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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 17 July 2025 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3 – 5 are amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Currently, claims 1 and 3 – 9 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues, “The Office Action on page 5 provides “[a]s per claim 2, Horii teaches the limitation of: wherein the setting screen is a screen for setting a flow rate property of the actuator (See at least paragraph 41). However, para. [0041] of Horii merely discloses:
Each of the boom control valve 33C, the arm control valve 33D, the bucket control valve 33E, the turn control valve 33F, the first travel control valve 33G, and the second travel control valve 33H 1s, for example, a switching valve of direct-acting spool type (a direct-acting spool switching valve). Each of the plurality of control valves 33 (33C, 33D, 33E, 33F, 33G; and 33H) switches a direction of the operation fluid supplied to the control valve 33 with use of the pilot fluid applied to the pressure receiving portion through the plurality of solenoid valves 37 corresponding to the control valve 33, and controls the flow rate of the operation fluid to be supplied to the working hydraulic actuators (the boom cylinder C3, the arm cylinder C4, the bucket cylinder C5, and the turn motor MT) or the traveling hydraulic actuators (the first traveling motor ML and the second traveling motor MR).
Applicant respectfully submits that Horii is at best silent regarding a screen for setting flow characteristics of the actuator or a screen for setting calibration. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Horii, whether taken individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious at least “the setting screen being a screen for setting flow characteristics of the actuator or a screen for setting calibration,” as recited in claim 1. The other art of record fails to cure these deficiencies. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that the paragraph 41 was operation aspect of the actuator. While paragraph 41 does not explicitly teach the screen of setting flow characteristics of actuator, considering the reference as a whole, paragraph 99 – 104 and figure 5 – 6 shows that actuator of arms can be restricted which is fully utilizing the hydraulic actuators. Furthermore, according to Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=if+hydraulic+arm+for+excavator+is+restricted%2C+then+is+oil+in+hydraulic+machine+is+also+restricted%3F&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1048US1048&oq=if+hydraulic+arm+for+excavator+is+restricted%2C+then+is+oil+in+hydraulic+machine+is+also+restricted%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTIwOTU5ajBqMagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) and Nors Equipment (https://construction-equipment-gw.nors.com/resources/blogs/hydraulic-systems-in-excavators-how-they-work-and-their-importance/#:~:text=The%20hydraulic%20fluid,essential%20component%20of%20the%20system.), controlling arm actuator restriction is directly related controlling flow characteristic of actuator as flows of oil/fluid directly impact the movability of the hydraulic actuator. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Horii still teaches the limitation of “wherein the setting screen being a screen for setting flow characteristics of the actuator or a screen for setting calibration,” and finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 6, and 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horii (US 2019/0309500 A1).
As per claim 1, Horii teaches limitations of: a display system of a work machine, the display system comprising:
an actuator that drives the work machine (See at least paragraph 27 and 29; the traveling device 3 has a traveling body 3L arranged on the left side and a traveling body 3R arranged on the right side. The traveling body 3L and the traveling body 3R each are crawler-type traveling devices, each of the crawler-type traveling devices includes a driving wheel 11a, a driven wheel 11b, a plurality of rolling wheels 11e, a frame 11c rotatably supporting the driving wheel 11a, the driven wheel 11b, and the rolling wheels 11e, and a belt d wound on the driving wheel 11a, the driven wheel 11b, and the rolling wheels 11e. … the machine body 2 is turned by a turn motor MT constituted of a hydraulic motor (a hydraulic actuator). The machine body 2 has a swiveling base plate 9 which turns about the vertical axis, and a weight 10.);
a switch apparatus that makes a switch between a supply state in which the actuator can be driven and a shut-off state in which the actuator cannot be driven (See at least abstract; A working machine includes an operation device to conduct operations of the working machine, a control device to control the working machine between an operation allowable state and an operation restriction state, the operation allowable state allowing the working machine to be operated, the operation restriction state restricting the operations conducted by the operation device in comparison with the operation allowable state. The working machine includes a display device having a display portion and an input operation portion. The control device performs control under the operation restriction state when a predetermined input operation is conducted through the input operation portion.);
a display apparatus capable of switching between displaying a setting screen for setting an operational property of the actuator and displaying an information display screen different from the setting screen, in the shut-off state (See at least paragraph 74, 81 – 82 and 94; The setting screen Q3 is a screen (input screen) for displaying information necessary for performing various settings (referred to as machine settings) of the working machine 1. In the setting screen Q3, for example, information necessary for machine setting such as the height control setting, the AI control setting, the arm restriction setting, and the like is displayed. … hen a predetermined input operation is performed by the input operation portion 102, the control portion 60 executes an operation switching process of setting the operation restricting state by the operation switching device 110. … when the pressing operation by the pressing operation portion (push switch) 111c is performed as a predetermined input operation while the driving screen Q2 is displayed, and when the pressing operation by the push switch 111c is performed as a predetermined input operation while the menu screen Q1 is displayed, the control portion 60 shifts to the operation switching process. That is, in this embodiment, the control portion 60 sets the operation restricting state when the pressing operation by the push switch 111c is performed as the predetermined input operation. … Then the pressing operation of the push switch 111c is not performed (S9, No), the display of the driving screen Q2 is continued. On the other hand, when the operator performs the pressing operation by the push switch 111c (S9, Yes), the control portion 60 executes the operation switching process by the interruption, controls the operation switching device 110, and sets the operation restricting state (S10). Then, when the operation restricting state is set, the display device 100 switches the driving screen Q2 to the menu screen Q1 (S11).);
a controller that performs control to cause the display apparatus to continue displaying the setting screen, when the switch apparatus switches the shut-off state to the supply state (See at least paragraph 94 and 96; regardless of the start of the engine, when the driving screen Q2 is displayed and the operation lock lever 93 is lowered (S5, Yes), the operator is in the operation allowable state, and the operator can operate the working machine through steering operation. In such a situation, when the operator performs the pressing operation with the push switch 111c (S9, Yes), the working machine can be changed from the operation allowable state to the operation restricting state (S10). That is, when machine setting is performed on the setting screen Q3, the movement of working machine can be restricted by restricting the steering. When the setting screen S3 is displayed after the pressing operation by the push switch 111c(S9, Yes), the operation restricting state can be maintained until the pressing operation by the push switch 111c (S14, Yes) is performed again.); and
wherein the setting screen being a screen for setting flow characteristics of the actuator or a screen for setting calibration (See at least paragraph 41, and 99 – 104; s shown in FIG. 5, on the setting screen Q3, first, a plurality of selection items for machine setting, for example, “height control setting”, “AI control setting”, and “arm restriction setting” are displayed. Here, when the operator rotates the knob portion 111b of the first operation tool 111 to perform a rotation operation, the cursor K moves to change the candidate of the selected selection item (referred to as a candidate selection item). For example, in the setting screen Q3, when the cursor K is placed on the candidate selection item “AI restriction setting” and the operator presses the third operation tool 113, the selection item is determined. Then, after the selection item of “AI restriction setting” is determined, the setting screen Q3 is switched to the screen Q3-1 for setting the idling speed. In the screen Q3-1, the value of the idling speed displayed on the screen Q3-1 can be changed (increased or decreased) by the rotation operation of the knob 111b. When the third operation tool 113 is pressed after changing the idling speed on screen Q3-1, the value (setting value) of the changed idling speed displayed on screen Q3-1 (setting screen Q3) is updated to be new idling speed. After the change of the idling speed, the setting screen Q3 is switched to the screen Q3-2 indicating that the idling speed has been updated. When the third operation tool 113 is pressed again on the screen Q3-2, the setting of the idling speed in the setting screen Q3 is completed, and the screen returns to at least one previous screen, for example, the setting screen Q3.By the way, although in the setting screen Q3, the operation is in the operation restricting state, the operation switching device 110 may be temporarily switched from the operation restricting state to the maneuverable state in the setting screen Q3. The case where the steering change device 110 is temporarily switched from the operation restricting state to the operation allowable state will be described based on FIG. 6. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a screen transition of arm restriction setting. As shown in FIG. 6, in the setting screen Q3, when the cursor K is placed on the candidate selection item “arm restriction setting” and the operator presses the third operation tool 113, the selection item is determined to be “arm restriction setting”. At the time when the operation for moving the cursor K is performed, the control portion 60 shifts to the operation switching process.)).
As per claim 6, Horii teaches the limitation of:
wherein the display system further comprises an image capture apparatus (See at least paragraph 67), and
the controller performs control to cause the display apparatus to display the setting screen, the setting screen including a captured image captured by the image capture apparatus and a setting image for setting an operational property of the actuator (See at least paragraph 74).
As per claim 8, Horii teaches the limitation of:
wherein the controller controls the display apparatus to cause the display apparatus to display the setting image under the captured image (See at least paragraph 74).
As per claim 9, Horii teaches the limitation of:
wherein when a switch signal for switching the shut-off state to the supply state is input from the switch apparatus to the controller while the information display screen is displayed on the display apparatus in the shut-off state, the controller performs control to cause the display apparatus to switch from displaying the information display screen to displaying another screen other than the information display screen (See at least paragraph 82 – 86).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii in view of Yamamoto (US 2020/0399857 A1).
As per claim 3, Horii teaches the limitation of:
wherein the work machine further comprises:
a revolving unit (See at least figure 11); and
a boom pivotally connected to the revolving unit (See at least figure 11), but does not teach the limitation of:
the setting screen includes an image for setting balance between revolution of the revolving unit and lifting operation of the boom during a hoisting and revolving movement.
Yamamoto teaches the limitation of:
the setting screen includes an image for setting balance between revolution of the revolving unit and lifting operation of the boom during a hoisting and revolving movement (See at least figure 4b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the setting screen includes an image for setting balance between revolution of the revolving unit and lifting operation of the boom during a hoisting and revolving movement as taught by Yamamoto in the system of Horii, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, the combination of Horii and Yamamoto teaches the limitation of:
a revolving unit (Horii, see at least figure 11);
a boom pivotally connected to the revolving unit (Horii, see at least figure 11);
a dipper stick pivotally connected to the boom (Horii, see at least figure 11); and
a work tool pivotally connected to the dipper stick (Horii, see at least figure 11), and
the setting screen includes an image for setting a maximum operational speed of each of one or more members selected from the group consisting of the revolving unit, the boom, the dipper stick, and the work tool (Yamamoto, abstract).
As per claim 5, the combination of Horii and Yamamoto teaches the limitation of:
wherein the work machine further comprises an operation apparatus that manipulates the actuator (Horii, see at least paragraph 31), and
the setting screen includes an image for setting responsiveness of the actuator to the operation apparatus (Yamamoto, see at least figure 4D).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii in view of Machida et al. (Hereinafter Machida) (US 2017/0305018 A1).
As per claim 7, Horii teaches the limitation of:
wherein the controller performs control to cause the display apparatus to display, as the captured image (See at least paragraph 67 and 74) but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
a bird's eye view image generated by capturing surroundings of the work machine.
Machida teaches limitations of:
a bird's eye view image generated by capturing surroundings of the work machine (See at least abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a bird's eye view image generated by capturing surroundings of the work machine as taught by Machida in the system of Horii, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662