51, see e.g. at least ¶ 173, Fig. 1C, and related text), a plurality of types of setting information with respect to setting items relating to functions of the work machine (id.),
select, from among the types of setting information, a plurality of pieces of setting information that have been associated with one another as presets (e.g. at least setting items W1-W8, see e.g. at least ¶ 451-458, Fig. 19, and related text),
create a patch corresponding to the presets such that the presets are a subordinate concept of the patch (e.g. at least list display portions 131-133, groups 1-3, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 459-469, 481, Fig. 20, and related text, instructing the storage portion to store a current setting information set by the operation switch 190 when the setting command portion 191 is operated on the setting screen M9), and
store, in the storage, the patch and the presets corresponding to the patch (id.); and
a display (e.g. at least display device 50, see e.g. at least Fig. 1C, and related text) that is configured to:
display a patch setting screen that receives a selection of the patch (e.g. at least one-touch setting screen M9, see e.g. at least ¶ 451-458, 462-465, 481, Fig. 19, and related text, selecting the list display portions 131-133),
wherein the CPU is configured to control the work machine based on the selection of the patch and the pieces of setting information that have been selected as the presets corresponding to the patch (see e.g. at least ¶ 472, 478, Fig. 1C, and related text, receiving and accepting the setting information of the predetermined setting item changed by the operation switch 190 among the plurality of acquired setting information, and executing control with setting information).
Regarding claim 2, Wayaya discloses:
a patch reader that is [intended to be controlled by the CPU and read the patch from the storage] (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, list display portion 131, control device 40, see e.g. at least ¶ 207, 214, 451, 464, 491-492, Fig. 1C, 7A, 7B, 19, and related text);
a presets reader that is [intended to be controlled by the CPU and read the presets from the storage] (id.); and
a display controller that is [intended to display, on a display, the patch that has been read by the patch reader or the presets that have been read by the presets reader, based on signals that have been output from the CPU] (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B, id.).
Regarding claim 3, Wayaya discloses:
a patch selector that is [intended to be controlled by the CPU and select the patch in the storage] (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, control device 40, buttons 203a-203e, 73a-73c, screens M1-M10, see e.g. at least ¶ 207-214, 245, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text); and
a presets selector that is [intended to be controlled by the CPU and select one of the presets that have been associated with of the patch] (id.).
Regarding claim 4, Wayaya discloses:
a patch reading switch [that is intended to output, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch reader] (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, control device 40, buttons 203a-203e, 73a-73c, screens M1-M10, see e.g. at least ¶ 207-214, 245, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text); and
a presets reading switch [that is intended to output, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets reader] (id.).
Regarding claim 5, Wayaya discloses:
a patch selection switch [that is intended to output, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the patch selector] (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, control device 40, buttons 203a-203e, 73a-73c, screens M1-M10, see e.g. at least ¶ 207-214, 245, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text); and
a presets selection switch [that is intended to output, upon receiving a user operation, a signal that operates the presets selector] (id.).
Regarding claim 6, Wayaya discloses that the CPU is configured to disable, while the work machine is traveling, the signals output by the patch selection switch and the presets selection switch (see e.g. at least ¶ 175-193, 508, 723, 728, Fig. 4B-4C, 5, 18B, 18D, 22B, 30, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Wayaya discloses that the patch reading switch, the presets reading switch, the patch selection switch, and the presets selection switch are physical switches (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, control device 40, buttons 203a-203e, 73a-73c, screens M1-M10, switching portion 5b2, switches 42a-42i, operation tool 57, see e.g. at least ¶ 120, 207-214, 245, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text), and
the presets selection switch is disposed in a position adjacent to the patch selection switch (id.).
Regarding claim 8, Wayaya discloses that the patch reading switch and the presets reading switch are disposed in positions opposite of the presets selection switch relative to the patch selection switch (see e.g. at least ¶ 207-214, 245, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Wayaya discloses that the patch selection switch is configured as a rotary selector (see e.g. at least ¶ 120, Fig. 1C, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Wayaya discloses that the display comprises an operation panel that displays presets buttons and receives a user operation, wherein the CPU is configured to determine, once one of the presets buttons is pressed by the user operation, one or more of the setting items as one of the presets corresponding to one of the presets buttons (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, control device 40, buttons 203a-203e, 73a-73c, screens M1-M10, see e.g. at least ¶ 123-139, 207-214, 234-274, 407, 411, 464, 484, Fig. 1C, 2, 4C, 7A-11, 15-17, 19, 21, and related text),
the operation panel displays one or more of the setting items (id.), and
the CPU is configured to add or remove a setting item to or from the presets once the operation panel receives a user operation to add or remove that setting item to or from one or more of the setting items (id.).
Regarding claim 12, Wayaya discloses that the operation panel further displays patch buttons and receives a user operation (e.g. at least viewer boxes 63a-63h, buttons 203a-203e, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 264-274, Fig. 11, and related text), and
the CPU is configured to determine, once one of the patch buttons is pressed by the user operation, the patch corresponding to one of the patch buttons (id.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wataya (US 2019/0373806 A1) in view of Kosaki (US 2020/0183441 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wayaya discloses:
a driver seat (e.g. at least operator seat 10, see e.g. at least ¶ 65, Fig. 33, and related text).
Additionally, Kosaki teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Wataya including namely: an arm rest disposed at a side of the driver seat (e.g. at least armrest 15, see e.g. at least Fig. 1-5, and related text);
wherein a patch reading switch, a presets reading switch, a patch selection switch, and a presets selection switch are disposed in the arm rest (e.g. at least first operation tool group 60A, second operation tool group 60B, operation lever 21, operation tool 61-75, id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wataya by configuring that the patch reading switch, the presets reading switch, the patch selection switch, and the presets selection switch are disposed in the arm rest as taught by Kosaki in order to improve operability of operations of the work vehicle by arranging operation tools adjacent to each other in the width direction of the armrest and ensuring that the arm is prevented from unitntentionally contacting the operation tools placed in the operation tool arrangement portion (Kosaki: ¶ 205-206, 362).
Regarding claim 13, Wataya discloses:
a driver seat (e.g. at least operator seat 10, see e.g. at least ¶ 65, Fig. 33, and related text); and
a control panel (e.g. at least display device 50, see e.g. at least Fig. 2, and related text), wherein the control panel comprises:
a physical presets reading button that outputs, upon being operated, a presets reading command for reading the presets (e.g. at least display control portion 56, display device 50, 50B,1st setting portion 52a, 2nd setting portion 52b, list display portion 131, control device 40, see e.g. at least ¶ 207, 214, 451, 464, 491-492, Fig. 1C, 7A, 7B, 19, and related text); and
a physical patch reading button that outputs, upon being operated, a patch reading command for reading the patch (id.).
Additionally, Kosaki teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Wataya including namely: an arm rest disposed at a side of a driver seat (e.g. at least armrest 15, Fig. 1-5, and related text) and comprising:
a control panel disposed between a front end and a center in a longitudinal direction of the arm rest (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wataya by configuring that an arm rest disposed at a side of the driver seat and comprising: a control panel disposed between a front end and a center in a longitudinal direction of the arm rest as taught by Kosaki in order to improve operability of operations of the work vehicle by arranging operation tools adjacent to each other in the width direction of the armrest and ensuring that the arm is prevented from unitntentionally contacting the operation tools placed in the operation tool arrangement portion (Kosaki: ¶ 205-206, 362).
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 CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662