DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the claims filed March 3, 2026. Claims 1-18 are currently pending, of which claims 1-17 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC 112(f)
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and circuitry does not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, some claims are not amended and remain under an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as detailed below. Moreover, the claim amendments have introduced new issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended claim 10 and argues that the objection to claim 2 is inappropriate. See Remarks 8. Examiner agrees and the objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant first argues that the monitoring of Ohiwa does not teach the monitoring path of a work tool and instead teaches controlling the turning of the upper turning body. See Remarks 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim rejection is one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). More specifically, Puerto explicitly teaches an attached tool along the path that must be taken into account. See Puerto paras. [0018] and [0044]. Ohiwa merely is introduced to teach more specific tool attachments and movements that can follow the path of Puerto. See Ohiwa Fig. 2 and paras. [0050-52].
Applicant next argues that the change object is not taught by Puerto because the virtual path editing “is tiresome in Puerto because existing waypoints are not utilized”. See Remarks 10. Examiner is unclear what legal standard “tiresome” entails. Nevertheless, Puerto explicitly updates the path and the trajectory. See Puerto para. [0048].
Applicant next argues that claims 3 and 4 cannot possibly be disclosed in Puerto, and Examiner again respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons as discussed above. See Remarks 10-11. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The claim remains rejected because the prior art references do teach the limitations of the claim .Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, a path can be adjusted and updated.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that the various features are not disclosed by Puerto at all. See Remarks 11. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The claim remains rejected because the prior art references do teach the limitations of the claim.
As per claim 6, Applicant argues that the start and end positions “of Ohiwa are conceptually different from the claimed specific intervals recited in Claim 6.” See Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees partly because “examples” are not explicit requirements of the claim language, and the claims are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner encourages more specific language as to the intervals, as revolution settings could certainly be an interval as disclosed in Ohiwa. See Ohiwa paras. [0104-105] and [0109-111].
Applicant next argues that claim 8 and its quadratic difference value are not taught by Maekwawa. See Remarks 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that the rejection is one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. Maekwawa explicitly teaches a quadratic curve that Examiner clearly identified as being applied to the curved path of Puerto/Ohiwa. See Maekawa paras. [0193] and [0305].
Applicant next argues that claim 9 is not taught by the cited art (or it’s benefit). See Remarks 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the purported benefit here is irrelevant, even if it were claimed. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim merely calls for a display to update the points accordingly. Puerto does just that. See Puerto paras. [0047-48].
Applicant next argues that claim 10 is not taught by Puerto and Ohiwa as it relates to the selection. See Remarks 12. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The claim remains rejected because the prior art references do teach the limitations of the claim.
Applicant next argues that claim 11 is not taught by the prior art and that the imaging and paths are “totally different from each other in time (current or future) of display and displayed object (machine or target path), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references. Examiner again respectfully disagrees with both Applicant’s characterization of the claim language and the prior art teachings. As explained above, the target path and the waypoints are taught by Puerto and Ohiwa. The tool of Puerto/Ohiwa is updated as the user of Price remotely controls and views the positional updates on their remote display.
Applicant next argues that claim 12 is not taught by the cited references. See Remarks 13. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The claim remains rejected because the prior art references do teach the limitations of the claim.
Finally, Applicant argues that claim 15 does not teach the real-time images that predicts a future situation. See Remarks 13. Examiner notes that no prediction element is claimed. The claim remains rejected because the prior art references do teach the limitations of the claim.
It is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
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: “an object attachment selection unit” and “a target posture change unit” in claim 13.
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. For example, this includes the controller 11 of the working machine and the portable-terminal-side controller 15. See Specification paras. [0026-27] and [0032].
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 1-18 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 various units preceded by “circuitry configured to be” each of those respective units. This language makes it unclear if the circuitry and units are separate entities or part of the same entity. It is further unclear how or what process sets the configuration from the circuitry to each of the respective units. Claim 4-6, 13, and 14 recite similar language regarding “circuitry configured to be” and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 2, 3, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected based on their dependency from an above-rejected claim.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cámara Puerto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0089222; hereinafter “Puerto”) and further in view of Ohiwa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0299929; hereinafter “Ohiwa”).
As per claim 1, Puerto teaches a target path changing system for an attachment, which is used for a working machine including a lower running body (See Puerto Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0018-20]), [an upper turning body attached to an upper part of the lower running body to the rotatable, and the attachment attached to the upper turning body], the system comprising:
circuitry configured to be a target point setting unit which is configured to set target points at specific intervals on a target path of a specific part of the attachment (See Puerto paras. [0018] and [0044]: work tool along path of work machine);
a display device which is configured to display the target path and the target points (See Puerto paras. [0024] and [0046-48]: display showing path of work machine);
circuitry configured to be an object point selection unit which is configured to allow an operator to select one of the target points as a change object point (See Puerto para. [0047]: “An operator may edit the virtual path 38 by inputting new waypoints 70 or a new section of path on the display 48”);
circuitry configured to be a range setting unit which is configured to set a movable range in which the change object point is movable (See Puerto paras. [0047] and [0052]: virtual path may be updated. The vehicle then can “maintain a predetermined distance and alignment from the target object 74. As the target object 74 moves, the work machine 10 or 26 will follow the target object 74”);
circuitry configured to be an object point movement unit which is configured to allow the operator to move the change object point within the movable range (See Puerto para. [0045-48]: “The new path created by the new waypoints 70 must intersect with the virtual path 38 and be within the work machine's 26 steering tolerances. If, for example, the virtual path 38 is relatively straight and the operator's new section of path commands a steering direction that is significant, the system will notify the operator of an error”); and
circuitry configured to be a target path resetting unit which is configured to reset the target path within a range between a change start point that is a target point forward of the change object point and a change end point that is a target point rearward of the change object point so that the target path passes through an after-movement change object point that is the change object point after movement (See Puerto Figs. 11-13 and paras. [0046-48]: target path is updated and reset with some points overlapping and others no longer displayed, when the user/operator updates the path. The cited Figures show waypoint 62 outside of the virtual path which is deleted when the new path is updated).
However, while Puerto explicitly teaches a work machine and an attached tool, Puerto does not explicitly teach separate upper body movements with the tool attached thereto.
Ohiwa teaches an upper turning body attached to an upper part of the lower running body to the rotatable, and the attachment attached to the upper turning body (See Ohiwa Fig. 2 and paras. [0050-52]: rotatable upper body with attachment of the excavator tool/bucket to the upper body).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the work tool and machinery paths of Puerto with the excavator of Ohiwa. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring paths of work tools attached to work machines and Ohiwa further enhances the path updating of Puerto by increasing its applicability across a variety of tools while also ensuring proper load and orientation along the path so work efficiency can be improved (See Ohiwa paras. [0021-23]).
As per claim 2, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the target point setting unit sets the target points as information associated with posture of the attachment, and based on the information of the posture of the attachment at at least one of the change start point, the change end point, or the change object point, the range setting unit sets the movable range (See Puerto para. [0043-47]: update and movement of the points along the path are partially based on the range of motion of the attached work tool. Therefore, a new target can be set within the work machine’s steering tolerances).
As per claim 3, Puerto/Ohiwa teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1. Puerto further teaches wherein the range setting unit sets the movable range so that the change object point is movable in at least one of a front-rear direction of [the upper turning body] or a up-down direction of [the upper turning body] (See Puerto para. [0047]: “The new path created by the new waypoints 70 must intersect with the virtual path 38 and be within the work machine's 26 steering tolerances. If, for example, the virtual path 38 is relatively straight and the operator's new section of path commands a steering direction that is significant, the system will notify the operator of an error”).
However, while Puerto teaches the range of the work machine and the attached tool, Puerto does not explicitly teach a separate upper turning body in the work machine.
Ohiwa teaches the upper turning body to which the ranges of Puerto apply (See Ohiwa Figs. 2, 4, and 7 and paras. [0090-92]: upper turning body and its working range R).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Puerto with the teachings of Ohiwa for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, further comprising: circuitry configured to be a change start point selection unit which is configured to allow the operator to select one of the target points forward of the change object point as the change start point; and circuitry configured to be a change end point selection unit which is configured to allow the operator to select one of the target points rearward of the change object point as the change end point (See Puerto Figs. 6-8 and 11-13 and paras. [0046-48]: user presented with path waypoints with waypoints showing a start of a path and an end of the path. The user can modify these waypoints within a tolerance range and the points are updated accordingly. Therefore, if the user selects new point 70 as shown in Fig. 12, the new waypoints are displayed and the path updated accordingly, with new end points beyond that selected new waypoint and any updates prior as well).
As per claim 5, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, further comprising: circuitry configured to be a first target point movement unit which is configured to, when the target point is provided between the change start point and the after-movement change object point, move the target point between the change start point and the after-movement change object point to a point on a line connecting the change start point with the after-movement change object point; and circuitry configured to be a second target point movement unit which is configured to, when the target point is provided between the change end point and the after-movement change object point, move the target point between the change end point and the after-movement change object point to a point on a line connecting the change end point with the after-movement change object point (See Puerto Figs. 11-13 and paras. [0046-47]: user path is updated with new waypoints if the user creates new waypoints 70).
As per claim 6, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1.
However, while Puerto teaches tolerances and intervals between points (See Puerto paras. [0035] and [0043]), Puerto does not teach that the user can change those intervals.
Ohiwa teaches circuitry configured to be a specific interval changing unit which is configured to allow the operator to change the specific intervals (See Ohiwa paras. [0104-105] and [0109-111]: start and end position setting components that determine revolution setting. This includes operator notifications until new positions are set).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Puerto with the teachings of Ohiwa for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the target path resetting unit is configured to reset the target path so that the change start point, the change end point, and the after-movement change object point are connected by a curved line (See Puerto Figs. 11-13 and paras. [0046-47]: user path is updated with new waypoints if the user creates new waypoints 70. The line becomes more curved as the new points are added).
As per claim 9, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the display device changes a display state of the display device when the object point movement unit is trying to move the change object point from the inside of the movable range to the outside of the movable range (See Puerto para. [0047]: “The new path created by the new waypoints 70 must intersect with the virtual path 38 and be within the work machine's 26 steering tolerances. If, for example, the virtual path 38 is relatively straight and the operator's new section of path commands a steering direction that is significant, the system will notify the operator of an error”).
As per claim 10, Puerto/Ohiwa teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1. However, while Puerto teaches an attachment tool as well as setting attachment paths (See Puerto Figs. 11-14 and paras. [0046-49]), Puerto does not explicitly teach boom and arm attachments, as well as the upper turning body.
Ohiwa further teaches wherein the attachment includes: a boom which is attached to the upper turning body to be rotatable in the up-down direction; an arm which is attached to the boom to be rotatable in the up-down direction; and a leading-end attachment which is attached to the arm to be rotatable, and the object point movement unit includes: an object attachment selection unit which is configured to allow the operator to select at least one of the boom, the arm, and the leading-end attachment as an object attachment; and a target posture change unit which is configured to allow the operator to move the change object point by changing a target posture of the object attachment (See Ohiwa Fig. 2 and paras. [0052]: boom and arm linked to the rotating upper body of the work machine revolving unit 3. These are connected to a hydraulic excavator and excavation bucket; paras. [0071-73] and [0090]: range recognition component recognizes the working range R from the design data for the excavator tool. This includes position information about the upper body as well as the orientations and rotation angles of the excavation bucket and the arm and the boom. These are further being modified by the path adjustments of Puerto).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Puerto with the teachings of Ohiwa for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 13, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, further comprising circuitry configured to be a surrounding state acquisition device which is configured to acquire an image indicating a surrounding state of the working machine, the display device displays the surrounding state acquired by the surrounding state acquisition device to be overlapped with the target path and the target points (See Puerto Figs. 10-13 and paras. [0031] and [0046-48]: virtual path displayed as well as surrounding 3D objects that are captured to form the scene as a whole).
As per claim 14, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 13, wherein the surrounding state acquisition device obtains a distance to an object, and the target path changing system further comprises a warning device which is configured to output a warning [by sound, vibration, or display] when the distance between an obstacle included in the surrounding state and the target path is equal to or less than a predetermined value (See Puerto paras. [0038-39]: “processor will also analyze its confidence level of such measurements, as shown by steps 126-128. If the processor determines that the measurements are acceptable, the processor will analyze whether any 3D features 54 are too close to the camera 44 or the virtual path 38, as shown by step 129. If so, the processor will alert the operator of interference, as shown by step 130. The operator may modify virtual path 38 or clear the interference before starting operation”; Figs. 4 and 5 and paras. [0031] and [0035]: distance to objects shown via vectors).
However, while Puerto notifies the user of interference, Puerto is not explicit on how that warning is conveyed.
Ohiwa teaches output a warning by sound, vibration, or display (See Ohiwa paras. [0107-109]: notification made by voice or display, which would apply to the warnings/alerts of Puerto).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Puerto with the teachings of Ohiwa for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 16, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the display device displays the target path before resetting to be overlapped with the target path after the resetting (See Puerto Figs. 11-13 and paras. [0046-48]: target path is updated and reset with some points overlapping and others no longer displayed, when the user/operator updates the path. The cited Figures show waypoint 62 outside of the virtual path which is deleted when the new path is updated).
As per claim 17, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the display device displays the target path before the resetting and the target path after the resetting in two dimensions (See Puerto Figs. 11-13 and paras. [0046-49]: updated map before and after deleted waypoint 62, including an aerial map above as well as GPS coordinates, which are latitude and longitude positioning).
As per claim 18, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, further comprising a portable terminal which is able to mutually communicate with the working machine, the portable terminal including the display device, the object point selection unit, and the object point movement unit (See Puerto Fig. 3 and paras. [0024] and [0046-48]: remote terminal where operator can create and adjust waypoints, as well as monitor the path of the machine).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto/Ohiwa as applied above, and further in view of Maekawa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0076640; hereinafter, “Maekawa”).
As per claim 8, Puerto/Ohiwa teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 7. However, while Puerto teaches a curved path, however Puerto does not teach a quadratic curve.
Maekawa teaches wherein the curved line is a quadratic curve (See Maekawa paras. [0193] and [0305]: steering along the path can be obtained using a quadratic differential value of the curvature of the route. This would apply to the curvature of Puerto/Ohiwa).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the curved machinery paths of Puerto/Ohiwa with the quadratic curves of Maekawa. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose route generation for machine vehicles and their attached tools. By using the quadratic curves, this would provide more accurate approximations of the route of Puerto/Ohiwa that a linear model cannot while reducing the travel cost of the vehicle through the optimization of said route (See Maekawa para. [0193]).
Claims 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto/Ohiwa as applied above, and further in view of Price (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0249957).
As per claim 11, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1. Puerto further teaches remote control steering and setting of paths (See Puerto paras. [0021] and [0033]). However, Puerto/Ohiwa does not explicitly teach the display of the attachment in response to user input.
Price teaches wherein the display device displays an image in which the specific part of the attachment is positioned at the change object point and the specific part in the image moves in response to an input from the operator, and the object point movement unit moves the change object point in accordance with the position of the specific part after movement in the image (See Price Fig. 3 and paras. [0029] and [0044-45]: remote console to control the machine, where the “remote control console may be configured to receive information indicative of a second position of the machine at a second time period, and update the first image based on the information indicative of the second position of the machine”. Therefore, as the user interacts with the remote console, the tool positions are updated).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working machine control of Puerto/Ohiwa with the remote control of Price. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose remote control of machine vehicles and their attached tools. Price further enhances the user interface controls of Puerto/Ohiwa by providing for intuitive controls to be updated in real-time, including in the event of any delays in communication (See Price para. [0007]).
As per claim 12, Puerto/Ohiwa/Price further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 11, wherein the display device changes the display state of the image when [the specific part in] the image is moved from the inside of the movable range to the outside of the movable range (See Puerto paras. [0038-39]: “the processor will analyze whether any 3D features 54 are too close to the camera 44 or the virtual path 38, as shown by step 129. If so, the processor will alert the operator of interference, as shown by step 130. The operator may modify virtual path 38 or clear the interference before starting operation”).
However, Puerto/Ohiwa does not teach or suggest that the specific part is being captured and relayed to the user.
Price teaches the specific part in the image (See Price Fig. 3 and paras. [0029] and [0044-45]: remote console to control the machine, where the “remote control console may be configured to receive information indicative of a second position of the machine at a second time period, and update the first image based on the information indicative of the second position of the machine”. Therefore, as the user interacts with the remote console, the tool positions are updated).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Puerto/Ohiwa with the teachings of Price for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 11.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto/Ohiwa as applied above, and further in view of Morley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0036817; hereinafter “Morley”)
As per claim 15, Puerto/Ohiwa further teaches the target path changing system for the attachment according to claim 1, wherein the display device displays a video in which [the attachment moves] while the specific part is kept on the target path (See Puerto para. [0046]: real-time images of the virtual path as the work machine moves along the path. Real-time images could obviously be videos to one of ordinary skill, considering their “real-time” nature).
However, while Puerto teaches the real-time imagery along the path, Puerto does not display a video of the attachment.
Morley teaches the display device displays a video which the attachments moves while the specific part is kept on the target path of Puerto/Ohiwa (See Morley paras. [0028-29]: remote control interface with various views of tool attachments and their positions; paras. [0023] and [0043]: real-time video images of the tools to the remote user)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the working machine control of Puerto/Ohiwa with the remote control of Morley. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose remote control of machine vehicles and real-time imagery of the working machines. Morley further enhances the user interface controls of Puerto/Ohiwa by providing more information to the user, allowing the operator to view additional features of the working machine to better and more efficiently monitor the work being performed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118