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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (Remarks, pg. 7-8) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following: “To find a claim ineligible under §101, the claim must be directed to the abstract idea, rather than merely recite it. Since claims 1 and 18 clearly define additional features that integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (assuming any abstract idea is recited at all) and are not directed to any abstract idea, claims 1 and 18 as amended are eligible. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
It is respectfully submitted that performing providing guidance with the aid of mathematical concepts to an operator is an abstract idea. The additional features in the claims directed to extra solution activity and generic computing. The reasoning is expanded on in this Office Action. For this reason, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to the prior art (Remarks, pg. 9-10) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following: “Simply put, Pagnotta does not output guidance relating to driving of the operator for each of the work modes, where the guidance is displayed so the operator knows how operate the work machine to reduce a difference between the actual value and the target value, thereby increasing efficiency of the work machine as recited in the independent claims.”
It is respectfully submitted that guidance is considered to be a broad term. As broadly claimed, just showing a target efficiency and the current efficiency meets the limitation as claimed. The limitations of amended claims 1 and 18 are therefore taught by the prior art and the rejections under the prior art are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 11-18 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mathematical concepts, and/or mental process (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A display system, comprising a processor, the processor being configured to:
acquire a state value of a work machine at a time when the work machine is driven by an operator to implement cycle work for repeating a series of work modes;
calculate, based on the state value, an actual value relating to driving evaluation for the work machine for each of the work modes;
set a target value relating to the driving evaluation for each of the work modes; and
display the actual value and the target value on a display device,
wherein the work machine includes working equipment, and
the series of work modes includes an unloaded forward mode in which the work machine
moves forward to approach an excavation target, an excavation mode in which the work machine
excavates the excavation target with the working equipment, a loaded backward mode in which the work machine moves backward to separate from the excavation target in a state in which an
excavated object is held by the working equipment, a loaded forward mode in which the work
machine moves forward to approach a loading target, a loading mode in which the work machine
loads the excavated object held by the working equipment onto the loading target, and an unloaded backward mode in which the work machine moves backward to separate from the loading target,
wherein the processor is further configured to: output guidance relating to driving of the work machine by the operator for each of the work modes to reduce a difference between the actual value and the target value: and displays the guidance on the display device.
As indicated above, the “acquires”, “calculates”, “sets”, and “output” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. For example, a machine instructor could merely observe a trainee’s operation of a work machine, set a target, and mathematically evaluate how close the trainee is to the target. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by an instructor utilizing mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts, and/or mental process” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, processors and displays are generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that processors and displays are recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claim 18 fails to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claim 18 is also not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-8, and 11-17 are dependent on claim 1, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mathematical concepts, and/or mental process and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
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, 4-7, 12-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Pagnotta et al. (hereinafter Pagnotta) in view of US Publication 2014/0156155 A1 to Faivre et al. (hereinafter Faivre).
Concerning claim 1,
Pagnotta discloses a display system, comprising a processor (Figure 2), the processor being configured to:
acquire a state value of a work machine at a time when the work machine is driven by an operator to implement cycle work for repeating a series of work modes (0016-0017, 0041, Figure 2);
calculate, based on the state value, an actual value (element 301-307) relating to driving evaluation for the work machine for each of the work modes (0025-0033, Equation 1);
set a target value (element 350) relating to the driving evaluation for each of the work modes (0034-0040, 0044, Equation 2, Figure 3); and
display the actual value and the target value on a display device (element 40) (0043-0045, Figure 2),
wherein the work machine includes working equipment (0006), and
the series of work modes includes an unloaded forward mode in which the work machine moves forward to approach an excavation target (return mode) (0006, 0041-0042),
an excavation mode in which the work machine excavates the excavation target with the working equipment (load mode) (0006, 0041-0042),
a loaded forward mode in which the work machine moves forward to approach a loading target (carry mode) (0006, 0041-0042),
a loading mode in which the work machine loads the excavated object held by the working equipment onto the loading target (load mode) (0006, 0041-0042).
wherein the processor is further configured to: output guidance relating to driving of the work machine by the operator for each of the work modes to reduce a difference between the actual value and the target value: and displays the guidance on the display device (0044, 0048, Figure 3).
While Pagnotta discloses a joystick and directional input, it does not clearly disclose a reverse mode.
Faivre teaches a reverse mode (0086, 0092, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display elements of Faivre with the guidance system of Pagnotta as both pertain to displaying out guidance to a work machine. Incorporating the additional information pertaining to guidance for the reverse direction from Faivre into the modes would make the guidance system of Pagnotta more robust and effective.
Concerning claim 4,
Pagnotta discloses discriminate, based on the state value, the work mode implemented by the work machine (0042).
Concerning claim 5,
Pagnotta discloses evaluate driving skills of the operator based on the actual value and the target value (0025-0033, Equation 1, As broadly claimed, power efficiency is an evaluation of driving skills), and
display evaluation data of the driving skills (0043-0045, Figure 2).
Concerning claim 6,
Pagnotta discloses evaluate the driving skills for each of the work modes (0025-0033, Equation 1), and
display the evaluation data for each of the work modes (0043-0045, 0048, Figure 2).
Concerning claim 7,
Pagnotta discloses the evaluation data includes a difference between the actual value and the target value calculated for each of the work modes (0044, 0048, Figure 3).
Concerning claim 12,
Pagnotta discloses store a plurality of guidance patterns in a memory (0024, 0041, 0048-0051), and
output the guidance based on the actual value and data stored in the memory (0043-0045, 0048, Figure 2).
Concerning claim 13,
Pagnotta discloses display a predetermined message in characters as the guidance (0044, 0048, Figure 3, As broadly claimed, any number, letter, or symbol can be considered a character).
Concerning claim 14,
Pagnotta discloses store the target value in a memory (0024, 0041, 0048-0051), and
set the target value based on data stored in the memory (0034-0040, 0044, Equation 2, Figure 3).
Concerning claims 17-18, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Pagnotta et al. in view of US Publication 2014/0156155 A1 to Faivre et al. and further in view of US Publication 2014/0058635 A1 to Furukawa et al. (hereinafter Furukawa).
Concerning claim 2,
Pagnotta discloses work efficiency indicating a work amount of the work machine with respect to the fuel consumption (0034, Equation 2, Figure 3, While the work efficiency in relation to fuel consumption is disclosed in Pagnotta, general measurements of a work vehicle can relate to fuel consumption as broadly claimed).
Pagnotta does not disclose fuel efficiency indicating fuel consumption of the work machine per unit time.
Furukawa teaches fuel efficiency indicating fuel consumption of the work machine per unit time (0079).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display elements of Furukawa with the guidance system of Pagnotta as both pertain to displaying out guidance to a work machine. Incorporating the additional information and interface elements from Furukawa would make the guidance system of Pagnotta more robust and effective.
Concerning claim 15,
Pagnotta does not disclose change the target value based on input data from the input device.
Furukawa teaches change the target value based on input data from the input device (0056, 0120).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Pagnotta et al. in view of US Publication 2014/0156155 A1 to Faivre et al. and further in view of US Publication 2022/0251806 A1 to Otoh (hereinafter Otoh).
Concerning claim 8,
Pagnotta does not disclose display the actual value and the target value as the evaluation data in a radar chart scheme for each of the work modes.
Otoh teaches display the actual value and the target value as the evaluation data in a radar chart scheme (element 264) for each of the work modes (0334-0335, Figure 26).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display elements of Otoh with the guidance system of Pagnotta as both pertain to displaying out guidance to a work machine. Incorporating the graphical data representation of Otoh would make the graphical output of guidance system of Pagnotta more multifaceted.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Pagnotta et al. in view of US Publication 2014/0156155 A1 to Faivre et al. and further in view of US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Andersson (hereinafter Andersson).
Concerning claim 11,
Pagnotta does not disclose display a symbol indicating the work mode and display the guidance for the work mode corresponding to the symbol selected via an input device.
Andersson teaches display a symbol indicating the work mode and display the guidance for the work mode corresponding to the symbol selected via an input device (0034-0035, Figure 3B).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display elements of Andersson with the guidance system of Pagnotta as both pertain to displaying out guidance to a work machine. Incorporating a symbol labeling for the different modes of Andersson would make the graphical output of guidance system of Pagnotta more user friendly.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0120056 A1 to Pagnotta et al. in view of US Publication 2014/0156155 A1 to Faivre et al. and further in view of US Publication 2021/0340736 A1 to Kozui et al. (hereinafter Kozui).
Concerning claim 16,
Pagnotta does not disclose set the target value based on the state value when model driving is performed by another operator.
Kozui teaches set the target value based on the state value when model driving is performed by another operator (0062).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the performance-based guidance based on an exemplary driver of Kozui with the guidance system of Pagnotta as both pertain to displaying out guidance to a work machine. Incorporating the real world performance target system of Kozui would allow for the guidance of Pagnotta to allow for growth based on peer to peer metrics and competition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights