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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “preferentially” which is indefinite because it is not clear whether the claim positively requires a preferential embodiment.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaki et al. (Pub. No.: 2020/0183441; hereinafter Kosaki) in view of Nishi (Pub. No.: 2020/0354921).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kosaki discloses a construction machine (1) comprising:
a working machine (4);
an automatic controller (See “control device” in para. [0049]) that exerts automatic control on the working machine (4) according to design information (See para. [0049] where it is discloses that the control device “executes a predetermined control based on a computer program” that controls the traveling and working system of the working machine);
an operation lever (21) allowing manual control of the working machine (see para. [0065] where it discloses “by operating the lever 21 to swing in the front-rear direction, it is possible to operate the transmission to perform the shifting operation”); and
an automation switch (32) that is fitted on the operation lever (21, as seen in Fig. 7) so as to alternatively change the automatic control between available and unavailable (See para. [0123] where it discloses the operation switch 32 is a switch for switching between an automatic mode and a manual mode of the automatic shifting”, note that the claimed available and unavailable corresponds to automatic mode available and automatic mode unavailable respectively, further note the claim objection above).
Kosaki fails to disclose wherein, when manual control and automatic control compete, the manual control of the working machine is preferentially executed over the automatic control.
Although this limitation is broad, in the interest of compact prosecution and in line with Applicant’s disclosure in para. [0007] and [0057], this limitation is being interpreted to be generally directed towards if the automatic control and the manual control are “simultaneously exerted…the soil removing apparatus can be manually operated even during automatic control.”
Nishi, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a similar working machine with an automatic controller (30), an operation lever allowing manual control of the machine, an automation switch that is fitted on the lever so as to alternatively change the automatic control between available and unavailable (See para. [0069] where it discloses switch 42 is placed at the handle of an operating lever, and that the operator may switch from automatic control to manual control by pressing and re-pressing the switch, note that the pressing and re-pressing of the switch corresponds to the claimed available and unavailable).
More specifically, Nishi teaches wherein manual control and automatic control compete (i.e., when in automatic control, and manual control is simultaneously indicated; See claim interpretation above), the manual control of the working machine is preferentially executed over the automatic control (See para. [0069] where it discloses “the operator may switch the operating mode of the shovel from the automatic control mode to the manual control mode by re-pressing the MC switch 42A”, i.e., when in automatic control, if manual control is simultaneously indicated by re-pressing switch 42A, manual control is executed; further See para. [0141] where it discloses “even during automatic control, the controller can switch the operating mode of the shovel from the automatic control mode to the manual control mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the machine of Kosaki so that manual control can be executed over the automatic control of the machine as disclosed by Nishi, with a reasonable expectation of success, since “it is desirable to cause a shovel to perform operation different from the operation of automatic control when the operating environment of the shovel changes to an operating environment different from the expected operating environment” (See para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, the resultant combination discloses the construction machine according to claim 1. Kosaki, of the resultant combination, also discloses wherein the construction machine is a shovel (“tractor”, See para. [0002]), the working machine (4) is mounted (See Fig. 30), to be movable up and down (via 4, See para. [0047]), on a lower traveling body of the shovel (as seen in Fig. 30), and the operation lever (21) is a lifting lever (31) that causes the working machine (4) to move up and down (as disclosed in para. [0122]). Kosaki, of the combination, discloses that the working machine (4) is a “coupling portion provided at the rear portion of the vehicle body. The coupling portion is a portion for connecting a working device (i.e., a ground working machine) for performing the working on a farm field of the like” in para. [0046]. As such, Kosaki fails to specifically disclose wherein the working machine is specifically a soil removing apparatus. Nevertheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to provide a variety of soil removing apparatuses (blade, bucket, etc.) to a three-point hitch like the one disclosed by Kosaki. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the working machine of the combination to specifically be a soil removing apparatus, as such a modification is well within the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the resultant combination discloses the construction machine according to claim 2. Kosaki, of the combination, fails to disclose wherein the operation lever includes an operation means for manually controlling either or both of an angling motion and a tilting motion of a soil removing blade provided at a front end of the soil removing apparatus. Mason, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a similar working machine with a controller and operation lever (Abstract). More specifically, Mason teaches wherein the operation lever includes an operation means (“two or more actuators”, See para. [0008]) for manually controlling either or both of an angling or tilting motion of a soil removing blade at a front end of a soil removing apparatus (See para. [0008] where it discloses “a control system for controlling tilting of a scraper blade, the control system comprising two or more actuators, a slope sensor, and a joystick, the slope sensor and joystick configured to automatically and manually control tiling of a scraper bald by actuating one or more of the two or more actuators”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to provide the angling and tilting motion of a soil removing blade as taught by Mason, to the soil removing apparatus of the combination, in order to provide variable control of the soil removing apparatus thereby increasing the usability and efficacy of the machine.
Regarding claim 4, the resultant combination discloses the construction machine according to claim 3. Kosaki, of the resultant combination, discloses wherein the operation means (i.e., of the operation lever 31) is arranged on an upper front face of a grip (23, as seen in Fig. 7) of the operation lever (21) as viewed from an operator seat (as seen in Fig. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaki in view of Nishi and further in view of Zhdanov et al. (Pub. No.: 2015/0308074; hereinafter Zhdanov).
Regarding claim 5, the resultant combination discloses the construction machine according to claim 1. Kosaki, of the combination discloses wherein the operation lever has a grip (23), and a different operation switch (36) is arranged on a rear face of the operation lever (as seen in Fig. 12) However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the automation switch is arranged on a rear face of the grip of the operation lever as viewed from an operator seat. Zhdanov, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a similar automation switch (320) and similar operating lever (“joystick”, Abstract). More specifically, Zhdanov teaches wherein the automation switch (320) can be located in “various positions” (See para. [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the location of the automation switch of the combination, to be located on a rear face of the grip of the operation lever since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaki in view of Nishi and further in view of Kumazawa (Pub. No.: 2005/0034915).
Regarding claim 6, the resultant combination discloses the construction machine according to claim 2. Kosaki, of the combination, also discloses wherein the construction machine is a shovel (“tractor”, See para. [0002]), However, Kosaki, of the combination, fails to specifically disclose wherein the shovel is an excavator, a prohibition device that prohibits revolution of an upper revolving body of the shovel and motion of an excavator of the shovel is provided, and a prohibition switch that changes a prohibition function of the prohibition device between available and unavailable is arranged on an upper front face of a grip of the operation lever. Kumazawa, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a similar operation lever for a construction machine (title) wherein the construction machine is an excavator (as disclosed in para. [0105]). More specifically, Kumazawa teaches a prohibition device (“swing brake device”, See para. [0054]) that prohibits revolution of an upper revolving body of the shovel and motion of an excavator of the shovel is provided (as disclosed in para. [0011]), and a prohibition switch (35) that changes a prohibition function (i.e., speed of rotation/swing) of the prohibition device (“swing brake device”, See para. [0054]) between available and unavailable (See para. [0012] where the discloses a “valid and invalid state” which correspond to the claimed “available and unavailable”) is arranged on an upper front face of a grip (11, as seen in Fig. 1) of the operation lever (10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the machine of Kosaki to be the excavator with the prohibition device/switch of Kumazawa, as providing a braking means to the rotating upper body of an excavator is well known in the art as an operational safety feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are directed towards control systems of work machines and are considered reasonably pertinent: Horstman et al. (Pub. No.: 2018/01067014); Osswald et al. (Pub. No.: 2009/0206589); Danko (Pub. No.: 2004/0267404). Additional relevant references cited but not discussed here can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
