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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claim 10 is currently amended
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama et al. (US 20220412047 A1), herein after will be referred to as Hama, in view of Watanabe et al. (JP 7256687 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 1, Hama discloses an onboard controller mounted on the work machine and configured to control the work machine (see at least Hama, Para 28: “The work machine 40 comprises an actual machine control apparatus 400, an actual machine input interface 410, an actual machine output interface 420, and an actuation mechanism 440.The work machine control apparatus 400 is formed of an arithmetic processing apparatus (single-core processor, multi-core processor, or processor core that form one of processors)…”; a remote operation device configured to communicate with the onboard controller and transmit a start command signal for starting the work machine to the work machine (see at least Hama, Para 22: “The remote operation apparatus 20 comprises a remote control apparatus 200, a remote input interface 210, and a remote output interface 220.”; see at least Hama, Para 46: “…a remote operation request is transmitted to the remote operation assistance server 10 via the remote wireless communication instrument 222 (SIFT 214 in FIG. 4).”); and a communication unit provided separately from the remote operation device, the communication unit being configured to communicate with the onboard controller (see at least Hama, Para 18: “a remote operation apparatus 20, which is used to remotely operate a work machine 40, and a portable terminal 60.”; Showing the remote operation apparatus and portable terminal are distinct), prohibit the work machine from starting when the work machine is in the start prohibited state, upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 61: “The "second assistance process" is a control process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20…the communication with the remote operation apparatus 20, the second assistance process prohibits the recognition of the operation aspect of the remote operation mechanism 211 (see STEP 242 in FIG. 5) or the transmission of the operation command (see STEP 244 in FIG. 5).”; This occurs when the portable terminal is detected, representing a prohibited state for remote operation), and start the work machine when the work machine is in the start permitted state, upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 57: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5), a ‘first assistance process’ is carried out by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG. 5)…’The first assistance process’ is a control process of permitting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20 “; see at least Hama, Para 59: “When the remote operation command is received by the remote operation assistance server 10, the remote operation command is transmitted to the work machine 40 by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG.5).“).
Hama does not explicitly disclose the communication unit to be operated to switch the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state and the onboard controller being further configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to an operation of the communication unit.
However, Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the communication unit to be operated to switch the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…in response to the terminal operation performed by the leader 57, the operation of the temporarily stopped construction machine is switched from the disabled state to the enabled state.”) and the onboard controller being further configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to an operation of the communication unit (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “based on the deregulation information acquired by the communication device 28, the control device switches the winch operation from the disabled state to the enabled state…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Watanabe’s start permission mechanism into Hama’s remote operation system to enhance safety and control. Such modification is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a system with improved operator oversight. (See MPEP § 2143 (A) – “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results)
Regarding Claim 2, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Hama further discloses a mode selection member mounted on the work machine (see at least Hama, Para 30: ” The actual machine input interface 410 comprises an actual machine operation mechanism 411, a mode switching mechanism 412, and an imaging apparatus 414.”; The mode switching mechanism is part of the work machine’s input interface that is mounted on the work machine) and configured to be operated to select a remote operation mode of the work machine (see at least Hama, Para 30: ” The mode switching mechanism 412 is formed of buttons or levers, and a remote operation mode and an actual machine operation mode are switched from one to the other...”; see at least Hama, Para 42: ”The first evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the operation mode has been switched to the remote operation mode via the mode switching mechanism 412.”), the onboard controller being further configured to start the work machine when the remote operation mode is selected by the mode selection member (see at least Hama, Para 57:”The ‘first assistance process’ is a control process of permitting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20”; The first evaluation result is based on the mode switching mechanism selecting remote mode where f1=1 means remote mode. Permission to operate is conditioned on f1=1, meaning remote mode is selected) and when the work machine is in the start permitted state (see at least Hama, Para 57:” When (f1, f2) = (1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5) … The case described above corresponds to a case where the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result recognized by the evaluation result recognition element 110 are affirmative and negative, respectively.”; The “second evaluation result in negative” means the portable terminal 60 is not detected nearby, where f2=2 is set if negative. This “not detected” state is Hama’s equivalent of a condition allowing for a “permitted state” for remote operation), upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 59-60: “When the remote operation command is received by the remote operation assistance server 10, the remote operation command is transmitted to the work machine 40… the action of the work attachment 440 and other components is controlled (SIFT 444 in FIG.5).“; Showing the machine starts upon receiving the command when permitted).
Regarding Claim 3, Hama discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Hama further discloses wherein the onboard controller is further configured to prohibit the work machine from starting (see at least Hama, Para 61: “The "second assistance process" is a control process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20.”) with the work machine in the start prohibited state (see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)… the second assistance process prohibits the remote operation assistance server 10 from receiving the operation command or the transmission of the operation command to the work machine 40…”; The “second evaluation result” being affirmative where f2=1 means that “short-range wireless communication between work machine and portable terminal has been established”, described in Hama Para 49 and 51, indicating the presence of the local worker/terminal. This active detection of the local terminal making remote operation unsafe is analogous to Nakano’s “work machine in the start prohibited state” where the communication unit indicates a prohibited condition for starting), upon selecting the remote operation mode by the mode selection member (see at least Hama, Para 42: “The first evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the operation mode has been switched to the remote operation mode via the mode switching mechanism 412.”; see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)… In this case, both the first and second evaluation results are affirmative.”; The “first evaluation result” being affirmative where f1=1 signifies the “remote operation mode” has been selected via the mode switching mechanism described in Hama Para 44).
Regarding Claim 4, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Hama does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication unit is further configured to transmit a start permission signal for switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state to the onboard controller, and the onboard controller is configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, upon receiving the start permission signal
However, Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the communication unit is further configured to transmit a start permission signal for switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state to the onboard controller (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…a winch operation as a terminal operation performed by the conductor 57, and raises and lowers the stopped auger 18.The winch operation corresponding to the lifting and lowering of the anti-vibration member 19 is specified, and restriction release information for switching from the invalid state to the valid state of the specified winch operation is transmitted.“; The derestriction/restriction release is analogous to Nakano’s “start permission signal”), and the onboard controller is configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, upon receiving the start permission signal (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…based on the deregulation information acquired by the communication device 28, the control device switches the winch operation from the disabled state to the enabled state…“; The controller switching based on or upon receiving the signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a start permission signal transmitted from the communication unit to the onboard controller as taught in Watanabe. Watanabe provides an operator-initiated mechanism for switching from a prohibited to a permitted state, offering a rational means of enhanced control and operational safety.
Regarding Claim 5, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Hama further discloses wherein the communication unit is further configured to transmit a start non-permission signal for maintaining the work machine in the start prohibited state to the onboard controller (see at least Hama, Para 48: “a second evaluation process is carried out by the actual machine control apparatus 400 (STEP 416 in FIG. 4). The second evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the short-range wireless communication between the work machine 40 and the portable terminal 60 has been established.”; see at least Hama, Para 50: “The state in which the short-range wireless communication between the work machine 40 and the portable terminal 60 has been established indicates that it is highly probable that the actual machine operator OP2 (worker) carrying the portable terminal 60 having been powered on and capable of wireless communication is present in an area S…”; see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)…The "second assistance process" is a control process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20.”; The established short-range wireless communication itself, when the terminal is present at f2=1, acts as the “start non-permission signal” because its active presence leads to and maintains the prohibited state for remote operation), the communication unit is further configured to stop transmission of the start non- permission signal according to an operation by an operator (see at least Hama, Para 70: “Thereafter, when the worker moves away from the work machine 40, the following state is achieved: the remote operator OP1 can remotely operate the work machine 40 operating in the remote operation mode (see FIG. 6B).”; The operator moving away causes the short range communication “start non-permission signal” to cease or “stop transmission”), and the onboard controller is further configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, upon stopping the transmission of the start non-permission signal (see at least Hama, Para 57: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)… The ‘first assistance process’ is a control process of permitting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20…”; Condition f2=2 is set when the “second evaluation result” is negative (see at least NO in STEP 120 in FIG. 4 and Para 51), meaning “short-range wireless communication between work machine and portable terminal has not been established (see least Para 49). The “not established” state is the result of the “stopping of transmission” of the non-permission signal leading the controller to permit operation).
Regarding Claim 6, Hama teaches communicating with a communication unit (see at least Hama, Para 48: “When the remote operation request is received by the work machine 40 via the actual machine wireless communication instrument 422 (C412 in FIG. 4), a second evaluation process is carried out by the actual machine control apparatus 400 (STEP 416 in FIG. 4). The second evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the short-range wireless communication between the work machine 40 and the portable terminal 60 has been established.”; This evaluation implies active communication or checking of communication status); communicating with a remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 58: “Specifically, in the remote operation apparatus 20, the remote control apparatus 200 recognizes the operation aspect of the remote operation mechanism 211 (STEP 242 in FIG. 5), and a remote operation command according to the operation aspect is transmitted to the remote operation assistance server 10 via the remote wireless communication instrument 222 (STEP 244 in FIG. 5).”; This shows the remote operation device transmitting a command which is a form of communication); determining whether a start command signal of the work machine has been received from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 47: “In response to the request, when the remote operation request is received by the remote operation assistance server 10, the remote operation request (or second evaluation result request) is transmitted to the work machine 40 (CO2 in FIG. 4).”; see at least Hama, Para 59: “When the remote operation command is received by the remote operation assistance server 10, the remote operation command is transmitted to the work machine 40 by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG. 5).“); starting the work machine when the work machine is in the start permitted state, upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 57: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5), a ‘first assistance process’ is carried out by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG. 5)…’The first assistance process’ is a control process of permitting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20 “; see at least Hama, Para 60: “ In the work machine 40, when an operation command is received by the actual machine control apparatus 400…the action of the work attachment 440 and other components is controlled (SIFT 444 in FIG. 5).“); and prohibiting the work machine from starting when the work machine is in the start prohibited state, upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)…The ‘second assistance process’ is a control process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20. For example, based on the communication with the remote operation apparatus 20, the second assistance process prohibits the recognition of the operation aspect of the remote operation mechanism 211 (see STEP 242 in FIG. 5) or the transmission of the operation command (see STEP 244 in FIG. 5).”).
Hama does not explicitly teach switching the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state according to an operation of the communication unit.
However, Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches switching the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state according to an operation of the communication unit (see at least Watanabe, Description FIG. 6: “…in response to the terminal operation performed by the leader 57, the operation of the temporarily stopped construction machine is switched from the disabled state to the enabled state.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a method in which the work machine is switched from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state based on the operation of the communication unit as taught by Watanabe when performing the remote operation method of Hama enhancing the safety framework of operations. Introducing a local control communication unit is a well-known safety enhancement in the field of construction machine operations and represents a predictable use of prior art elements for their intended purposes. (See MPEP § 2143 (A) – “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results)
Regarding Claim 7, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Hama further teaches determining whether a remote operation mode of the work machine is selected by a mode selection member mounted on the work machine (see at least Hama, Para 42: “The first evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the operation mode has been switched to the remote operation mode via the mode switching mechanism 412.”; This “first evaluation process” is the step of determining if remote mode is selected via the mode selection member); and starting the work machine when the remote operation mode is selected by the mode selection member (see at least Hama, Para 57: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5), a ‘first assistance process’ is carried out by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG. 5)…The ‘first assistance process’ is a control process of permitting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20”; The “first evaluation result” is affirmative when f1=1 if remote operation mode is selected via the mode switching mechanism (see at least Para 42 and 44). This method step of permitting operation, which includes starting, is conditioned on the remote operation mode being selected) and when the work machine is in the start permitted state (see at least Hama, Para 57: “When (f1, f2) = (1, 2) (Q4 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5) … The case described above corresponds to a case where the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result recognized by the evaluation result recognition element 110 are affirmative and negative, respectively.”; The “second evaluation result in negative” means the portable terminal 60 is not detected nearby, where f2=2 is set if negative. This “not detected” state is Hama’s equivalent of a condition allowing for a “permitted state” for remote operation), upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (see at least Hama, Para 59-60: “When the remote operation command is received by the remote operation assistance server 10, the remote operation command is transmitted to the work machine 40 by the first assistance processing element 121 (C14 in FIG. 5)… the action of the work attachment 440 and other components is controlled (SIFT 444 in FIG.5).”).
Regarding Claim 8, Hama discloses all the limitations of Claim 7. Hama further teaches prohibiting the work machine from starting (see at least Hama, Para 61: “The "second assistance process" is a control process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine 40 using the remote operation apparatus 20.”) with the work machine in the start prohibited state (see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)… the second assistance process prohibits the remote operation assistance server 10 from receiving the operation command or the transmission of the operation command to the work machine 40…”; The “second evaluation result” being affirmative where f2=1 means that “short-range wireless communication between work machine and portable terminal has been established”, described in Hama Para 49 and 51, indicating the presence of the local worker/terminal. This active detection of the local terminal making remote operation unsafe is analogous to Nakano’s “work machine in the start prohibited state” where the communication unit indicates a prohibited condition for starting), upon selecting the remote operation mode by the mode selection member (see at least Hama, Para 42: “The first evaluation process is the process of evaluating whether or not the operation mode has been switched to the remote operation mode via the mode switching mechanism 412.”; see at least Hama, Para 61: “When (f1, f2)=(1, 1) (Q3 in STEP 140 in FIG. 5)… In this case, both the first and second evaluation results are affirmative.”; The “first evaluation result” being affirmative where f1=1 signifies the “remote operation mode” has been selected via the mode switching mechanism described in Hama Para 44).
Regarding Claim 9, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Hama does not explicitly teach wherein the communication unit is configured to transmit a start permission signal for switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to an operation by an operator, the method further comprising determining whether the start permission signal has been received from the communication unit and switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, upon receiving the start permission signal.
However, Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication unit is configured to transmit a start permission signal for switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to an operation by an operator (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…a winch operation as a terminal operation performed by the conductor 57, and raises and lowers the stopped auger 18.The winch operation corresponding to the lifting and lowering of the anti-vibration member 19 is specified, and restriction release information for switching from the invalid state to the valid state of the specified winch operation is transmitted.“), the method further comprising determining whether the start permission signal has been received from the communication unit (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…based on the deregulation information acquired by the communication device 28…“; The step of acquiring implies determining if the signal has been received); and switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, upon receiving the start permission signal (see at least Watanabe, Description of FIG. 6: “…based on the deregulation information acquired by the communication device 28, the control device switches the winch operation from the disabled state to the enabled state…“; The method step of switching upon receiving a signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the steps of transmitting a start permission signal from the communication unit and switching the machine state upon its receipt as taught by Watanabe. This method provides an operator-initiated mechanism for switching from a prohibited to a permitted state, offering a rational means of enhanced control and operational safety.
Regarding Claim 10, Hama and Watanabe discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Hama further teaches further comprising receiving a start non-permission signal from maintaining the work machine in the start prohibited state from the communication unit (When a short-range wireless communication is established with the portable terminal, remote operation of the work machine is inhibited. This is equivalent of receiving a non-permission signal to maintain the prohibited state. A communication link, by its nature, cannot be established unless its signal is being actively received by the work machine controller; see at least Hama Para [0067]),
and determining whether the start non-permission signal from the communication unit has been stopped (The controller performs the second evaluation process to determine whether the non-permission signal from the portable terminal is “affirmative” (signal present) or “negative” (short-range wireless communication between the work machine and portable terminal has not been established), a direct teaching of determining if the signal has stopped; see at least Hama Para [0049]);
and switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state upon stopping the start non-permission signal (When a short-range wireless communication is not established, equivalent to the signal stopping, the system enters a state where remote operation of the work machine is permitted; see at least Hama Para [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has alleged that "Hama does not disclose that the portable terminal 60 switches the work machine 40 from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state, as recited in Applicant's independent claims 1 and 6…Therefore, operation of the portable terminal 60 in Hama does not switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state, as recited in Applicant's independent claim 1."
In response to the arguments filed 07/10/2025, it appears that the applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner respectfully agrees with the Applicant's notes that Hama alone does not disclose a communication unit that is operated to switch the work machine between a prohibited and permitted state. As was specifically stated in the nonfinal office action mailed 06/09/2025, the rejection does not assert that Hama alone teaches this limitation but provides the base teaching of a remote operation system with a proximity-based safety lock where Watanabe is cited for the teaching of using a local terminal communication unit to override an interlock. Hama was stated to not explicitly teach the "communication unit to be operated to switch the work machine from a prohibited state to a start permitted state". Watanabe discloses the terminal operation performed by the leader, where the operation of a stopped construction machine is switched from the disabled state to the enabled state (Watanabe, Page 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the communication unit of Hama by incorporating the teachings of Watanabe conductor terminal performing the operation of switching the work machine from the disabled state to the enabled state based on the motivation to improve the safety and reliability of the system.
The Applicant alleges that "Hama teaches away from being modified by Watanabe…
A rejection based upon a modification of a reference that destroys the intent and function of the invention disclosed in the reference is not proper… Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify the control system of Hama with the control system of Watanabe, as recited in Applicant's independent claims 1 and 6.”
In response to the arguments filed 07/10/2025, it appears that the applicant is arguing that Hama teaches away from being modified by Watanabe. As stated in MPEP § 2145, the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Examiner respectfully agrees with the Applicant's notes that Watanabe switches from a work prohibited state to a work permitted state of the work vehicle when the authorized operator is within the danger zone. However, the first action of Watanabe's system is to prohibit operation when any worker enters the danger zone and then allows for a supervised active override (see at least Watanabe, Page 6 and 7). Watanabe discloses an embodiment "when carrying out pile driving work" (see at least Watanabe, Page 7), where a worker and a conductor provides instructions to the driver to perform specified operations to safely work in the danger area. Watanabe goes to further explain when terminal information is received by the worker and conductor, an alarm is generated, and operation stop control is performed by invalidating the driving operation. The machine operation is specified and a "restrict release information" for switching from the invalid state to the valid state of the specified operation is transmitted. Based on the deregulation information acquired by the communication device, the control device switches the operation from the disabled state to the enabled state. As a result, when the worker performs work within the danger zone, the driver can only perform limited operations requested by the conductor on condition that the conductor is present. While the embodiment is not preferred, the suggested modification of Hama would be seen as combinable with Watanabe. Modifying Hama's system with Watanabe's active override feature does not destroy Hama's purpose but rather enhances the system allowing a supervised override to the system.
Hama and Watanabe are directed to the same fundamental objective of ensuring the safety of workers around heavy machinery (see at least Hama Para [0005]; see at least Watanabe Abstract) where both references disclose a safety system comprising a controller on the work machine, a portable communication unit (“portable terminal” or “conductor terminal”) carried by a worker, and wireless communication between the portable unit and machine’s controller. Both Hama and Watanabe systems function by first prohibiting machine operation when a worker is detected in a predefined danger zone. Hama “inhibits” remote operation (see at least Hama Para [0067]), while Watanabe “disables the driving operation” (see at least Watanabe Page 6). The core safety logic of stopping the machine if a worker is too close, is identical in both references.
The Applicant alleges that “there is no suggestion, motivation or reason to modify Hama with Watanabe because a control signal of the work vehicle 11 in Hama is remotely transmitted by a remote operation apparatus 20… while Watanabe discloses the same device (i.e., the portable device of the leader 57) controlling both the operation of the work vehicle 11 and switching from the work prohibited state to the work permitted state. (i.e., the portable device of the leader 57) controlling both the operation of the work vehicle 11 and switching from the work prohibited state to the work permitted state. Accordingly, modifying Rama with Watanabe would not result in the recited features of Applicant's independent claims 1 and 6.”
In response to the arguments filed 07/10/2025, it appears that the applicant is arguing that there is no suggestion, motivation or reason to modify Hama with Watanabe and that modifying Rama with Watanabe would not result in the recited features of Applicant's independent claims 1 and 6. As stated in MPEP § 2145, the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The start command signal from the remote operation device (remote operation assistance) is explicitly taught by Hama (see at least Hama Para 46) but does not explicitly teach the portable terminal device 60 (communication unit) to be operated to switch the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state. Watanabe teaches a conductor terminal may be a wireless remote controller (smartphone, tablet computer, etc.) that allows information input (see at least Watanabe, Page 7) that is equivalent to the communication unit in claim 1 and 6. Watanabe further explains the worker and conductor provide specific instructions to the driver to perform limited operations by way of the control device switching the operation from the disabled state to the enabled state that allows the worker to perform work within the danger zone with the conductor accompanying the worker as an active supervised override. Furthermore, the onboard controller (control device) switches the operation from a disabled state to the enabled state (see at least Watanabe, Page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Hama with the teachings of Watanabe based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve the system for controlling a work machine that includes a communication unit to switch the work machine from a disabled state to a enabled state and the onboard controller switching the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to the operation of the communication unit.
The Applicant alleges that “independent claims 1 and 6 clearly recite a communicate unit configured to…is not disclosed or suggested by Hama in view of Watanabe… The current record lacks any apparent reason, suggestion or expectation of success for modifying Hama with Watanabe to create Applicant's unique arrangement of a communication unit…”
In response to the arguments filed 07/10/2025, it appears that the applicant is arguing that Hama in view of Watanabe does not disclose the arrangement of the communication unit and lacks any apparent reason, suggestion or expectation of success for modifying Hama with Watanabe to create Applicant's unique arrangement of a communication unit. As stated in MPEP § 2145, 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. The Court in KSR identified several exemplary rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-21, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-97.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 1 and 6 recite a communication unit configured to be operated to switch the work machine from a start prohibited state to a start permitted state (Watanabe teaches that the conductor terminal in Watanabe is operated by the conductor to transmit the restriction release information for switching from the invalid state to the valid state; see at least Watanabe Page 7), and an onboard controller configured to switch the work machine from the start prohibited state to the start permitted state according to an operation of the communication unit (Watanabe teaches the control device is configured to switch the operation from the disabled state to the enabled state based on the deregulation information received from the conductor’s terminal; see at least Watanabe Page 7), and the onboard controller being configured to prohibit the work machine from starting when the work machine is in the start prohibited state upon receiving the start command signal from the remote operation device (Hama’s controller is configured to carry out a “second assistance process of prohibiting remote operation of the work machine” when the portable terminal is detected even after a remote operation command has been sent (see at least Hama Para [0067]). Furthermore, Hama discloses that the remote operation assistance server may be a component of the work machine (see at least Hama Para [0076])). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the system of Hama with the teachings of Watanabe based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve the system for controlling a work machine to include the conductor terminal to transmit the restriction release information for switching the work machine from the invalid state to the valid state and the control device configured to switch the operation from the disabled state to enabled state.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663