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 .
Responsive to Communications on 04/21/2026
Claim 2 is canceled
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 are Amended
Claims 3, 5 and 8 are Original
Claims 1 and 3-11 Pending
Claims 1 and 3-11 Rejected
Final Action
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.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended claim 6 to clarify interpretation. Applicant states to “overcome the interpretation.” Examiner is uncertain if applicant agrees or disagrees with examiners interpretation. Claim 6 has been amended to state “a working range” rather than a “working area.” This amendment seems to confirm the interpretation made by the examiner. Therefore, the examiner believes that his interpretation of claim 6 was correct.
Furthermore, examiner notes that due to the presence of “if” in the method claim of claim 6, that claim 6 is not actually required. Because the “if” limitation can be considered optional, the scope of the claim is likely broader than intended. Examiner recommends amending the claim to ensure the scope of the claim is as intended.
Claim Objections
Regarding the amended claim set on 04/21/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 were previously objected to. Applicant has amended previously objected to claims. Examiner confirms that the claims have been amended and the previous objections have been withdrawn.
Begin Response to Arguments 103
Issue: Claim 1 was rejected under 103 analysis as being unpatentable over hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017. Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome previous rejection. Applicant argues that Hidefumi_2003 does not disclose the newly amended feature of “comparing the angle data of the upper arm and the angle data of the lower arm to determine whether the operating arm is bent and deformed.” Applicant also argues Hidefumi_2003 lacks the motivation to determine whether the arm structure has undergone bending deformation. Rule: the MPEP 2145 (c) states “A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references that is found in the prior art is an appropriate rationale for determining obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. However, it is just one of a number of valid rationales for doing so.” Analysis: Examiner notes that the claim limitation references is a newly amended claim limitation. Therefore, new prior art or mapping may be used to map to the newly amended features recited. Regarding whether or not Hidefumi_2003 lacks the motivation to determine whether the arm structure has undergone bending deformation, applicant notes that this is not a requirement to support a motivation to combine. As shown above, a teaching, suggestion, and motivation may be provided from within the prior art. Therefore it is not necessary that Hidefumi_2003 itself provide a motivation for detecting deformation, because a different reference may provide the motivation instead. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing, and rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Issue: Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the new technical problem which is solved by claim 1 is “How to timely obtain the deformation state of the operating arm of the working machine” while Hidefumi_2003 attempts to solve the problem of “dynamically display a schematic diagram of a working machine of a construction machine on a display … reducing burden on the operator” Applicant argues that because the technical problems solved are different, Hidefumi_2003 does not take into account the technical problem solved by the present invention and also lacks the motivation to determine whether the arm structure has undergone bending deformation. Rule: The MPEP 2141.01(a) states 1 “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Analysis: Examiner notes that while the applicant argues Hidefumi_2003 does not solve the particular problem of “obtaining deformation states,” this is not necessary in supporting an obviousness rejection. Hidefumi_2003 is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. The claimed invention is titled “Dynamic simulation display method and system for working machine structure.” Hidefumi_2003 does “dynamically display a schematic diagram of a working machine of a construction machine on a display.” Therefore they are from the same field of endeavor of dynamic simulation for construction machinery. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing, and rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Issue: Applicant argues that Hammar_2017 does not disclose “acquiring angle data … comparing the angle data … determining whether the operating arm has undergone bending deformation … dynamically updating a displayed machine structure …” Rule: The MPEP 2145 IV states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Analysis: Hammar_2017 was not mapped to these claim limitations, Hammar_2017 was not used as a reference to show the actions being performed, instead, Hammar_2017 was used to make obvious the presence of angles and sensors and the upper and lower arms of a machine crane structure. The fact that Hammar_2017 does not disclose the above steps is irrelevant to the obviousness rejection proposed. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing, and rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Issue: Applicant argues against the combination of references between Hammar_2017 and Hidefumi_2003. Applicant argues that Hammar_2017 is from the field of mechanical maintenance, with the goal of guiding maintenance personal to locate sensor positions, not in data comparison. Applicant argues that therefore Hammar_2017 does not find teaching or motivation in combination with Hidefumi_2003. Rule: The MPEP 2141.01(a) states “When determining whether the "relevant field of endeavor" test is met, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212). When determining whether a prior art reference meets the "same field of endeavor" test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses. Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference "in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances.’" Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380 (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212). These circumstances are to be weighed "from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor." Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. See also Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 2020 USPQ2d 11335 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1378; and Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1358-59, 2023 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’") (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).”Analysis: Interpreting the prior art of Hammar_2017, as specifically only pertaining to the field of mechanical maintenance, is a limitation of the prior art reference to a particular focus within a given field, which the reference is not limited to. Hammar_2017 is in the field of crane use and safety. From a common sense vantage point of one ordinarily skilled in the art, the prior art of Hammar_2017 which discusses cranes is related to the claimed invention which dynamically simulates cranes. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing, and rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Issue: Applicant argues that neither Hidefumi_2003 or Hammar_2017 disclose the distinct feature of fusing and analyzing data from two distinct sensors to diagnose the structural state of the operating arm. Applicant argues that this is a non-obvious technical concept which is not common knowledge. Rule and Analysis: Examiner notes that the limitations referenced by the applicant are a result of the newly amended limitations. Therefore this argument does not hold merit for the previous rejection, but instead references the prior art in respect to the newly amended claims. Because the claim limitations change the scope of the claim, new prior art or mappings may be introduced. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing, and rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A dynamic simulation display method which is a process
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: comparing the angle data of the upper arm and the angle data of the lower arm to determine whether the operating arm is bent and deformed;
When recited generally, comparing the angle data of the upper arm and the angle data of the lower arm to determine whether the operating arm is bent and deformed encompasses a process of observing angle measurements and evaluating if the angle is within proper working range. For example, this can involve seeing that the upper arm is disposed at a lower angle than the lower arm, which may indicate that the arm is bent according to the knowledge of one ordinarily skilled in the art. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Because this limitation encompasses processes including observations and evaluations, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites for a working machine structure
This claim limitation simply states that the method performed is done for a working machine structure. This is limiting the method performed to the field of construction. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ Because this claim limitation does no more then to limit the method to be performed in the field of construction, this limitation is considered a field of use limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
acquiring working condition data of a working machine in real time, the working condition data comprising angle data of an operating arm, and the angle data of the operating arm comprising angle data of a lower arm and angle data of an upper arm;-
this limitation pertains to acquiring data related to a working machine. The MPEP 2106.05(g) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent” This claim can be understood as “a step of obtaining information about angle data, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing the gathered information to detect whether the operating arm is bent and deformed. Therefore the claim is understood as pre-solution extra solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and updating a currently displayed working machine structure dynamically according to the working condition data
this limitation pertains to displaying the data related to a working machine. The MPEP 2106.05(g) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity” One example outlined in the MPEP as extra-solution activity is “ Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” with the example of “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and” This claim can be understood as “Selecting angle data information in a construction environment for analysis and display”. Therefore, this claim limitation can be understood as extra-solution activity, which is displaying the data, and does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
wherein the angle data of the lower arm is obtained based on an angle sensor disposed on [[a]]the lower arm of [[an]]the operating arm of the working machine, and the angle data of the upper arm is obtained based on an angle sensor disposed on the upper arm of the operating arm of the working machine.
This limitation pertains to angle data acquired earlier in the claim which was determined to be extra-solution activity. This claim describes where the angle data was obtained from. As already stated, the collection of angle data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the tools and machinery used for this process are generic. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” This limitation describes the use of angle sensors for the ordinary capacity of recording an angle. And therefore this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, acquiring working condition data of a working machine in real time, the working condition data comprising angle data of an operating arm, and the angle data of the operating arm comprising angle data of a lower arm and angle data of an upper arm;
This limitation was determined to be insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, this limitation is considered well understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the MPEP 2106.05(d) considers activities such as “Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Amaranth” to be well understood, where the examiner interprets the above claim as “Recording a machines angles” Therefore the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
and updating a currently displayed working machine structure dynamically according to the working condition data
This limitation was determined to be insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, this limitation is considered well understood, routine, and conventional. One example given of well understood, routine, and conventional activity given in MPEP 2106.05(d) is “Electronic recordkeeping” such as “Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);” This claim limitation can be understood as updating a display, which is considered by the examiner to be well understood and conventional. Therefore the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A dynamic simulation display system which is a machine
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: and the processor is used for executing the dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1.
Claim 1 was identified to recite an abstract idea. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Therefore, the processor executing claim 1 recites the abstract idea of claim 1 and is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites for a working machine structure
This claim limitation simply states that the method performed is done for a working machine structure. This is limiting the method performed to the field of construction. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ Because this claim limitation does no more then to limit the method to be performed in the field of construction, this limitation is considered a field of use limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
a processor and [[an ]]angle sensor sensors
This claim limitation adds generic components to the abstract idea determined above. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” This limitation adds generic angle sensor and processors to the abstract idea above. And therefore this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
wherein the processor is connected to the angle sensor-sensors, the angle senser-sensors[[is]]are disposed on a lower arm of an operating arm of a working machine and an upper arm of the operating arm of the working machine;
The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ With an example being “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); “ The claim limitations of using angle sensors to measure angles on operating arms of a working machine, is an attempt to limit the judicial exception of “comparing angles to see if the arm is bent” in the field of construction. Because this claim limitation does no more then to limit the method to be performed in the field of construction, this limitation is considered a field of use limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 9 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the currently displayed working machine structure is obtained by combining assembly drawings of the working machine based on working condition data of the working machine obtained at a previous time;
This claim limitation pertains to the displaying of the working machine structure referenced in claim 1 which was determined to be an extra-solution activity of data outputting. As stated in claim 1 One example outlined in the MPEP as extra-solution activity is “ Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” with the example of “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Therefore, the presence of the claim limitation above, which when recited broadly essentially displays data, is considered further extra-solution activity under the same rational as stated above in claim 1, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
and the assembly drawings are generated based on a physical structure model of the working machine.
This claim limitation attempts to constrict the environment of the drawings output by the machine by stating that they must be based on a physical working machine. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” This claim limitation essentially states that the drawings used are in the field of use of construction, and therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim 4:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, after the acquiring working condition data of [[a]]the working machine in real time, further comprising: displaying the working condition data dynamically.
As stated in claim 1, displaying the working condition data is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim limitation is a further recitation of the insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 5:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 4, wherein the displaying the working condition data dynamically specifically comprises:
displaying the working condition data in a display area which is not the display area of the working machine structure; and/or, marking the working condition data at a corresponding position of the working machine structure.
As stated in claim 1, displaying the working condition data is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim limitation is a further recitation of the insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 6:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 4, after the updating a currently displayed working machine structure dynamically according to the working condition data, further comprising:
if the currently displayed working machine structure is outside a working [[area]]range, highlighting the working condition data.
As stated in claim 1, displaying the working condition data is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim limitation is a further recitation of the insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 7:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the working condition data further comprises:
height data of a lifting hook of the working machine and distance data of an arm head from a lifting hook of the working machine to the operating arm, the height data of the lifting hook is determined based on a rope length extended by a winch and detected by a counting detection device provided on [[a]]the winch of the working machine and a multiplying ratio, and the distance data of the arm head is determined based on the height data of the lifting hook.
This claim pertains to the type of data that is acquired. As stated in claim 1, the MPEP provides example of “limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception [to] include … Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” This limitation can be understood as collecting working machine data for analysis and display for the field of construction, and therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 8:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the operating arm comprises a main arm and an auxiliary arm; and the working condition data further comprises: angle data of an operating arm corresponding to the main arm, angle data of an operating arm corresponding to the auxiliary arm, and an included angle between the main arm and the auxiliary arm.
This claim pertains to the type of data that is acquired as well as the arm of the construction machine. As stated in claim 1, the MPEP provides example of “limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception [to] include … Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” This limitation can be understood as collecting working machine data for analysis and display for the field of construction, and therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 9:
The dynamic simulation display system for the working machine structure according to claim 9, further comprising: a counting detection device; wherein the counting detection device is disposed on a winch of the working machine, and the counting detection device is used for measuring a rope length extended by the winch and a multiplying ratio.
This claim pertains to the type of data that is acquired. As stated in claim 1, the MPEP provides example of “limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception [to] include … Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” This limitation can be understood as collecting working machine data for analysis and display for the field of construction, and therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
Claim 11:The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the working condition data further comprises a length, a working radius, a working height, a minimum working radius, and a maximum working radius of the operating arm.
This claim pertains to the type of data that is acquired. As stated in claim 1, the MPEP provides example of “limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception [to] include … Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” This limitation can be understood as collecting working machine data for analysis and display for the field of construction, and therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea.
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, 3-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003104688A (Hidefumi_2003) , Hammar Service Manual Version 06/2017GB (Hammar_2017), and CN102589493A (Yi_2012)
Claim 1:A dynamic simulation display method for a working machine structure, comprising: (Page 2 abstract: “The present invention relates to a display method and a display device for a display device of a construction machine, and more particularly to a display method and a display device for a display device of a construction machine that dynamically displays the posture of the working implement of the construction machine, such as a hydraulic crane or a hydraulic excavator, on a display.” Examiners note: Where displaying the machine is equivalent to a “simulation” as treated in this instant’s applications disclosure. )
acquiring working condition data of a working machine in real time, the working condition data comprising angle data of an operating arm, par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle, (Examiner note: operating arm) a load detector 2 that detects the weight of the load suspended from the crane, an input device 3 for selecting functions and inputting information, an engine rotation detector 4, a rear monitoring camera 8 installed at the rear of the crane body, a control unit 5 that inputs signals from the angle detector 1, load detector 2, input device 3, engine rotation detector 4, and rear monitoring camera 8 and performs predetermined arithmetic processing, an electromagnetic proportional valve 6 that is driven and controlled by the control unit 5, a display unit 7, and a speaker 9”
and the angle data of the operating arm comprising angle data of a arm par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle,)
updating a currently displayed working machine structure dynamically according to the working condition data; par 26: “The main screen display area 21 displays the contents of the functions and information corresponding to the menu item selected in the menu screen display area 22. In the example of Figure 5, the moment limiter function of the overload prevention device is selected in the menu screen display area 22, and the corresponding screen (moment limiter screen) is displayed. On this screen, an illustration (schematic diagram) of the crane body and front attachment is dynamically displayed as posture information for the crane's front attachment 116, and the specifications, posture, and other status quantities of the crane are displayed as numerical values corresponding to the relevant parts of the illustration. In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively” … par 35 “When the crane boom 114 is lowered and the attitude of the front attachment 116 is lowered from the state shown in Figure 5, the positions of the boom 114, jib 115, and the suspended load change, and the attitude of the illustrated front attachment 116 also changes dynamically as shown in Figures 7 and 8 in accordance with this change in attitude. At the same time, the positions of display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, which display the numerical values of the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114, and the positions of display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, which display the numerical specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115, move while maintaining a constant positional relationship with the relevant parts of the illustration.
and comparing the angle data of the [overloaded]
“par 18: “Based on signals from the angle detector 1 and the load detector 2, the control unit 5
calculates the limit load, working radius, actual load, and load factor, which is the ratio of the
actual load to the limit load, and determines whether there is an overload, and depending on
the result of the determination, outputs a command to stop the actuator to the
electromagnetic proportional valve 6 and makes the speaker 9 sound.”
wherein the angle data of the machine,
Par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle”
and the angle data of the
Par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle”
Hidefumi_2003 does not expressly recite arm and angle data of an upper arm;
upper arm and the angle data of the lower arm
Hammer_2007 however makes obvious arm and angle data of an upper arm; page 31 figure pasted below, which depicts a crane diagram, where the claim diagram depicts explicitly in the chart position 2. “Angle sensor, lower arm”, and “Angle sensor, upper arm”)
page 31 figure pasted below, which depicts a crane diagram, where the claim diagram depicts explicitly in the chart position 2. “Angle sensor, lower arm” which is disposed no the lower arm as shown in the figure.)
page 31 figure pasted below, which depicts a crane diagram, where the claim diagram depicts explicitly in the chart position 1. “Angle sensor, upper arm” which is disposed no the upper arm as shown in the figure.)
PNG
media_image1.png
1061
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane use and safety. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been to apply a known technique to a known device for a predictable result.
The prior art of Hidefumi_2003 has angle sensors on the main arm par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle” but does not disclose the main “boom” comprising a lower arm section and an upper arm section. Hidefumi_2003 does this so that par 44: “since it becomes easier for the operator to recognize numerical information such as posture and load factor, the operator will not continue working even when the load factor is in a dangerous range, which leads to improved safety.” As shown by Hammar_2017, a crane comprising a “lower arm” is known in the art. When working in a crane system that contains an upper arm and lower arm, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the angle sensor performs the same function, and that the angle sensors would be placed on a lower arm like it is in Hammar_2017 to perform the same function of Hidefumi_2003 for the predictable result of measuring the angle of the lower arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the angle sensor and simulation of Hidefumi_2003 with angle sensors on a lower arm of Hammar_2017 for the benefit of measuring the angle of a lower arm in cranes that contain a lower arm to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Hidefumi_2003 and Hammer_2007 do not expressly recite upper arm and the angle data of the lower arm
Yi_2012 however makes obvious
Yi_2012 par 12: “According to one aspect of the present invention, a boom system is provided, comprising n boom segments (Examiner note: At least an upper and lower arm) sequentially hinged together by horizontal hinge shafts, and further comprising: a processor, n tilt sensors (Examiner note: angle sensors) and 2n length sensors, wherein n is a positive integer, wherein a first length sensor and a second length sensor are installed on each boom segment; on the i-th boom segment, a preset distance L<sub>ai</sub> is between the second length sensor and the first length sensor; the length L<sub>bi</sub> of the i-th boom segment after deformation is obtained by the first length sensor; the length L<sub>ci</sub> between the second length sensor and the end of the i-th boom segment after deformation is obtained by the second length sensor; one of the tilt sensors is installed on each boom segment to obtain the angle α<sub>i</sub> between the line connecting the first length sensor and the second length sensor and a reference plane, wherein i = 1, 2, ..., n; the processor obtains the boom system end position parameters (x′<sub>Tip</sub>, y′<sub>Tip</sub>) based on the detection results of the tilt sensors and the length sensors.” (Examiner note: Where the process of determining position based on deformation encompasses the determination of the operating arm is bent and deformed.)
Hidefumi_2003, Hammar_2017, and Yi_2012 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane use and safety. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003, Hammar_2017, and Yi_2012.The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. Yi_2012 par 6 states : “Due to the influence of its own weight and construction posture, the rigid-flexible coupled robotic arm undergoes complex deformation, which seriously affects its end-effector positioning accuracy. “ Hidefumi_2003 teaches a crane simulation display screen which uses a simulation display for an operator to track the machinery, for example par 26: “the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively.” Where one normally skilled in the art when measuring the actual reach and height of the boom would detect the deformation present, as that is a factor impacting the actual reach and height of the boom. And secondarily, where one would be motivated to do so to prevent loss in positioning accuracy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the simulation method and machinery of Hidefumi_2003, and Hammar_2017 with the detection of bends and deformation of Yi_2012 for the benefit of ensuring positional accuracy for display to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 3:The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, (see claim 1)
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious wherein the currently displayed working machine structure is obtained by combining assembly drawings of the working machine based on working condition data of the working machine obtained Par 26: “The main screen display area 21 displays the contents of the functions and information corresponding to the menu item selected in the menu screen display area 22. In the example of Figure 5, the moment limiter function of the overload prevention device is selected in the menu screen display area 22, and the corresponding screen (moment limiter screen) is displayed. On this screen, an illustration (schematic diagram) (Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets a schematic diagram to be equivalent to an assembly drawing) of the crane body and front attachment (Examiner note: a combination of two assembly drawings) is dynamically displayed as posture information for the crane's front attachment 116, and the specifications, posture, and other status quantities of the crane are displayed as numerical values corresponding to the relevant parts of the illustration. In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively”
at a previous time; par 38: “Next, image creation and output processing is performed to display the previously calculated boom angle and working radius on the display section 7a of the display unit 7 (step S160)”
and the assembly drawings are generated based on a physical structure model of the working machine.
Par 32: “The cursor 25 in the menu screen display area 22 has moved to the "Work Status" item, and the main screen display area 21 displays the model name and the specifications of the main body, boom, jib, offset, and drum.” Examiner note: Which makes obvious that the drawing displayed in the display area are generated and based on the physical structure model of the working machine. Par 26 “schematic diagram” also makes obvious a physical structure.
Claim 4:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, after the acquiring working condition data of the working machine in real time, further comprising: (see claim 1)
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious displaying the working condition data dynamically.
par 26: “The main screen display area 21 displays the contents of the functions and information corresponding to the menu item selected in the menu screen display area 22. In the example of Figure 5, the moment limiter function of the overload prevention device is selected in the menu screen display area 22, and the corresponding screen (moment limiter screen) is displayed. On this screen, an illustration (schematic diagram) of the crane body and front attachment is dynamically displayed as posture information for the crane's front attachment 116, and the specifications, posture, and other status quantities of the crane are displayed as numerical values corresponding to the relevant parts of the illustration. In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively” (Examiner note: where this occurs after acquiring the data in real time. See also Fig 5 – 12 which show the display changing dynamically as the working condition data changes. )
Claim 5:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 4, wherein the displaying the working condition data dynamically specifically comprises: (see claim 4)
displaying the working condition data in a display area which is not the display area of the working machine structure; and/or,
Examiner note: Since this is an “or” limitation, this limitation is not addressed.
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious marking the working condition data at a corresponding position of the working machine structure. par 26: “The main screen display area 21 displays the contents of the functions and information corresponding to the menu item selected in the menu screen display area 22. In the example of Figure 5, the moment limiter function of the overload prevention device is selected in the menu screen display area 22, and the corresponding screen (moment limiter screen) is displayed. On this screen, an illustration (schematic diagram) of the crane body and front attachment is dynamically displayed as posture information for the crane's front attachment 116, and the specifications, posture, and other status quantities of the crane are displayed as numerical values corresponding to the relevant parts of the illustration. In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively”
PNG
media_image2.png
476
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Where this is a marking the working condition data at a corresponding position of the working machine structure
Claim 8: The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the operating arm comprises (see claim 1)
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious a main arm and an auxiliary arm;
par 20: “FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing the appearance of the crane. In this embodiment, the crane is a crawler crane having left and right tracks (crawlers) on a lower running body 111, a rotating body 113 is mounted on the lower running body 111 via a slewing wheel 112, a front attachment 116 consisting of a boom 114 and a jib (auxiliary boom) 115 is provided at the front of the rotating body 113, and a counterweight 117 is provided at the rear of the rotating body 113.”
PNG
media_image3.png
412
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner: Where boom 114 is the main arm and 115 is the auxiliary arm
and the working condition data further comprises:
angle data of an operating arm corresponding to the main arm, par 26: “In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively” (Examiner note: angle data corresponding to the main arm) angle data of an operating arm corresponding to the auxiliary arm, par 26: “In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively” (Examiner note: angle data corresponding to the auxiliary arm. )
PNG
media_image4.png
491
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and an included angle between the main arm and the auxiliary arm. Par 50: “For example, in Figure 5, the boom length numerical value display window 21d is displayed above the boom, the jib length numerical value display window 21e is displayed above the jib, 23-02-2026 - Page 43 and the offset numerical value display window 21f is displayed near the connection point between the boom and jib.” Examiner note: Where one reasonably skilled in the art understands that receiving data on the angle of a main arm, as well as an offset angle of the auxiliary arm (jib), is the same as receiving data between the main arm and the auxiliary arm. See the examiner annotated derivation below.
PNG
media_image5.png
813
1398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 9:
A dynamic simulation display system for a working machine structure, comprising: (abstract: “The present invention relates to a display method and a display device for a display device of a construction machine, and more particularly to a display method and a display device for a display device of a construction machine that dynamically displays the posture of the working implement of the construction machine, such as a hydraulic crane or a hydraulic excavator, on a display.”)
a processor and angle sensor[
wherein the processor is connected to the angle sensor[(par 17: “a control unit 5 that inputs signals from the angle detector 1, “)
the angle sensors are of the working machine; (Par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle”)
and the processor is used for executing the dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1. (Par 23: “FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing the detailed configuration of the control unit 5. In FIG. 4, the control unit 5 comprises an A/D converter 11 that converts the signals of the angle detector 1, the load detector 2, and the engine revolution detector 4 from analog to digital signals, an interface 12 for inputting signals from the input device 3, an interface 20 for inputting video signals from the rear monitoring camera 8, a CPU 13 that performs calculations, a ROM 14 that stores a plurality of rated load tables according to programs and specifications, and a RAM 15 that stores intermediate results of calculations, all integrated into a single chip microcomputer 10, a nonvolatile memory EEPROM 19 for storing various specification values set by an operator, a display processing unit 16 that performs image creation processing for drawing, a display interface 17 that converts signals into signals to be output to the display unit 7, the electromagnetic proportional valve 6, and an amplifier 18 that outputs to the speaker 9” Examiner note: the processor (control unit) contains display processing which is used to execute the display method. See claim 1.)
Hidefumi_2003 does not expressly recite sensors
and an upper arm of the operating arm
Hammar_2017 however makes obvious sensors page 31 figure pasted below, which depicts a crane diagram, where the claim diagram depicts explicitly in the chart multiple angle sensors)
and an upper arm of the operating arm page 31 figure pasted below, which depicts a crane diagram, where the claim diagram depicts explicitly in the chart position 2. “Angle sensor, lower arm” which is disposed no the lower arm as shown in the figure. As well as “Angle Sensor, upper arm” which is disposed on the upper arm as shown in the figure.)
PNG
media_image1.png
1061
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane use and safety. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been to apply a known technique to a known device for a predictable result.
The prior art of Hidefumi_2003 has angle sensors on the main arm par 17: “In Figure 1, the crane overload prevention device constructed using the display device of this embodiment comprises an angle detector 1 that detects the boom angle” but does not disclose the main “boom” comprising a lower arm section and an upper arm section. Hidefumi_2003 does this so that par 44: “since it becomes easier for the operator to recognize numerical information such as posture and load factor, the operator will not continue working even when the load factor is in a dangerous range, which leads to improved safety.” As shown by Hammar_2017, a crane comprising a “lower arm” is known in the art. When working in a crane system that contains an upper arm and lower arm, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the angle sensor performs the same function, and that the angle sensors would be placed on a lower arm like it is in Hammar_2017 to perform the same function of Hidefumi_2003 for the predictable result of measuring the angle of the lower arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the angle sensor and simulation of Hidefumi_2003 with angle sensors on a lower arm of Hammar_2017 for the benefit of measuring the angle of a lower arm in cranes that contain a lower arm to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1,
Hidefumi_2003 further makes obvious wherein the working condition data further comprises a length, a working radius, a working height, a minimum working radius, and a maximum working radius of the operating arm.
par 29: ‘"working range" is a function that checks and sets arbitrary limit values for the lifting load, working radius, boom or jib tip height, and boom angle;” (Examiner note: where a range of limit values for working radius is a minimum and maximum working radius) … par 35: “Furthermore, when the positions of the display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, which display the values of the actual angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114, move, the angle range arrow 21j and lead lines 21k and 21m also move in the same manner.” .. par 38: “Next, the boom angle, working radius, limit load, actual load, load factor, etc. are calculated”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, Yi_2012 and US 20160035120 A1 (Delplace_2016)
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 4,after the updating a currently displayed working machine structure dynamically according to the working condition data, further comprising: (see claim 4)
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious if the currently displayed working machine structure is outside a working range,
“par 18: “Based on signals from the angle detector 1 and the load detector 2, the control unit 5
calculates the limit load, working radius, actual load, and load factor, which is the ratio of the
actual load to the limit load, and determines whether there is an overload, and depending on
the result of the determination, outputs a command to stop the actuator to the electromagnetic proportional valve 6 and makes the speaker 9 sound.” (Examiner note: Where signals based on an angle and load make obvious the concept of a ‘working range’ as understood by the examiner) … Par 26: “In other words, the actual measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 are displayed numerically in display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and the specification values of the length of the boom 114, the length of the jib 115, and the mounting offset angle of the jib 115 are displayed numerically in display windows 21d, 21e, and 21f, respectively. In addition, as load information, the limit load (rated load) calculated by the overload prevention device is displayed in display window 21g, the actual load is displayed in display window 21h, and the load rate is displayed as a number and a bar graph at the top of the screen.” (Examiner note: this is the working condition data that is displayed)
Par 38: “Next, an overload determination is made (step S130), and if the actual load exceeds the limit load, the output to the electromagnetic proportional valve 6 is stopped and the drive of the actuator is stopped (step S140). Also, the speaker 9 sounds to notify the operator of the work limit.”
Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 do not expressly recite
Delplace_2016 however makes obvious Par 61: “In one embodiment, the 3D animation of the past event comprises safety bubbles or alerts warning of potential collisions between objects or of actual collisions between objects. The safety bubbles may be highlighted regions of the 3D animation and may be different colors or shades. In one embodiment, the 3D animation comprises an alert which highlights collisions and near collisions between objects associated with said job site. In one embodiment, the alert comprises an audible sound generated by a speaker associated with the display.”
Hidefumi_2003, Hammar_2017 and Delplace_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane operation and safety. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003, Hammar_2017 and Delplace_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been a simple substitution of known elements for another to obtain a predictable result.
Hidefumi_2003 teaches using a par 38: “speaker” to alert the user when the structure is outside of a working area. Delplace_2016 teaches alerting with both an audible sound associated with the display, or with an alert which highlights information. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the speaker of Hidefumi_2003 could have been substituted by highlighting as another form of an alert for the predictable result of alerting a user of a display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the alert and display method of Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 with using highlights of Delplace_2016 to obtain the predictable result of alerting a user and to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, Yi_2012 and CN106185629A (Ding_2016)
Claim 7:
The dynamic simulation display method for the working machine structure according to claim 1, wherein the working condition data further comprises: (see claim 1)
Hidefumi_2003 makes obvious height data of [the boom] par 27: “Furthermore, the display windows 21a, 21b, and 21c for the measured angle, reach length, and height of the boom 114 use angle range arrows 21j and lead lines 21k and 21m to clearly indicate the correspondence with related parts.”
Hidefumi_2003 does not expressly recite height data of a lifting hook of the working machine
and distance data of an arm head from a lifting hook of the working machine to the operating arm,
the height data of the lifting hook is determined based on a rope length extended by a winch and detected by a counting detection device provided on the winch of the working machine and a multiplying ratio,
and the distance data of the arm head is determined based on the height data of the lifting hook.
Ding_2016 however makes obvious height data of a lifting hook of the working machine (par 16: “calculate the ground clearance of the main hook and the ground clearance of the auxiliary hook in real time;”)
and distance data of an arm head from a lifting hook of the working machine to the operating arm, (figure 3 depicts H4 and H5 which shows distance data from a lifting hook of the working machine to the operating arm. See also calculations page 2
PNG
media_image6.png
61
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
PNG
media_image7.png
405
560
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the height data of the lifting hook is determined based on a rope length extended by a winch and detected by a counting detection device provided on the winch of the working machine and a multiplying ratio, par 15 – 16: “2) Operate the winch. The winch rotation drives the encoder shaft to rotate. The encoder (examiner note: counting device) records the number of revolutions the winch has made and calculates the wire rope length each layer of the main winch and auxiliary winch. 3) Based on the results of step 2) and the current working conditions, calculate the ground clearance of the main hook and the ground clearance of the auxiliary hook in real time;”
Examiner note: Where a calculation of length based on a number of revolutions implies a multiplication ratio.
and the distance data of the arm head is determined based on the height data of the lifting hook.
PNG
media_image6.png
61
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
page 2 calculations
PNG
media_image7.png
405
560
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Examiner note: Where it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art that the distance of the arm head is easily derived from the height of the crane and height of the hook. See mathematical calculations above which also relate Hf to H4 and H5.
Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, and Ding_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane operation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, and Ding_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching in the prior art. Ding_2016 par 4 states “Currently, traditional crawler cranes do not display the hook height above the ground or the display is inaccurate. The hook height above the ground is mainly estimated by the operator based on experience. However, in some special working conditions, the operator cannot see the position of the hook and has no idea about the hook height.” The inventor of Hidefumi_2003 displays a working crane on a screen. The inventor of Hidefumi_2003 would be motivated to include data on the height of the hook, so that an operator may view this data while working, especially in special working conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the display of Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 with measuring hook height and distance of arm of Ding_2016 for the benefit of allowing a user to look at the hook height on display while working to see the position of the hook on the screen to improve work in special conditions and obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10:
The dynamic simulation display system for the working machine structure according to claim 9, further comprising: (see claim 9)
Hidefumi_2003 does not expressly recite a counting detection device;
wherein the counting detection device is disposed on a winch of the working machine,
and the counting detection device is used for measuring a rope length extended by the winch and a multiplying ratio.
Ding_2016 however makes obvious a counting detection device; wherein the counting detection device is disposed on a winch of the working machine, and the counting detection device is used for measuring a rope length extended by the winch and a multiplying ratio.
par 15 – 16: “2) Operate the winch. The winch rotation drives the encoder shaft to rotate. (Examiner note: disposed on) The encoder (examiner note: counting device) records the number of revolutions the winch has made and calculates the wire rope length each layer of the main winch and auxiliary winch. 3) Based on the results of step 2) and the current working conditions, calculate the ground clearance of the main hook and the ground clearance of the auxiliary hook in real time;”
Examiner note: Where a calculation of length based on a number of revolutions implies a multiplication ratio.
Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, and Ding_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called crane operation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hidefumi_2003 , Hammar_2017, and Ding_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching in the prior art. Ding_2016 par 4 states “Currently, traditional crawler cranes do not display the hook height above the ground or the display is inaccurate. The hook height above the ground is mainly estimated by the operator based on experience. However, in some special working conditions, the operator cannot see the position of the hook and has no idea about the hook height.” The inventor of Hidefumi_2003 displays a working crane on a screen. The inventor of Hidefumi_2003 would be motivated to include data on the height of the hook, so that an operator may view this data while working, especially in special working conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the display of Hidefumi_2003 and Hammar_2017 with measuring hook height and distance of arm of Ding_2016 for the benefit of allowing a user to look at the hook height on display while working to see the position of the hook on the screen to improve work in special conditions and obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights