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 .
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Any reference to specific figures, columns, lines and paragraphs should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is an Office Action on the merits of Application No. 18/279,615, in response to Applicant’s RCE and amendments and remarks filed on 12/17/2025. The Applicant has amended claim 1 without prejudice and cancelled claim 3. No claims new claims have been added and no new matter has been introduced. Claims 1 and 4 are currently pending in the application and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 12/17/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/17/2025.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/09/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 12/17/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/17/2025.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments (see Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/17/2025) with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but, respectfully, are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Shigeyuki does not disclose or suggest the claimed "common image data ... same image data ... displayed on both at least any work mode screen and at least any service mode screen.", “Shigeyuki does not disclose or suggest the claimed "specific image data ... displayed only on the plurality of service mode screens.", “Shigeyuki does not disclose or suggest the claimed "resolution of the common image data is set to be the same as the first resolution." , “Shigeyuki does not disclose or suggest the claimed "resolution of the specific image data is set to be a second resolution lower than the first resolution." , “Yong does not cure the deficiencies of Shigeyuki. Yong also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "common image data ... same image data ... displayed on both at least any work mode screen and at least any service mode screen." , “Yong also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "specific image data ... displayed only on the plurality of service mode screens." , “Yong also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "resolution of the specific image data is set to be a second resolution lower than the first resolution." , and, “Accordingly, neither the cited references individually nor any combination thereof discloses or suggests Applicants' claimed common/specific partitioning and resolution settings, or the resulting memory-saving effect.”, the Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
Shigeyuki discloses a work machine with a display device installed in the cab capable of displaying a plurality of work mode screens or service mode screens while Yong discloses UI switching technology to store and display low and high resolution image data to effectively reduce the use of memory and CPU of the display device. Therefore, the combination of Shigeyuki and Yong disclose all claim limitations.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009243167A Shigeyuki (Shigeyuki hereafter) in view of KR 20110069625A Yong, (Yong hereafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Shigeyuki discloses A work machine (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “a construction machine”) comprising:
an operator's cab (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “A monitor panel is provided in the driver's cab of a construction machine”);
a display device installed in the operator's cab (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “A monitor panel is provided in the driver's cab of a construction machine”), the display device being configured to display a plurality of work mode screens necessary in manipulation by an operator during work (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “a normal screen that displays information for the operator is displayed on the monitor panel”) and a plurality of service mode screens necessary in adjustment work performed by a service person during maintenance (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “the normal screen is switched to a screen for service personnel that displays information for the service personnel. The screen for service personnel displays important information such as inspection history, failure history, repair history, and part replacement history, and also allows the settings of machine parameters”), but not used by the operator (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002], “to prevent people other than service personnel from easily accessing the service personnel screen”, a password is used by the service person to access the service screens.); and
a controller configured to control the display device (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0012], “a display control device [], and a display control unit”), wherein
the controller is further configured to store:
first image data having a first resolution to be displayed on the plurality of work mode screens; and second image data to be displayed on the plurality of service mode screens (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002 – 0003], “When the operator of the construction machine turns on the key means, a normal screen that displays information for the operator is displayed on the monitor panel.”, “when a serviceman who performs maintenance or other services on construction machinery performs a service operation such as an engine inspection, he turns on the key means having the same specifications as the operator to display the normal screen. Then, the normal screen is switched to a password entry screen and the password is entered. If the entered password matches a registered password, the normal screen is switched to a screen for service personnel that displays information for the service personnel.”),
wherein the controller is further configured to display either the first image data or the second image data in response to a manual request for either a work mode screen, or a service mode screen, respectively (see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002 – 0003]).
wherein the second image data includes:
common image data that is the same image data to be displayed on both at least any of the plurality of work mode screens and at least any of the plurality of service mode screens(see at least Shigeyuki [¶0002 – 0003]),
Shigeyuki does not explicitly disclose wherein a resolution of the common image data is set to be the same as the first resolution,
wherein a resolution of the specific image data is set to be a second resolution being lower than the first resolution
However, Yong is directed towards a portable information device user interface switching apparatus and method and discloses wherein a resolution of the common image data is set to be the same as the first resolution,
wherein a resolution of the specific image data is set to be a second resolution being lower than the first resolution (see at least Yong [page 3, lines 18-19 and page 4, lines 6-7], “The UI engine (110) stores high-resolution UI images”, “The UI switching device includes a UI engine (210) that stores a low-resolution UI image in a UI screen buffer (220)”, i.e., the display controller stores high and low resolution images to be displayed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yong to modify Shigeyuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a resolution of the common image data is set to be the same as the first resolution, wherein a resolution of the specific image data is set to be a second resolution being lower than the first resolution. By using high and low resolution images to be displayed depending upon specified conditions, the display controller’s processing and memory access times can be improved and data storage requirements reduced.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeyuki and Yong, in combination, and further in view of WO 2016068185 A1 Atsushi et al., (Atsushi hereafter).
Regarding Claim 4, Shigeyuki and Yong in combination disclose all the elements of The work machine according to claim 1 as discussed above, Yong further discloses a resolution of the first image data to be displayed on the second work mode screen is set to be lower than the resolution of the first image data to be displayed on the first work mode screen (see at least Yong [page 3, lines 18-19 and page 4, lines 6-7], “The UI engine (110) stores high-resolution UI images”, “The UI switching device includes a UI engine (210) that stores a low-resolution UI image in a UI screen buffer (220)”, i.e., the display controller stores and displays high and low resolution images).
Shigeyuki and Yong in combination do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of work mode screens includes: a first work mode screen; and
a second work mode screen that is less frequently used than the first work mode screen,
However, Atsushi is directed towards an industrial running vehicle and discloses the plurality of work mode screens includes: a first work mode screen (see at least Atsushi [¶1579, Claim 2], “ The multiple types of work screens include a first work screen); and
a second work mode screen that is less frequently used than the first work mode screen (see at least Atsushi [¶1579, Claim 2], “a second work screen, []the first work screen displays basic information of high importance, the second work screen displays the basic information and ancillary information of lower importance than the basic information”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Atsushi to modify Shigeyuki and Yong, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of a first work mode screen; and a second work mode screen that is less frequently used than the first work mode screen for the purpose of allowing a more efficient and organized display interface for the operator with more important and used functions and information on a main screen and less important information on a second screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neit J. Nieves Flores whose telephone number is (703)756-5864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0930-1800 AST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/Neit J. Nieves Flores/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights