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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 18/385,430, filed on 10/31/2023. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-7 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/30/2024, 05/28/2024, 12/15/2025, and 03/02/2026 have been acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claims should be grouped together with the claims they are dependent on. Since claim 6 is dependent on claim 2, the claims should be reordered so that claim 6 comes directly after claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 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).
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.
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).
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.
Regarding claim 2, 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 so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera.
However, Nordic Lights teaches the rear light is installed so as to illuminate a vicinity of the machine body in an image-capturing area of the rear camera (see lights attached to the rear upper portion of the cabin at 0:17).
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, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize 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.
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 3, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights 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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe (US 9464402 B2) in view of Nordic Lights, and further in view of VansEquipment (VansEquipment. (2010, February 7). Yanmar Zero Tail Swing. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5pFGFZtkw).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights teaches the work machine according to claim 1. 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 6, the combination of Manabe in view of Nordic Lights teaches the work machine according to claim 2. Both Manabe and Nordic Lights fails 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 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, 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishi (US 20230078047 A1) teaches an excavator with a rear-view camera
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