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
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 are pending. Claims 2, 5, and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1 has been amended. The objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Manabe and Nordic Lights to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
Applicant argues that “easier maneuverability” is unrelated to the problem the present invention seeks to solve and fails to provide any reason one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange the light and camera to meet the specific geometric constraints of the claimed angle.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “a separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body is not more than 50 cm”.
Regarding argument A, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Nordic Lights teaches LED lights that can be attached onto work machines. The lights are obviously for illuminating the surroundings of a vehicle (video description, “It is designed to be mounted on equipment booms or vehicle bodies to optimize lighting in a specific area”). A light is clearly seen to be attached to a rear upper portion of the cabin (see video at 0:17). One would obviously be motivated to attach the light to a rear upper portion of the cabin in order to illuminate the area around a rear upper portion of the cabin, which would include a rear area of the work machine. Manabe’s rear-view camera is for viewing a rear view of the work machine (column 8 line 36 and Fig. 7, “the view of the rear-view camera 17 in the upper-lower direction can be directed downward as shown in an angle α in FIG. 7, and the rear-view camera 17 can shoot the vicinity of the rear end edge in the counterweight 7 backward of the upper revolving structure 3”). A light attached to the rear upper portion of the cabin (which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to attach in order to light up the vehicle, as shown at 0:17 of the video) would therefore illuminate an image-capturing area of the rear camera. The motivation to combine does not necessarily need to be illuminating an image-capturing area of the rear camera. There is a motivation to use Nordic Lights’ LED lights and to position them as they are positioned in the video simply in order to illuminate the machine, and this positioning covers the functional limitation of illuminating the image-capturing area of the rear camera.
Regarding argument B, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner agrees that the motivation for “easier maneuverability” is not related to the problem the present invention seeks to solve. However, the motivation to combine does not need to be the same as the present invention in order to be obvious. Combining references is considered to be obvious if "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so" DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and "an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves" Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651.
A motivation to combine can simply be that the combination would result in an improved machine. Short tail swing excavators such as one taught by VansEquipment allow for easier maneuverability, and such excavators would obviously have better maneuverability that Manabe’s excavator. This, therefore, is an improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize and would therefore be motivated to combine Manabe with VansEquipment. There is a reasonable expectation that modifying Manabe would improve maneuverability.
Starting with Manabe, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to attach one of Nordic Lights’ LED lights to the rear upper portion of the cabin in order to illuminate the vehicle, as shown by the video. This is an improvement to the machine, as the light would obviously illuminate the area around the rear upper portion of the cabin. The positioning is one shown by the video, which shows how the lights can be used to increase visibility, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that such a position would increase visibility. Another improvement of Manabe would be to increase maneuverability. This can be done by shortening the rear portion of the excavator, like VansEquipment’s short tail swing excavator.
These two modifications offer obvious improvements to Manabe’s excavator, and would result in the specific positionings as claimed in amended claim 1. Manabe teaches the rear camera is placed on the rear portion of the vehicle. The specific placements of the lights on the rear of the cabin and the camera on the rear of the machine body are standard placements that can be found on many machines. While the improvements don’t necessarily align with the present invention’s goals, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to improve Manabe and result in a work machine that matches the limitations of the claims.
Regarding argument C, Examiner agrees that VansEquipment does not explicitly teach “a separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body is not more than 50 cm”, as such measurement cannot be exactly estimated. However, there are zero-tail excavators that have a shorter body than the one taught by VansEquipment wherein such placements of the light and camera would more definitively teach the separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body is not more than 50 cm, as further detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
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, 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe (US 9464402 B2) in view of Nordic Lights (NORDIC LIGHTS® - OFFICIAL. (2020, September 14). SCORPIUS XTR & PICTOR - LED Excavator Lights | NORDIC LIGHTS®. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbs6VLJjdro) and VansEquipment (VansEquipment. (2010, February 7). Yanmar Zero Tail Swing. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5pFGFZtkw).
Regarding claim 1, Manabe teaches a work machine (Fig. 1, hydraulic excavator 1) comprising:
a machine body (upper revolving structure 3);
a cabin located on the machine body (cab 6);
and a rear camera that is located in the rear portion of the machine body and behind the cabin (Fig. 3, rear-view camera 17) and that is configured to capture an image of the region lying behind the machine body (column 8 line 36 and Fig. 7, “the view of the rear-view camera 17 in the upper-lower direction can be directed downward as shown in an angle α in FIG. 7, and the rear-view camera 17 can shoot the vicinity of the rear end edge in the counterweight 7 backward of the upper revolving structure 3”).
Manabe fails to teach a rear light that is located at a rear upper portion of the cabin and that is configured to illuminate (i) a region lying behind the cabin and above a rear portion of the machine body and (ii) a region lying behind the machine body; wherein the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
However, Nordic Lights teaches a rear light that is located at a rear upper portion of the cabin (see lights attached to the rear upper portion of the cabin at 0:17) and that is configured to illuminate (i) a region lying behind the cabin and above a rear portion of the machine body and (ii) a region lying behind the machine body (the lights can clearly be seen to illuminate the area around and behind the machine); wherein the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera (the lights can clearly be seen to illuminate the area around and behind the machine, which would include an image-capturing area of the rear camera);
While Nordic Lights does not explicitly teach the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera and instead only teaches that the light can be installed in multiple locations including the rear upper portion of the cabin, it is obvious that installing the light on Manabe in this position would result in illuminating a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
Nordic Lights teaches an aftermarket LED light that attaches to work machines in order to optimize lighting (video description, “It is designed to be mounted on equipment booms or vehicle bodies to optimize lighting in a specific area”) and to be able to work in the nighttime as if it were day (see video 0:50, “Like working in daylight”). The light can be used “in the construction, forestry and mining industries,” and “is particularly suitable for excavators, telehandlers and other equipment with a boom” (video description). Given the placement of Nordic Lights’ lights in the video, one of ordinary skill in the art would be incentivized to try placing the attachable lights at the same placement. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manabe to incorporate the teachings of Nordic Lights. Doing so would improve the efficiency of the work machine during low light environments.
Both Manabe and Nordic Lights fail to explicitly teach, when seen in a side view, an angle between a line extending vertically downward from the rear light and a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera is not more than 45°.
The angle between a line extending vertically downward from the rear light and a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera would be dictated by the dimensions of the work machine. Manabe does not explicitly teach the dimensions of the work machine. Nordic Lights’ LED lights are attachable, and so could be attached to any work machine. Therefore, the angle is not explicitly taught.
However, zero and short tail swing excavators are already well-known in the field. Zero and short tail swing excavators have a short, compact rear end part, as seen in VansEquipment. A zero tail swing excavator as shown in VansEquipment, with the standard camera placement as shown in Manabe, and the attachable lights of Nordic Lights would have taught when seen in a side view, an angle between a line extending vertically downward from the rear light and a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera is not more than 45°.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights to incorporate the teachings of VansEquipment, since a zero tail swing excavator would lead to easier maneuverability.
The placements of the camera behind the cabin and the lights on the upper part of the cabin can separately be found on many machines. Additionally, along with attachable lights, there also exists attachable cameras. Given the attachable and versatile nature of these attachments, along with what is well-known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try placing a camera and lights in the claimed placements. This would include for zero tail swing excavators such as VansEquipment.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights and VansEquipment teaches the work machine according to claim 1. Manabe further teaches the rear camera is installed such that a rear end part of the machine body is included in an image-capturing area of the rear camera (column 9 line 53, “Indicated at 23 is the camera side bracket provided in the body portion 19 of the cover side bracket 18 in such a manner that the mounting angle thereto can be adjusted in the upper-lower direction”—the camera angle can be adjusted to include the rear end part of the machine body).
Alternatively, Nishi (US 20230078047 A1) also teaches the rear camera is installed such that a rear end part of the machine body is included in an image-capturing area of the rear camera (par. 178, “The image captured by the camera S6B is a rear image projecting the space behind the excavator 100 and includes an image 3a of a counterweight”). Manabe and Nishi are both excavators with rear-view cameras, and would have been an obvious modification to do.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights teaches the work machine according to claim 1. Manabe fails to teach the rear light is installed at a center of the cabin in a left-and-right direction thereof.
However, Nordic Lights teaches work machine according to claim 1, wherein the rear light is installed at a center of the cabin in a left-and-right direction thereof (see lights attached to the rear upper portion of the cabin at 0:17).
Specifically, Nordic Lights teaches the lights can be installed in various different positions and can be chosen by the user. Installing the lights at the center of the cabin in a left-and-right direction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manabe to incorporate the teachings of Nordic Lights. Doing so would improve the efficiency of the work machine during low light environments (see video 0:50, “Like working in daylight”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights teaches the work machine according to claim 1. Manabe further teaches a hood (Fig. 1, engine cover 14) being provided in the rear portion of the machine body and covering a part on a side rearward of the cabin in a manner such that the hood is openable and closable (column 7 line 22, “The top surface part 15 has a front portion rotatably (openably and closably) mounted to the cover support member 5A of the revolving frame 5 through the hinge member 15B”); and a counterweight located on a lower side of the hood (Fig. 1, counterweight 7), the rear camera being disposed on the hood (Fig. 3, rear-view camera 17 located on engine cover 14).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe (US 9464402 B2) in view of Nordic Lights (NORDIC LIGHTS® - OFFICIAL. (2020, September 14). SCORPIUS XTR & PICTOR - LED Excavator Lights | NORDIC LIGHTS®. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbs6VLJjdro) and Construction Week (Bobcat launches E17Z zero tail swing excavator - Construction Week Online. (2017, May 15). Construction Week Online. https://www.constructionweekonline.com/products-services/article-44406-bobcat-launches-e17z-zero-tail-swing-excavator).
Regarding claim 8, Manabe teaches a work machine (Fig. 1, hydraulic excavator 1), comprising:
a machine body (upper revolving structure 3);
a cabin located on the machine body (cab 6);
and a rear camera that is located in the rear portion of the machine body and behind the cabin (Fig. 3, rear-view camera 17) and that is configured to capture an image of the region lying behind the machine body (column 8 line 36 and Fig. 7, “the view of the rear-view camera 17 in the upper-lower direction can be directed downward as shown in an angle α in FIG. 7, and the rear-view camera 17 can shoot the vicinity of the rear end edge in the counterweight 7 backward of the upper revolving structure 3”);
Manabe fails to teach a rear light that is located at a rear upper portion of the cabin and that is configured to illuminate (i) a region lying behind the cabin and above a rear portion of the machine body and (ii) a region lying behind the machine body; wherein the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
However, Nordic Lights teaches a rear light that is located at a rear upper portion of the cabin (see lights attached to the rear upper portion of the cabin at 0:17) and that is configured to illuminate (i) a region lying behind the cabin and above a rear portion of the machine body and (ii) a region lying behind the machine body (the lights can clearly be seen to illuminate the area around and behind the machine); wherein the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera (the lights can clearly be seen to illuminate the area around and behind the machine, which would include an image-capturing area of the rear camera);
While Nordic Lights does not explicitly teach the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera and instead only teaches that the light can be installed in multiple locations including the rear upper portion of the cabin, it is obvious that installing the light on Manabe in this position would result in illuminating a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
Nordic Lights teaches an aftermarket LED light that attaches to work machines in order to optimize lighting (video description, “It is designed to be mounted on equipment booms or vehicle bodies to optimize lighting in a specific area”) and to be able to work in the nighttime as if it were day (see video 0:50, “Like working in daylight”). The light can be used “in the construction, forestry and mining industries,” and “is particularly suitable for excavators, telehandlers and other equipment with a boom” (video description). Given the placement of Nordic Lights’ lights in the video, one of ordinary skill in the art would be incentivized to try placing the attachable lights at the same placement. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manabe to incorporate the teachings of Nordic Lights. Doing so would improve the efficiency of the work machine during low light environments.
Both Manabe and Nordic Lights fail to explicitly teach, when seen in a side view, a separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body is not more than 50 cm.
The separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body would be dictated by the dimensions of the work machine. Manabe does not explicitly teach the dimensions of the work machine. Nordic Lights’ LED lights are attachable, and so could be attached to any work machine. Therefore, the separation distance is not explicitly taught.
However, zero and short tail swing excavators are already well-known in the field. Zero and short tail swing excavators have a short, compact rear end part, as seen in Construction Week (see image, which shows a Bobcat E17Z zero tail swing excavator, which also has light attached to rear upper portion of the cabin). A zero tail swing excavator as shown in Construction Week, with the standard camera placement as shown in Manabe, and the attachable lights of Nordic Lights would have taught when seen in a side view, a separation distance between an extended line extending from a line passing through the rear light and the rear camera and a rear end part of the machine body is not more than 50 cm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights to incorporate the teachings of Construction Week, since a zero tail swing excavator would lead to easier maneuverability.
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights