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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 18 August 2025 and the Information Disclose Statement filed on 11 August 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
The 112 rejection of claims 2-3 and art rejections of Claims 1-3, 9-10 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1, 4-10 are pending. Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/11/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the specification/title on 5/11/23 has been accepted and entered.
However, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract on 8/18/25 has been accepted and entered.
However, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
issuance apparatus that issues in claims 1, 6-7, 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-9 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.
As per claims 1 and 9, the claim limitation(s) containing “… issuance apparatus that…” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of each limitation "...apparatus that". Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed unit(s)/means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (JP07305519A) in further view of Kozui et al (US20210340736, EFD 2018) ) An English machine translation of JP07305519A provided by the J-PlatPat was previously provided. All references to page and paragraph numbers associated with Mori disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the English translation copy provided.
As per independent claim 1, Mori discloses a work machine (FIG 1) comprising:
a vehicular body; (FIG 1; 0004)
a work implement supported on the vehicular body; (FIG 1; 0004, 0011)
a hydraulic cylinder that drives the work implement, the hydraulic cylinder including a cylinder portion and a piston capable of carrying out reciprocating movement within the cylinder portion; (FIG 1, 2: 0011-0012)
an issuance apparatus that issues a warning; and (0012, 0016: single alarm device comprising buzzer/alarm)
a controller that controls the hydraulic cylinder and the issuance apparatus (FIG 1-2; 0004, 0007, 0014), wherein the controller controls the issuance apparatus to issue a warning when the piston reaches a warning issuance position before a stroke end of the hydraulic cylinder, and (0004-0005, 0012: an intermittent sound and continuous warning sound is produced from the alarm device based on the positioning of the bucket cylinder comprising the piston is near the stroke end. 0011 discloses when the bucket cylinder moves, the piston within the cylinder moves since 0011 teaches movement of piston based upon extension and contraction (0011: a position slightly before an extension stroke end to which the piston 41 moves when the bucket cylinder 24 extends… a position slightly before the contraction stroke end to which the piston 41 has moved when the bucket cylinder 24 is contracted) Thus, when the operator is operating the machine and the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke, then the piston within the cylinder moves and is also near the predetermined position near the stroke end when the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke end)
…adjust timing of issuance of the warning (0004-0005, 0007 discloses a different type of alarm is triggered based on the position/closeness of the cylinder/piston to the stroke end. If the position is within a predetermined position of a first range/area from the stroke area, then first sound is outputted. If the position is within a predetermined position of a second range/area from the stroke end that is closer to the stroke end than the first range, then a second sound is outputted. The timing of issue is based/adjusted on when the position of the cylinder/piston is in an area that emits a sound/warning)
In addition, Mori discloses the controller adjusts the warning issuance position… to adjust the timing of issuance of the warning (0010,0019: discloses the areas/ranges are set so as to be narrowed as the inclination angle of the vehicle body is increased in correspondence with the predetermined inclination angle of the vehicle body such that the areas/ranges can be corrected. This implies that the areas can be adjusted)
Furthermore, as explained above, Mori discloses in 0011 that the when the operator is operating the machine and the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke, then the piston within the cylinder moves and is also near the predetermined position near the stroke end when the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke end. In addition, Mori discloses in response to a warning, the driver/operator of the machine is capable of moving/adjusting the vehicle body to horizontal state before performing safe work. (0020) Thus is done by the driver/operator operates the bucket cylinder to a position farther than the predetermined position near the stroke end. Therefore, in response to the alarm, when the operator moves/operates the bucket cylinder such away from than the predetermined position near the stroke end, then the piston within the cylinder moves aways also based on 0011. Thus, Mori discloses the monitoring and recognizing the movement and the position of the piston in respect to the operator when operating the machine and the bucket cylinder. In addition, Mori discloses that the movement and positioning of the bucket cylinder is monitored wherein warnings/alerts are issued when the bucket cylinder is positioned in unsafe area. (0004-0005, 0020). Thus, Mori discloses the controller adjusts the warning issuance position…, based on an operator who operates the work machine, to adjust the timing of issuance of the warning since the timing was based on when the operator was operating the machine.
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller adjusts the warning issuance position based on a skill level of an operator who operates the work machine. However, Kozui et al discloses changing/adjusting the dynamic characteristic of the work vehicle/machine by changing the parameters of a controller of the work device according to the operation skill of the operator (0054-0055)
The motivation to combine the cited art, Kozui et al, with Mori would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of work/construction machines (e.g. excavator) would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to combine Mori with Kozui et al to update by using changing/adjusting the dynamic characteristic of the work vehicle/machine by according to the operation skill of the operator on the positioning of the bucket cylinder/piston within safety/warning areas/predetermined position in in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such that an operator at a low skill level can operate the construction machine in the same manner as an expert and can perform work efficiently. (0054) This would allow the predetermined position for warnings to be outputted to be adjusted based on the operation skill of the operator.
Therefore, the combination Mori and Kozui, as explained above, teaches the limitation of adjusts the warning issuance position based on a skill level of an operator who operates the work machine to adjust timing of issuance of the warning.
As per independent claims 9 and 10, Claims 9 and 10 recites similar limitation as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in further view of Kozui et al in further view of Thiele (US20090012684, 2009)
As per dependent claim 4, Mori discloses comprising an operation apparatus operated by the operator for driving the hydraulic cylinder (Claim 1; 0004-0005) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller specifies the skill level of the operator based on a time period from time of issuance of the warning until time of start of decrease in amount of operation onto the operation apparatus. However, Thiele discloses determining the type of driver for emergency braking based on evaluation the driver activity that includes how quickly and how strongly the user is applying the brakes. Thiele is able to determine the difference between a sporty driver and a leisure driver based on how quickly (how fast reacts) one slows down from driving. These types show different skill in driving. (0017) In addition, Thiele discloses warning driver of imminent collisions. (0017)
The motivation to combine the cited art, Thiele, with Mori would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of work/construction machines (e.g. excavator) would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to combine Mori with Thiele et al to update by determining a driver type/skill based on how quickly and hard one slows/brakes in in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such that providing the intrinsic advantage of a customizable and adaptive of a timed emergency braking action for different type of drivers.
Claim(s) 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in further view of Kozui et al in further view of Colarelli et al (US 20150178663, 2015)
As per dependent claim 5, Mori discloses in response to a warning, the driver/operator of the machine is capable of moving/adjusting the vehicle body to horizontal state before performing safe work. (0020) Thus is done by the driver/operator operates the bucket cylinder to a position farther than the predetermined position near the stroke end. 0011 discloses when the bucket cylinder moves, the piston within the cylinder moves since 0011 teaches movement of piston based upon extension and contraction (0011: a position slightly before an extension stroke end to which the piston 41 moves when the bucket cylinder 24 extends… a position slightly
before the contraction stroke end to which the piston 41 has moved when the bucket cylinder 24 is contracted) Thus, when the operator is operating the machine and the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke, then the piston within the cylinder moves and is also near the predetermined position near the stroke end when the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke end. Therefore, in response to the alarm, when the operator moves/operates the bucket cylinder such away from than the predetermined position near the stroke end, then the piston within the cylinder moves aways also based on 0011. Thus, Mori discloses the monitoring and recognizing the movement and the position of the piston in respect to the operator when operating the machine and the bucket cylinder. In addition, Mori discloses that the movement and positioning of the bucket cylinder is monitored wherein warnings/alerts are issued when the bucket cylinder is positioned in unsafe area. (0004-0005, 0020) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the controller specifies the skill level of the operator based on a rest position of the piston after the issuance apparatus issues the warning. In other words, the cited art fails to assess the input of the operator to determine a skill level. However, Colarelli et al discloses an operator performing task that involves the positioning of an object within a vehicle and is evaluated and scored based on the correctness of the task. (0020, 0030, 0040) Colarelli discloses providing warnings to the operator if the consistently failing to complete a task.(0040) Based on the evaluation and scoring of the task at hand wherein it is determined that the operator has difficulty performing a task, Colarelli may benefit from additional training and also be assigned/switched to a different mode of operation. Thus, Colarelli discloses assessing an operator input of a task and in response, determine the correct mode of operation based on the assessment. This is a form of determining a skill level of the operator and assigned the correct mode for the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the analyzing the operator’s manipulating of the arm/bucket cylinder of Mori with the cited features of Colarelli of analyzing the manipulating/performing of input by the operator since it would have provided the benefit of provide operator guidance, feedback, and overall performance tracking associated with vehicle equipment, to increase operator awareness, and to increase operator efficiency. (0008)
Claim(s) 6-7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in further view of Yamazaki et al (US20070033934)(disclosed in IDS filed on 5/11/2023)
As per independent claim 6, Mori discloses a work machine (FIG 1) comprising:
a vehicular body; (FIG 1; 0004)
a work implement supported on the vehicular body; (FIG 1; 0004, 0011)
a hydraulic cylinder that drives the work implement, the hydraulic cylinder including a cylinder portion and a piston capable of carrying out reciprocating movement within the cylinder portion; (FIG 1, 2: 0011-0012)
an issuance apparatus that issues a warning; and (0012, 0016: single alarm device comprising buzzer/alarm)
a controller that controls the hydraulic cylinder and the issuance apparatus (FIG 1-2; 0004, 0007, 0014), wherein the controller controls the issuance apparatus to issue a warning when the piston reaches a warning issuance position before a stroke end of the hydraulic cylinder, and (0004-0005, 0012: an intermittent sound and continuous warning sound is produced from the alarm device based on the positioning of the bucket cylinder comprising the piston is near the stroke end. 0011 discloses when the bucket cylinder moves, the piston within the cylinder moves since 0011 teaches movement of piston based upon extension and contraction (0011: a position slightly before an extension stroke end to which the piston 41 moves when the bucket cylinder 24 extends… a position slightly before the contraction stroke end to which the piston 41 has moved when the bucket cylinder 24 is contracted) Thus, when the operator is operating the machine and the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke, then the piston within the cylinder moves and is also near the predetermined position near the stroke end when the bucket cylinder is at a predetermined position near the stroke end)
adjusts timing of issuance of the warning (0004-0005, 0007 discloses a different type of alarm is triggered based on the position/closeness of the cylinder/piston to the stroke end. If the position is within a predetermined position of a first range/area from the stroke area, then first sound is outputted. If the position is within a predetermined position of a second range/area from the stroke end that is closer to the stroke end than the first range, then a second sound is outputted. The timing of issue is based/adjusted on when the position of the cylinder/piston is in an area that emits a sound/warning)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose an operation apparatus operated by an operator for driving the hydraulic cylinder; wherein the controller carries out stroke restriction control to decelerate the piston when the piston reaches a stroke restriction position between the warning issuance position and the stroke end, and cancels the stroke restriction control if an operation onto the operation apparatus continues after the piston comes to rest under the stroke restriction control. However, Yamazaki discloses wherein the controller carries out stroke restriction control to decelerate the piston when the piston reaches a stroke restriction position between the warning issuance position and the stroke end (Abstract, 0010, 0028, 0058-0059: discloses a position when to activate the decelerating when the piston approaches the stroke end of the cylinder body. Decelerating won’t occur until the piston is reaches the deceleration-start position. Thus, Yamazaki discloses a threshold position (deceleration-start position) of when the stroke restriction/decelerating occurs. Furthermore, since the decelerating only occurs after the piston reaches the set deceleration-start position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a skilled artisan would understand that if the piston returns below/before the set deceleration position (form of a rest) (after passing it), then the decelerating would no longer occur and/or be necessary since the purpose of the decelerating is to prevent damage to the hydraulic cylinder. This would ensure the safety of the equipment when operating.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Yamazaki since it would have provided the benefit of provide a control device for a hydraulic cylinder capable of preventing damage to the hydraulic cylinder without marked reduction in working efficiency, and to provide an operating machine including the same.
As per independent claim 7, Claims 7 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose carries out stroke restriction control to decelerate the piston when the piston reaches a stroke restriction position between the warning issuance position and the stroke end, and the work machine further comprises an operation portion operated by an operator to switch between execution and stop of the stroke restriction control of the hydraulic cylinder. However, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Yamazaki discloses the controller carries out stroke restriction control to decelerate the piston when the piston reaches a stroke restriction position between the warning issuance position and the stroke end, and the work machine further comprises an operation portion operated by an operator to switch between execution and stop of the stroke restriction control of the hydraulic cylinder. (Abstract, 0010, 0028, 0058-0059: discloses a position when to activate the decelerating when the piston approaches the stroke end of the cylinder body. Decelerating won’t occur until the piston is reaches the deceleration-start position. Thus, Yamazaki discloses a threshold position (deceleration-start position) of when the stroke restriction/decelerating occurs. Thus, decelerating won’t occur until the piston is reaches the deceleration-start position. Thus, Yamazaki shows start and stop of deceleration/stroke restriction.
Claim(s) 8 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in further view of Yamazaki et al in further view of Horii (US20220298744, 2022)
As per dependent claim 8, Mori discloses wherein the work implement includes a boom rotatable with respect to the vehicular body, an arm rotatable with respect to the boom, and an attachment rotatable with respect to the arm (claim 1; 0011, 0014: the plurality of booms, arms, and working tool devices (attachment) can be bent and rotated in the longitudinal direction by a boom hydraulic cylinder, an arm cylinder, and a bucket cylinder, respectively); the hydraulic cylinder includes a first cylinder that drives the arm and a second cylinder that drives the attachment (claim 1; 0004, 0011, 0014: an arm cylinder, and a bucket cylinder). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale incorporated, Yamazaki et al discloses the controller individually makes switching between execution and stop of the stroke restriction control of the first cylinder (Abstract, 0010, 0028, 0058-0059: discloses a position when to activate the decelerating. Decelerating won’t occur until the piston is reaches the deceleration-start position. Thus, shows start and stop of deceleration/stroke restriction)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose switching between execution and stop of the stroke restriction control of the second cylinder. However, Horii discloses a bucket cylinder that drives a bucket and stroke restriction control that restricts the swinging of the bucket. (0063-64) Furthermore, Horii discloses that the restriction occurs only when the restriction on the stroke 51 of the arm cylinder 42 is released by the crowd restriction releasing unit. (0063-64, 0075) Thus, Horii discloses that the restriction for the bucket does not occur when the restriction of the arm cylinder is not released and occurs when the restriction of the arm cylinder is released. Thus, Horii discloses execution and stop modes of the stroke restriction control of the second cylinder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Horii since it would have provided the benefit of preventing the bucket from coming into contact with the boom cylinder. (0005)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, in response to Applicant’s arguments regards the abstract being objected, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On page 8, in regards to limitation(s) of claims 1 and 9 invoking 112f, Applicant argues that none of the limitations of the present claims are presented in “means plus function” or “step plus function” and shouldn’t be interpreted under 112f. However, the Examiner disagrees. Note: Claims 1 and 9 were not rejected under 35 USC 112f in response to Applicant’s statement on page 8.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that the limitation “an issuance apparatus that issues a warning” meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: While the Examiner agrees that the limitation is not presented in “means play function” or “step plus function”, the Examiner states that the limitation comprises a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. The limitation comprises the term “issuance apparatus” which is viewed as generic placeholder. In addition, the limitation has the term “issuance apparatus” modified by functional language by the linking word “that” (meeting prong b). Furthermore, the limitation does not have the term “issuance apparatus” being modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. (meeting prong c). Therefore, the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
On pages 8-9, in regards to the 112(b) rejection, Applicant argues that that the originally-filed specification and drawings disclose the corresponding structure for the claimed function of the limitation “issuance apparatus.” Applicant points the Examiner to 0051 that states “issuance apparatus 60 includes an indicator 61, a buzzer 62, a vibrator 63, and the like” and 0059 that states “monitor 31 may perform a function as issuance apparatus 60”. Thus, Applicant concludes that the corresponding structure for the claimed function of the limitation “issuance apparatus” is disclosed. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that the sentence “issuance apparatus 60 includes an indicator 61, a buzzer 62, a vibrator 63, and the like” uses open-ended/exemplary language “and the like” leaving the possibility that the issuance apparatus 60 does not explicitly include these exact elements. Thus, 0051 discloses examples of what issuance apparatus 60 may include. Examples are not considered proper definitions. In addition, the claim or the claim limitation itself clearly disclose that the issuance apparatus comprises any of these elements. In addition, the “monitor 31 may perform a function as issuance apparatus 60” in 0059 states “may” perform a function which is open-ended/exemplary language. Furthermore, 0059 disclose what a monitor could be, not what an issuance apparatus. Thus, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the claim function of the limitation “issuance apparatus that…” Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
Furthermore, even if Applicant’s specification does disclose corresponding structure for the “issuance apparatus that…” limitation (Which the Examiner disagrees), a clear algorithm must also be shown in the specification to correspond to the claimed “issuance apparatus that…”. Applicant’s arguments did not indicate where a clear algorithm for the claimed “issuance apparatus that…”within Applicant’s specification. 2181 II.B. clearly states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for the claimed “issuance apparatus that…”limitation. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claims 1, 9, and 10 brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Mori alone, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Kozui et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILSON W TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172