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 action is in reply to the application filed on January 10th, 2024, the amendments and remarks filed May 21st, 2025, and the request for continued examination filed 12/02/2025.
Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended, Claims 2-10 have been previously amended.
Claims 13-22 have been added.
Claims 11-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 04/30/2025 has been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages8-12 filed 12/02/2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 1-10 and 13-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejections are upheld, and updated as necessitated by amendment.
In response to applicant's argument that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against 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). Regarding the argument that the mode selection trigger switch of Berg (US 20060137931) does not teach that the switch could or would affect the functionality of multiple components, the switch of Berg teaches the changing of control functionality using a switch on a control stick in ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," while Theander (EP 3365744) teaches changing control modes which affect the functionality of multiple control sticks ¶ 0018 lines 36-46 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action. For example: 40 in a Transport mode, the left joystick 24a may control the caterpillar tracks 14 and the right joystick 24b may control the tower 10a (which can come in handy when turning in narrow passages); whereas in a Work mode, the left joystick 24a controls the tower 10a, the tool 11 b and some 45 movements of the arms 11, and the right joystick 24b controls other movements of the arms 11."
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the combination relies upon combining the control stick-mounted mode selection switch of Berg described above with the modes of Theander described above under the motivation provided within the text of Berg ¶ 0041 to avoid the need to operate the primary mode selector switch when switching between the analogous steering and work functions of the work machines taught within both pieces of prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the work implement control device of Berg is provided to an operator on a work machine and is not a remote control, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Both Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-2 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88,” and Theander ¶ 0018 lines 25-28 “The controls 24 include one or more joysticks, a left joystick 24a and a right joystick 24b for example as shown in figure 2A, being examples of a first joystick 24a and a second joystick 24b,” present analogous control sticks which are used to control work machines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, 15-17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theander (EP 3365744, hereinafter referred to as Theander) in view of Berg et al (US 20060137931, hereinafter referred to as Berg).
Regarding Claim 1, Theander teaches:
A demolition robot control system, comprising: a demolition robot, (Theander ¶ 0012 line 57 "Figure 1 shows a remote demolition robot")
comprising: a control unit to control movement and functioning of the demolition robot; (Theander ¶ 0015 line 36-42 "The operation of the robot 10 is controlled by one or more controllers 17, comprising at least one processor or other programmable logic and possibly a memory module for storing instructions that when executed by the processor controls a function of the demolition robot 10," consistent with the 112(f) interpretation of “control unit”)
an undercarriage comprising a propulsion device; (Theander ¶ 0013 lines 13-14 "The robot 10 comprises caterpillar tracks 14 that enable the robot 10 to move," consistent with the 112(f) interpretation of “propulsion means”)
an upper carriage rotatably mounted on the undercarriage; (Theander ¶ 0014 lines 30-36 "The body of the robot 10 may comprise a tower 10a on which the arms 11 are arranged, and a base 10b on which the caterpillar tracks 14 are arranged. The tower 10a is arranged to be rotatable with regards to the base 10b which enables an operator to turn the arms 11 in a direction other than the direction of the caterpillar tracks 14," the tower being analogous to the upper carriage)
and an arm member mounted on the upper carriage; (Theander ¶ 0012 lines 57-11 "The robot 10 comprises one or more robot members, such as arms 11, the arms 11 possibly constituting one (or more) robot arm member(s) […] The arms 11 are movably operable through at least one cylinder 12 for each arm 11. The cylinders are preferably hydraulic," and ¶ 0014 lines 30-31 "The body of the robot 10 may comprise a tower 10a on which the arms 11 are arranged,)
and a remote control unit to provide commands to the control unit of the demolition robot, (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1.")
the remote control unit comprising a first control lever, a second control lever, (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 25-28 "The controls 24 include one or more joysticks, a left joystick 24a and a right joystick 24b for example as shown in figure 2A, being examples of a first joystick 24a and a second joystick 24b.")
a primary operating mode selector switch, […] (Theander Fig 2a and 2b show the controls 24 arranged on the remote control unit and are the primary (and only) mode selector switch in this invention)
[…] wherein the primary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow an operator to transition the control unit between operating modes; (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action.")
wherein the first control lever and the second control lever are operable to control movement and functioning of the demolition robot based on which of the operating modes the control unit is operating in; […] and wherein, while the control unit is operating in the temporary alternative operating mode, the control unit causes both the first control lever and the second control lever to function in accordance with the temporary alternative operating mode. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 39-46 “For example: 40 in a Transport mode, the left joystick 24a may control the caterpillar tracks 14 and the right joystick 24b may control the tower 10a (which can come in handy when turning in narrow passages); whereas in a Work mode, the left joystick 24a controls the tower 10a, the tool 11 b and some 45 movements of the arms 11, and the right joystick 24b controls other movements of the arms 11;”)
Theander does not teach:
[…] and a secondary operating mode selector switch; […]
[…] wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on the second control lever
and is operable to allow the operator to transition the control unit from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to a temporary alternative operating mode,
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
[…] and a secondary operating mode selector switch; […] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10 "For example, when operating multifunction input device 78 in steering mode, an operator may temporarily switch the configuration of multifunction input device 78 over to control of the auxiliary function, without having to operate mode selector switch 86," teaching a secondary switch in addition to a primary switch which transitions between control modes)
[…] and, wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on the second control lever (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," teaching that the secondary switch is located on a control stick)
and is operable to allow the operator to transition the control unit from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to a temporary alternative operating mode, (Berg ¶ 0058 "Trigger switch 88 may be operable, when joystick steering is active, to temporarily enable control of auxiliary work tool 58 with multifunction input device 78, as discussed above. The function of trigger switch 88 may be augmented by a trigger relay 124. For example, when trigger switch 88 is pressed, trigger relay 124 may close to thereby enable battery power to activate auxiliary work tool solenoid 114, despite mode selector switch 86 being positioned to activate joystick steering," teaching that the secondary switch operates by momentary relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed)
Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary trigger secondary switch of Berg to activate said modes of Theander. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander further teaches:
wherein, while the control unit is operating in the […] alternative operating mode, the first control lever and the second control lever are operable to control the undercarriage or the upper carriage of the demolition robot. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 38-51 "wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action. For example, in a Transport mode, the left joystick 24a may control the caterpillar tracks 14 and the right joystick 24b may control the tower 10a (which can come in handy when turning in narrow passages); whereas in a Work mode, the left joystick 24a controls the tower 10a, the tool 11b and some movements of the arms 11, and the right joystick 24b control other movements of the arms 11; and in a Setup mode, the each joystick 24a, 24b control each a caterpillar track 14, and also controls the outrigger(s) 15 on a corresponding side of the robot 10. It should be noted that other associations of functions to joysticks and controls are also possible,” teaching control of the undercarriage and/or upper carriage in alternative operating modes)
Theander does not teach:
[…] temporary [alternative operating mode…]
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
[…] temporary [alternative operating mode…] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," and ¶ 0040 lines 5-11 “For example, moving mode selector switch 86 may change the operation of multifunction input device 78 from steering control to control of auxiliary work tool 58. In yet another mode of operation, multifunction input device 78 may be configured to control the cab riser function or offset boom function,” teaching control of an auxiliary work tool and offset boom constitute controlling the upper carriage in a similar way to Theander.)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary mode selection trigger activation of Berg. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein, upon deactivation of the secondary operating mode selector switch, the control unit transitions from operating in the temporary alternative operating mode to one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
wherein, upon deactivation of the secondary operating mode selector switch, the control unit transitions from operating in the temporary alternative operating mode to one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch. (Berg ¶ 0058 "Trigger switch 88 may be operable, when joystick steering is active, to temporarily enable control of auxiliary work tool 58 with multifunction input device 78, as discussed above. The function of trigger switch 88 may be augmented by a trigger relay 124. For example, when trigger switch 88 is pressed, trigger relay 124 may close to thereby enable battery power to activate auxiliary work tool solenoid 114, despite mode selector switch 86 being positioned to activate joystick steering," describing a momentary switch via relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed, and then returning to “activate joystick steering”)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary mode selection trigger activation of Berg which can toggle between a previous mode of controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface of the second control lever.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface of the second control lever. (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," Fig 2C showing a trigger switch 88 on the side of the control stick, as distinct from the top or bottom of the control stick)
PNG
media_image1.png
314
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the side stick trigger-activated momentary mode selection of Berg which can toggle between controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander further teaches:
wherein the second control lever comprises a control switch located on a top surface of the second control lever. (Theander ¶ 0029 lines 20-22 “Another example is that an actuation of the right top switch control 25b on the left joystick 24a,” establishing with Fig 2A the top switches as thumb switches on top of the control levers)
PNG
media_image2.png
368
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 8 as described above. Theander further teaches:
wherein the control switch is operable to allow the operator to start and stop a tool carried by the arm member of the demolition robot. (Theander ¶ 0053 lines 6-11 "It should be noted that in some modes, the top switches may be used to operate or control a tool 11b instead of the outriggers. Alternatively, the top switches may be used to control both the outriggers and a tool through a different functional allocation of the top switch actuations")
Regarding Claim 13, Theander teaches:
A method for controlling a demolition robot, comprising: (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1.")
receiving, by a control unit on the demolition robot (Theander ¶ 0015 line 36-42 "The operation of the robot 10 is controlled by one or more controllers 17, comprising at least one processor or other programmable logic and possibly a memory module for storing instructions that when executed by the processor controls a function of the demolition robot 10," consistent with the 112(f) interpretation of “control unit”)
from a remote control unit in electronic communication with the control unit, (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1.")
a first command instructing the control unit to transition the demolition robot from operating in a first operating mode to a second operating mode (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action," teaching mode selection via control switches, analogous to a command to change modes)
based on a position of a primary operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit; (Theander Fig 2a and 2b show the controls 24 arranged on the remote control unit and are the primary (and only) mode selector switch in this invention)
transitioning, by the control unit of the demolition robot responsive to receiving the first command from the remote control unit, the demolition robot from operating in the first operating mode to the second operating mode (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action," teaching mode selection via control switches, analogous to a command to change modes)
such that, while operating in the second operating mode, the control unit controls a propulsion device of the demolition robot responsive to operation of a first control lever and a second control lever on the remote control unit; (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 38-51 "wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action. For example, […] in a Setup mode, the each joystick 24a, 24b control each a caterpillar track 14, and also controls the outrigger(s) 15 on a corresponding side of the robot 10. It should be noted that other associations of functions to joysticks and controls are also possible,” teaching control of the undercarriage in an alternative operating mode taken here as analogous to the second operating mode)
receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, a second command instructing the control unit to transition the demolition robot from operating in the second operating mode to a third operating mode […] (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action.")
[…] and transitioning, by the control unit of the demolition robot responsive to receiving the second command from the remote control unit, the demolition robot from operating in the second operating mode to the third operating mode such that, while operating in the third operating mode, the control unit controls an arm member of the demolition robot responsive to operation of the first control lever and the second control lever on the remote control unit. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 38-46 "wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action. For example, […] in a Work mode, the left joystick 24a controls the tower 10a, the tool 11b and some movements of the arms 11, and the right joystick 24b control other movements of the arms 11;” teaching control of the arm in an alternative operating mode taken here as analogous to the third operating mode)
Theander does not teach:
[…] responsive to activation of a secondary operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit,
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on the second control lever on the remote control unit; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
[…] responsive to activation of a secondary operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit, (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10,” teaching a secondary switch in addition to a primary switch which transitions between control modes)
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on the second control lever on the remote control unit; […] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10 "For example, when operating multifunction input device 78 in steering mode, an operator may temporarily switch the configuration of multifunction input device 78 over to control of the auxiliary function, without having to operate mode selector switch 86," teaching that the secondary switch operates by momentary relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed)
Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary trigger secondary switch of Berg to activate said modes of Theander. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 13 as described above. Theander further teaches:
receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, a third command instructing the control unit to transition the demolition robot from operating in the third operating mode to the second operating mode responsive to deactivation of the […] operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit; and transitioning, by the control unit of the demolition robot responsive to receiving the third command from the remote control unit, the demolition robot from operating in the third operating mode to the second operating mode (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action," teaching mode selection via control switches, analogous to a command to change modes)
such that, while operating in the second operating mode, the control unit controls the propulsion device of the demolition robot responsive to operation of the first control lever and the second control lever on the remote control unit. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 38-51 "wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action. For example, […] in a Setup mode, the each joystick 24a, 24b control each a caterpillar track 14, and also controls the outrigger(s) 15 on a corresponding side of the robot 10. It should be noted that other associations of functions to joysticks and controls are also possible,” teaching control of the undercarriage in an alternative operating “Setup” mode taken here as analogous to the second operating mode)
Theander does not teach:
[…] secondary [operating mode selector switch …]
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
[…] secondary [operating mode selector switch…] (Berg ¶ 0058 "Trigger switch 88 may be operable, when joystick steering is active, to temporarily enable control of auxiliary work tool 58 with multifunction input device 78, as discussed above. The function of trigger switch 88 may be augmented by a trigger relay 124. For example, when trigger switch 88 is pressed, trigger relay 124 may close to thereby enable battery power to activate auxiliary work tool solenoid 114, despite mode selector switch 86 being positioned to activate joystick steering," describing a momentary switch via relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed, and then returning to “activate joystick steering,” via electrical control analogous to a command)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes, mode selection switch and function, and Setup mode of Theander by adding the momentary mode selection trigger activation of Berg which can toggle between a previous mode of controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 13 as described above. Theander further teaches:
[…] of the second control lever on the remote control unit. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1," and ¶ 0018 lines 25-28 "The controls 24 include one or more joysticks, a left joystick 24a and a right joystick 24b for example as shown in figure 2A, being examples of a first joystick 24a and a second joystick 24b," teaching a second joystick on a remote control unit)
Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface […] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," Fig 2C showing a trigger switch 88 on the side of the control stick, as distinct from the top or bottom of the control stick)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second joystick on the remote control unit of Theander by adding the side stick trigger-activated momentary mode selection of Berg which can toggle between controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 13 as described above. Theander further teaches:
receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, a fourth command instructing the control unit to start a tool carried by the demolition robot responsive to activation of a control switch located on a top surface of the second control lever on the remote control unit; and starting, by the control unit of the demolition robot responsive to receiving the fourth command from the remote control unit, the tool carried by the demolition robot. (Theander ¶ 0029 lines 20-22 “Another example is that an actuation of the right top switch control 25b on the left joystick 24a,” establishing with Fig 2A the top switches as thumb switches on top of the control levers and ¶ 0053 lines 6-11 "It should be noted that in some modes, the top switches may be used to operate or control a tool 11b instead of the outriggers. Alternatively, the top switches may be used to control both the outriggers and a tool through a different functional allocation of the top switch actuations," teaching switches on the top of the control sticks which control the operation of a tool, analogous to sending a command to start the tool)
Regarding Claim 18, Theander teaches:
A remote control unit for controlling a demolition robot, (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1.")
the remote control unit comprising: a first control lever; a second control lever; (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 25-28 "The controls 24 include one or more joysticks, a left joystick 24a and a right joystick 24b for example as shown in figure 2A, being examples of a first joystick 24a and a second joystick 24b.")
a primary operating mode selector switch; […] (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action.")
[…] wherein the primary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow an operator to transition the demolition robot between operating modes (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 36-39 "The control switches 24 may be used to select one out of several operating modes, wherein an operating mode determines which control input corresponds to which action.")
such that the first control lever and the second control lever are operable to control movement and functioning of the demolition robot based on which of the operating modes the demolition robot is operating in; […] and wherein, while the demolition robot is operating in the temporary alternative operating mode, both the first control lever and the second control lever function in accordance with the temporary alternative operating mode. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 39-46 "For example: 40 in a Transport mode, the left joystick 24a may control the caterpillar tracks 14 and the right joystick 24b may control the tower 10a (which can come in handy when turning in narrow passages); whereas in a Work mode, the left joystick 24a controls the tower 10a, the tool 11 b and some 45 movements of the arms 11, and the right joystick 24b controls other movements of the arms 11;")
Theander does not teach:
[…] and a secondary operating mode selector switch located on the second control lever; […]
[…] wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow the operator to transition the demolition robot from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to a temporary alternative operating mode,
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
[…] and a secondary operating mode selector switch located on the second control lever; […] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10.")
[…] and wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow the operator to transition the demolition robot from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to a temporary alternative operating mode. (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10 "For example, when operating multifunction input device 78 in steering mode, an operator may temporarily switch the configuration of multifunction input device 78 over to control of the auxiliary function, without having to operate mode selector switch 86," and ¶ 0058 "Trigger switch 88 may be operable, when joystick steering is active, to temporarily enable control of auxiliary work tool 58 with multifunction input device 78, as discussed above. The function of trigger switch 88 may be augmented by a trigger relay 124. For example, when trigger switch 88 is pressed, trigger relay 124 may close to thereby enable battery power to activate auxiliary work tool solenoid 114, despite mode selector switch 86 being positioned to activate joystick steering," teaching that the secondary switch operates by momentary relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed)
Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary trigger secondary switch of Berg to activate said modes of Theander. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 18 as described above. Theander further teaches:
[…] of the second control lever on the remote control unit. (Theander ¶ 0018 lines 16-17 "Figure 2A shows a remote control 22 for a remote demolition robot such as the robot 10 in figure 1," and ¶ 0018 lines 25-28 "The controls 24 include one or more joysticks, a left joystick 24a and a right joystick 24b for example as shown in figure 2A, being examples of a first joystick 24a and a second joystick 24b," teaching a second joystick on a remote control unit)
Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch is located on a side surface […] (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 1-6 "Work implement control device 56 may also include a trigger switch 88, as shown in FIG. 2C. Trigger switch 88 may be configured to temporarily toggle the configuration of multifunction input device 78 between steering control and control of an auxiliary function of work machine 10," Fig 2C showing a trigger switch 88 on the side of the control stick, as distinct from the top or bottom of the control stick)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second joystick on the remote control unit of Theander by adding the side stick trigger-activated momentary mode selection of Berg which can toggle between controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 18 as described above. Theander further teaches:
comprising a control switch located on a top surface of the second control lever, (Theander ¶ 0029 lines 20-22 “Another example is that an actuation of the right top switch control 25b on the left joystick 24a,” establishing with Fig 2A the top switches as thumb switches on top of the control levers)
the control switch being operable to start and stop a tool carried by the demolition robot. (Theander ¶ 0053 lines 6-11 "It should be noted that in some modes, the top switches may be used to operate or control a tool 11b instead of the outriggers. Alternatively, the top switches may be used to control both the outriggers and a tool through a different functional allocation of the top switch actuations," teaching switches on the top of the control sticks which control the operation of a tool, analogous to sending a command to start the tool)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Theander and Berg as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Murota et al (US 10640951, hereinafter referred to as Murota).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch on the second control lever of the remote control unit cannot be activated unless both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander and Berg, Murota teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch on the second control lever of the remote control unit cannot be activated unless both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 "When the result of the determination in step S12 is “NO,” i.e., when none of the left and right operating levers for work 8L, 8R and left and right manipulators for traveling 9L, 9R is operated [...] both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF," teaching a condition for mode-changing during standby mode that none of the operating levers is operated, i.e. that they are in a zero or neutral position in order to exit standby mode and complete the mode change as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition that the none of the operating levers are operated in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch on the second control lever of the remote control unit is operable to allow the operator to transition the control unit from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to the temporary alternative operating mode upon activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch for longer than a threshold time.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander and Berg, Murota teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch on the second control lever of the remote control unit is operable to allow the operator to transition the control unit from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to the temporary alternative operating mode upon activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch for longer than a threshold time. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 " "the controller 15 determines whether the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of a predetermined time period (e.g., three seconds) or not (step S16). [30] When the result of the determination in step S16 is “YES,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S13. The process moves on to step S17 after the execution of steps S13, S14, S15. In other words, the timer T counts down during the “standby mode,” and when the countdown of the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF. When the result of the determination in step S16 is “NO,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T does not indicate a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S17," teaching a 3-second 'standby mode' delay before switching modes as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition of a predetermined time delay in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 5 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the control unit only transitions from operating in the temporary alternative operating mode to one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch when both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position upon deactivation of the secondary operating mode selector switch.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg, teaches:
wherein the control unit […] transitions from operating in the temporary alternative operating mode to one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch […] (Berg ¶ 0058 "Trigger switch 88 may be operable, when joystick steering is active, to temporarily enable control of auxiliary work tool 58 with multifunction input device 78, as discussed above. The function of trigger switch 88 may be augmented by a trigger relay 124. For example, when trigger switch 88 is pressed, trigger relay 124 may close to thereby enable battery power to activate auxiliary work tool solenoid 114, despite mode selector switch 86 being positioned to activate joystick steering," describing a momentary switch via relay that electrically operates to change modes only when the trigger is pressed, and then returning to “activate joystick steering”)
As described above, Theander and Berg are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander by adding the momentary mode selection trigger activation of Berg which can toggle between controlling steering and an auxiliary function. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by temporarily controlling auxiliary functions of the robot without having to operate the primary mode selector switch (Berg ¶ 0041 lines 6-10.)
The combination of Theander and Berg does not teach:
[…] only […] when both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position upon deactivation of the secondary operating mode selector switch.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Berg, Murota teaches:
[…] only […] when both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position upon deactivation of the secondary operating mode selector switch. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 "When the result of the determination in step S12 is “NO,” i.e., when none of the left and right operating levers for work 8L, 8R and left and right manipulators for traveling 9L, 9R is operated [...] both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF," teaching a condition for mode-changing during standby mode that none of the operating levers is operated, i.e. that they are in a zero or neutral position in order to exit standby mode and complete the mode change as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition that the none of the operating levers are operated in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, the second command comprises receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, the second command responsive to activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit for longer than a threshold time.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander and Berg, Murota teaches:
wherein receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, the second command comprises receiving, by the control unit of the demolition robot from the remote control unit, the second command responsive to activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch on the remote control unit for longer than a threshold time. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 " "the controller 15 determines whether the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of a predetermined time period (e.g., three seconds) or not (step S16). [30] When the result of the determination in step S16 is “YES,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S13. The process moves on to step S17 after the execution of steps S13, S14, S15. In other words, the timer T counts down during the “standby mode,” and when the countdown of the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF. When the result of the determination in step S16 is “NO,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T does not indicate a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S17," teaching a 3-second 'standby mode' delay before switching modes as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition of a predetermined time delay in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 18 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch cannot be activated unless both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander and Berg, Murota teaches:
wherein the secondary operating mode selector switch cannot be activated unless both the first control lever and the second control lever are in a zero position. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 "When the result of the determination in step S12 is “NO,” i.e., when none of the left and right operating levers for work 8L, 8R and left and right manipulators for traveling 9L, 9R is operated [...] both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF," teaching a condition for mode-changing during standby mode that none of the operating levers is operated, i.e. that they are in a zero or neutral position in order to exit standby mode and complete the mode change, as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and secondary mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition that the none of the operating levers are operated in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 18 as described above. Theander does not teach:
the secondary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow the operator to transition the demolition robot from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to the temporary alternative operating mode upon activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch for longer than a threshold time.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander and Berg, Murota teaches:
the secondary operating mode selector switch is operable to allow the operator to transition the demolition robot from operating in one of the operating modes selected via the primary operating mode selector switch to the temporary alternative operating mode upon activation of the secondary operating mode selector switch for longer than a threshold time. (Murota Col 8 lines 17-36 " "the controller 15 determines whether the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of a predetermined time period (e.g., three seconds) or not (step S16). [30] When the result of the determination in step S16 is “YES,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S13. The process moves on to step S17 after the execution of steps S13, S14, S15. In other words, the timer T counts down during the “standby mode,” and when the countdown of the timer T indicates a lapse of the predetermined time period, both the “standby mode” and the “travel mode” are turned OFF. When the result of the determination in step S16 is “NO,” i.e., when it is determined that the time on the timer T does not indicate a lapse of the predetermined time period, the process moves on to step S17," teaching a 3-second 'standby mode' delay before switching modes as applied to the secondary operating mode selector switch of Theander and Berg)
Theander, Berg, and Murota are all considered analogous because they all relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and mode selection switch and function of Theander and Berg by adding Murota’s condition of a predetermined time delay in order to complete the mode change. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing mistaken or erroneous operation of the switch (Murota Col 9 lines 14-18)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Theander and Berg and further in view of Andersson (EP 2508680, hereinafter “Andersson”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Theander and Berg teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Theander does not teach:
wherein the remote control unit comprises a display unit to display symbols corresponding to the operating modes of the control unit.
Within the same field of endeavor as Theander, Andersson teaches:
wherein the remote control unit comprises a display unit to display symbols corresponding to the operating modes of the control unit. (Andersson ¶ 0002 lines 31-34 “the selected working mode is displayed with the aid of symbols that are illuminated on a screen 4c or display on the control unit 4,” and ¶ 0013 lines 22-30 “Figure 4A shows a perspective view from above of a control unit such as it is seen by an operator during operation of the working machine, Figure 4B shows in the form of a summary the functions of the control unit in its working mode and the symbols of the control unit for the switching of the working machine between the manual control stick mode and the fully automatic or semi-automatic control stick mode,” the symbols of the working modes shown in Fig 4B)
PNG
media_image3.png
689
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Theander and Andersson are both considered analogous because they both relate to control of demolition vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating modes and remote controller of Theander by adding Andersson’s screen on a control unit to display symbols of the selected working mode. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing operator awareness to increase working efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
While no longer relied upon for rejections due to amendment, Carlsson (WO 2010085184) teaches the use of top thumb buttons on the control sticks used to momentarily change the functions of said control sticks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664