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 § 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 Mason (Pub. No.: 2017/0145655).
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 specifically disclose wherein the manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control. Although this limitation is broad, in the interest of compact prosecution and in line with Applicant’s disclosure in para. [0007], this limitation is being interpreted to be generally directed towards “the manual control is made prior to the automatic control when the working machine is automatically controlled by the controller… so that the working machine can be manually operated even during the automatic control.” Essentially, the manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control which allows for simultaneous manual and automatic control of the work vehicle. Mason, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a similar working machine with a controller and operation lever (Abstract). More specifically, Mason teaches wherein manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control (See para. [0047] where it discloses “at any time an operator may interrupt automatic control by taking hold of the joystick and moving the joystick to override the signals from the slope sensor. Such an arrangement provides for automatic and manual control.”, note that the disclosed interrupted automatic control which then reverts to original while maintaining automatic control functionality after specifically corresponds to the limitation above). 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 the manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control as disclosed by Mason, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “automatic and manual control, rather than automatic or manual control” (See para. [0047]).
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 Mason 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 Mason 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 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments starting pg. 6 regarding claim 1 that Mason does not teach or suggest “wherein manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control” has been considered but is unavailing. Applicant then recites portions of Mason from para. [0047] to make the above assertion. However, it appears that Applicant is arguing for a narrower interpretation than what is currently presented in the claim. Presently, the limitation recites “wherein manual control of the working machine is made prior to the automatic control”. This limitation does not imply that the construction machine only operates either automatically or manually, but rather claims a sequence of events for automatic and/or manual control. As discussed above, para. [0047] of Mason discloses that the interrupted automatic control which then reverts to manual while maintaining automatic control functionality corresponds to the limitation above since it discloses manual control occurring before the automatic control thereby meeting the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 7 that Mason fails to disclose “an automation switch … [that] alternatively changes [] automatic control between available and unavailable” has been considered but is unpersuasive as Mason was not relied upon for disclosing the above limitation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671