DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The amended list of claims 1-20 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 12/23/2025:
Claim(s) 1-14 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 15-20 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/23/2025; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Title Objection, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the Title Objection has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the interpretation(s) of the terms: “first input part,” “second input part,” “third input part,” “restricting part,” and “operating device” in claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” pertaining to the “restricting part” and “operating device” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The Applicant has not amended the recitations of the terms: “first input part,” “second input part” and “third input part.” Therefore the invocation(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) of claim(s) 1-14 pertaining to “restricting part” and “operating device” has/have been withdrawn, and the invocation(s) pertaining to the “first input part,” “second input part” and “third input part” has/have been maintained.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first input part that receives an input” in claim 1; “a second input part that receives a setting input” in claim 2; and “a third input part that receives a predetermined input” in claim 6.
Claim limitations: “a first input part that receives an input,” “a second input part that receives a setting input,” and “a third input part that receives a predetermined input” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “part” or “device” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “first input part” as: “The engine rotation rate adjusting dial 32 (an example of a first input part) receives an operation input for adjusting the rotation rate of the engine 11 (hereinafter, “engine rotation rate”)” in at least paragraph 0072 and Fig. 2, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “first input part” as including but not limited to any mechanical actuator that can be manipulated to change engine rotation rate, for example.
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “second input part” as: “The input device 42 (an example of a second input part) is situated below and adjacently to the display region of the display device 40, and receives various inputs for operations via the screen of the display device 40 from the operator. Signals corresponding to the received inputs load into the controller 30. For example, the input device 42 is an operation input device that receives an operation input. The operation input device includes, for example, a touch panel packaged on a display device, a touch pad that is set anywhere around a display device, a button switch, a lever, and a toggle.” in at least paragraph 0082, 0083 and Fig. 2, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “second input part” as including but not limited to any mechanical actuator or touch screen/pad that can be manipulated to receive a setting input from the operator, for example.
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “third input part” as: “For example, the input device 42 is an operation input device that receives an operation input. The operation input device includes, for example, a touch panel packaged on a display device, a touch pad that is set anywhere around a display device, a button switch, a lever, and a toggle.” And: “The engine control part 301 may urgently deactivate the throttle restricting function for a limited period of time, in response to a predetermined input being received via, for example, the input device 42 (an example of a third input part) in a state that the throttle restricting function is effective” in at least paragraphs 0083, 0115 and Fig. 2, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “third input part” as including but not limited to any mechanical actuator or touch screen/pad that can be manipulated to receive a predetermined input from the operator, for example.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to due to the following minor informalities. Claim 18 recites: “on a same screen” in two instances, which is minor antecedent basis issue. This may be corrected by amending the second recitation of the above claim limitation to instead recite: “on the same screen.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by ONO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0056351 A1), referenced as Ono moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Ono discloses:
“An excavator, comprising: a motor” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses a working machine that performs excavating work, such as a backhoe(denoted as 1 in Fig. 20) which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "excavator." Ono further discloses that the working machine comprises a prime mover such as an engine(denoted E1 in Fig. 20) which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "motor;" Fig. 20; ¶: 0034-0036, 0039, 0083];
“a first input part configured to receive an input regarding changing of a rotation rate of the motor” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses at least two travel operating members(denoted 20L and 20R, respectively, in Fig. 1) which increase the engine revolution speed as the operating extent of the respective operating members increases, see Fig. 6 for example curve demonstrating the relationship between engine revolution speed based on operating extent input by the working machine operator; See also: ¶: 0059, 0100-0102];
“and a hardware processor configured to restrict the rotation rate of the motor” [Ono; "In the integrated control mode, the engine revolving speed is limited so as not to exceed the limit values (the upper limit value, the lower limit value) set by the first setting portion 56. The control device 51 includes a revolving speed limiter portion 58 that limits the engine revolving speed to the limit value set by the first setting portion 56. The revolving speed limiter portion 58 is constituted of an electronic/electric circuit, a computer program, or the like provided in the control device 51;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0091; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0090, 0092, 0093];
“the hardware processor is configured to maintain the rotation rate of the motor to lower than or equal to a predetermined upper limit in response to a first input received by the first input part, the first input instructing the rotation rate of the motor to be higher than the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor” [Ono; Ono discloses: "In other words, the revolving speed limiter portion 58 allows the engine revolving speed to be increased or decreased in accordance with the required revolving speed obtained by the revolving speed controller portion 55A. On the other hand, the revolving speed limiter portion 58 limits the engine revolving speed when the required revolving speed calculated by the revolving speed controller portion 55A exceeds the set value (the upper limit value);" Fig. 1; ¶: 0092, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicants recited "maintain the rotation rate of the motor to lower than or equal to a predetermined upper limit in response to a first input received by the first input part, the first input instructing the rotation rate of the motor to be higher than the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor." The Examiner is not required to show disclosure of the subsequent claim limitation reciting an inverse of the above limitation, due to the "or" statement, and therefore, the at least cited passages from Ono sufficiently anticipate the entire cited claim limitation; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0090, 0091, 0093];
“or maintain the rotation rate of the motor to higher than or equal to a predetermined lower limit in response to a second input received by the first input part, the second input instructing the rotation rate of the motor to be lower than the predetermined lower limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit by the hardware processor.” [Ono; does not require mapping because of the or statement].
With respect to claim 3, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to set the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit based on position information of the excavator, information regarding time, or information regarding an operator of the excavator” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses allowing the operator of the working machine to set the respective engine revolving speed limits for each hydraulic attachment of the working machine using a plurality of switches(denoted 72a, 72b and 72c respectively in Fig. 3A) in combination with a display device(denoted 70 in Fig. 3A). The Examiner has interpreted the settings input via the plurality of switches as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "information regarding an operator of the excavator;" Fig. 3A, 3C; ¶: 0078-0082].
With respect to claim 4, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the operator is informed that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit, or that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses allowing the operator of the working machine to set the respective engine revolving speed limits for each hydraulic attachment of the working machine using a plurality of switches(denoted 72a, 72b and 72c respectively in Fig. 3A) in combination with a display device(denoted 70 in Fig. 3A). The Examiner has interpreted the settings input via the plurality of switches as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "information regarding an operator of the excavator;" Fig. 3A, 3C; ¶: 0078-0082].
With respect to claim 8, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 1, further comprising: a display, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, a setting screen for setting restriction on the rotation rate of the motor, the restriction including the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses allowing the operator of the working machine to set the respective engine revolving speed limits for each hydraulic attachment of the working machine using a plurality of switches, denoted 72a, 72b and 72c respectively in Fig. 3A, in combination with a display device, denoted 70 in Fig. 3A. The Examiner has interpreted the settings input via the plurality of switches as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "information regarding an operator of the excavator;" Fig. 3A, 3C; ¶: 0078-0082].
With respect to claim 9, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to simultaneously display, on the display, the setting screen and setting information set by an operator” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses an engine revolving speed display portion, denoted 71 in Fig. 3A, that further displays the values set by the operator, and reflects changes based on the operator's inputs simultaneously; Fig. 3A, 3C; ¶: 0078-0082].
With respect to claim 15, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 1, further comprising: a second input part configured to receive an input of the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to maintain the rotation rate of the motor to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit input from the second input part in response to the first input, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor, or maintain the rotation rate of the motor to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit input from the second input part in response to the second input, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit by the hardware processor” [Ono; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ono discloses at least two work operating members, denoted 19L and 19R respectively in Fig. 1, which increase the engine revolution speed as the operating extent of the respective operating members increases, see Fig. 6 for example curve demonstrating the relationship between engine revolution speed based on operating extent input by the working machine operator. As disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1 with regards to limiting the engine revolving speed of a first input part (travel operating members, 20L and 20R), Ono discloses the same process of limiting engine revolving speed applies similarly to all disclosed operating members including work operating members 19L and 19R. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed work operating members as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second input part;" See also: Fig. 1, 7 & 8; ¶: 0056-0059, 0090-0093, 0100-0102].
With respect to claim 16, Ono discloses: “The excavator according to claim 15, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to set the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit input from the second input part, and control the rotation rate of the motor such that the rotation rate is prevented from exceeding the set predetermined upper limit or falling below the set predetermined lower limit” [Ono; "However, the revolving speed limiter portion 58 limits the engine revolving speed when the set value of the arm 16 is 1400 rpm. That is, when the required revolving speed is smaller than the set value, the revolving speed limiter portion 58 limits, to the set value, the target engine revolving speed (the output revolving speed) to be outputted to the control device 52;" ¶: 0093; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0090-0092].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Ishikawa (United States Patent Publication 2010/0259359 A1), referenced as Ishikawa moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 2.
Ishikawa, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “further comprising: a second input part configured to receive an input of the predetermined upper limit or a setting input regarding the predetermined lower limit, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to prevent a setting of the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit from being changed by the input of the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit received by the second input part, unless an input of predetermined authentication information is received” [Ishikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ishikawa discloses temporarily granting access to move the vehicle, i.e. increase the rotation rate of the vehicle's motor to a value greater than 0, which the rotation rate limit of the motor when the vehicle is parked, furthermore, it is only possible to trigger either the normal operation mode or emergency operation mode (denoted in Fig. 4 S21 and S23), i.e. changing the upper rotation rate of the engine to that assigned to the respective normal and emergency operating modes by using a password, wherein the disclosed password has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "authentication information;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0042-0052, 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding using a specific input to grant emergency access to a work vehicle for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to allow multiple drivers to operate the same working vehicle while simultaneously preventing theft of the vehicle even when the key is left inside the vehicle [Ishikawa; ¶: 0009, 0010].
With respect to claim 6, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 6.
Ishikawa teaches: “further comprising: a third input part configured to receive a predetermined input, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to remove restriction on the rotation rate of the motor for a limited period of time in response to the predetermined input received by the third input part” [Ishikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ishikawa discloses a plurality of operating modes for a cargo handling vehicle in which entering a password into a touch panel, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "third input part," temporarily grants access to move the vehicle, i.e. increase the rotation rate of the vehicle's motor to a value greater than 0, which the rotation rate limit of the motor when the vehicle is parked, for a restricted operating time, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "limited period of time;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0042-0052, 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding using a specific input to grant emergency access to a work vehicle for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to allow multiple drivers to operate the same working vehicle while simultaneously preventing theft of the vehicle even when the key is left inside the vehicle [Ishikawa; ¶: 0009, 0010].
With respect to claim 13, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 13.
Ishikawa teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to change the restriction on the rotation rate of the motor in a state in which safety is ensured” [Ishikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ishikawa discloses temporarily granting access to move the vehicle, i.e. increase the rotation rate of the vehicle's motor to a value greater than 0, which the rotation rate limit of the motor when the vehicle is parked, furthermore, it is only possible to trigger either the normal operation mode or emergency operation mode (denoted in Fig. 4 S21 and S23) while the vehicle is in a parked state and the key is re-entered into the vehicle after being previously removed for a predetermined amount of time; Fig. 4; ¶: 0042-0052, 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding using a specific input to grant emergency access to a work vehicle for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to allow multiple drivers to operate the same working vehicle while simultaneously preventing theft of the vehicle even when the key is left inside the vehicle [Ishikawa; ¶: 0009, 0010].
With respect to claim 14, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 14.
Ishikawa teaches: “further comprising: an actuator configured to drive a component of the excavator; and an operation lever or pedal configured to operate the actuator, wherein the state in which the safety is ensured includes a state in which the excavator is prevented from moving in response to an operation of the operation lever or pedal” [Ishikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ishikawa discloses temporarily granting access to move the vehicle, i.e. increase the rotation rate of the vehicle's motor to a value greater than 0, which the rotation rate limit of the motor when the vehicle is parked, furthermore, it is only possible to trigger either the normal operation mode or emergency operation mode (denoted in Fig. 4 S21 and S23) while the vehicle is in a parked state and the key is re-entered into the vehicle after being previously removed for a predetermined amount of time. The disclosed parked state has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's recited: "wherein the state in which the safety is ensured includes a state in which the excavator is prevented from moving in response to an operation of the operation lever or pedal;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0042-0052, 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding using a specific input to grant emergency access to a work vehicle for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to allow multiple drivers to operate the same working vehicle while simultaneously preventing theft of the vehicle even when the key is left inside the vehicle [Ishikawa; ¶: 0009, 0010].
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Larson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0367045 A1), referenced as Larson moving forward.
With respect to claim 5, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 5.
Larson, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to maintain the rotation rate of the motor to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit in response to the first input and maintain the rotation rate of the motor to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit in response to the second input, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit and to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit by the hardware processor” [Larson; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Larson discloses a speed control gui, denoted 3 in Fig. 3, that displays several indicators including at least a first indication, denoted 62 in Fig. 3, that further comprises a lower limit engine RPM, denoted 64 in Fig. 3, upper limit engine RPM, denoted 66 in Fig. 3. Larson further discloses: "The first configuration 90 may convey to the operator that a controller may control the engine speed within the range presented by the engine speed control GUI 60;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0034; See also: ¶: 0035, 0036, 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling an engine RPM to remain within a range set by a user using indicators on a display as taught by Larson with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to aid the operator of the work vehicle, such that they may more easily operate the work vehicle at target operating parameters to more efficiently accomplish a variety of tasks [Larson; ¶: 0017].
With respect to claim 10, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 10.
Larson teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to simultaneously display, on the display, the setting screen and information regarding a driving state of a device mounted on the excavator” [Larson; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Larson discloses a speed control gui, denoted 3 in Fig. 3, that displays several indicators including at least a first indication, denoted 62 in Fig. 3, that further comprises a lower limit engine RPM, denoted 64 in Fig. 3, upper limit engine RPM, denoted 66 in Fig. 3. Larson further discloses a fourth indication, denoted 80 in Fig. 3, that indicates the selected work mode of the work machine. The upper and lower limit engine RPMs may be set by the operator using speed input device, denoted 54 in Fig. 4, and may set the driving mode using the mode input device, denoted 56 in Fig. 4. In view of this disclosure, the cited first indication and fourth indication being simultaneously presented in a speed control gui has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "setting screen and information regarding a driving state of a device mounted on the excavator" being "configured to simultaneously display, on the display;" Fig. 3-5; ¶: 0024, 0032-0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling an engine RPM to remain within a range set by a user using indicators on a display as taught by Larson with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to aid the operator of the work vehicle, such that they may more easily operate the work vehicle at target operating parameters to more efficiently accomplish a variety of tasks [Larson; ¶: 0017].
With respect to claim 19, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 19.
Larson teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display a screen including a region for displaying a current level of the rotation rate of the motor set in accordance with the input received by the first input part and a region for displaying information indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit or that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit” [Larson; ¶: "The instructions also cause the processor to present a second indication indicative of an engine speed range based on the second signal, such that the second indication includes an upper engine speed value and a lower engine speed value. The instructions also cause the processor to selectively present a first symbol at the first end of the member and a second symbol and the second end of the member, based on the first signal, the second signal, or any combination thereof, to indicate that an engine speed is configured to vary between the lower engine speed value and the upper engine speed value;" ¶: 0005; See also: Fig. 3; ¶: 0034-0036, 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling an engine RPM to remain within a range set by a user using indicators on a display as taught by Larson with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to aid the operator of the work vehicle, such that they may more easily operate the work vehicle at target operating parameters to more efficiently accomplish a variety of tasks [Larson; ¶: 0017].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Gotou et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0197465 A1), referenced as Gotou moving forward.
With respect to claim 7, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 7.
Gotou, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to receive a signal requesting the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit to be set from a predetermined external device through a predetermined communication line, and set the predetermined upper limit or the predetermined lower limit based on the received signal” [Gotou; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Gotou discloses a base station, denoted 2 in Fig. 1, that enables a staff of the base station to remotely operate one or more hydraulic excavators, denoted 20-1, 20-2…20-N in Fig. 1, via a wireless communication network, denoted 7 in Fig. 1, that enables the staff to select a work mode that set respective upper limits of the target RPM. The disclosed base station and wireless communication network have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "predetermined external device" and "predetermined communication line," respectively; Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0035, 0054, 0056-0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding using a wireless communication network to allow staff at a base station to remotely provide settings to one or more hydraulic excavators as taught by Gotou with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to prevent the following: “if an excessively large work load would be applied to the working machine in a work mode which lowers the upper limit of the target rpm and is about to be instructed to the control means from the base station, this work mode is not instructed, thereby enabling to prevent the occurrence of a situation that the work efficiency of the working machine would be reduced” [Gotou; ¶: 0019].
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of IZUMIKAWA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0218744 A1), referenced as Izumikawa moving forward.
With respect to claim 11, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 11.
Izumikawa, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to simultaneously display, on the display, the setting screen and an image representing a state of surroundings of the excavator” [Izumikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Izumikawa discloses a display that indicates the rotational speed mode display part(denoted 412 in Fig. 8) which informs the operator of the rotational speed mode that they have selected using the engine rotational speed adjustment dial previously disclosed and has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "setting screen." Izumikawa further discloses an image display part(denoted 420 in Fig. 8) which displays image information pertaining to the surroundings of the excavator and has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "image representing a state of surroundings of the excavator;" Fig. 8; ¶: 0056, 0057, 0089-0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding simultaneously displaying multiple regions including the surroundings of the vehicle as well as an area to modify other safety functions as taught by Izumikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to present to the operator in an efficient manner the mode that the operator has selected to satisfy the workload and fuel efficiency constraints [Izumikawa; ¶: 0057].
With respect to claim 12, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 12.
Izumikawa teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to simultaneously display a region for setting the restriction on the rotation rate of the motor and a region for setting any other safety function on the setting screen” [Izumikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Izumikawa discloses a display that indicates the rotational speed mode display part, 412 in Fig. 8, which informs the operator of the rotational speed mode that they have selected using the engine rotational speed adjustment dial previously disclosed and has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "setting screen." Izumikawa further discloses a travel mode display part, 413 in Fig. 8, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "region for setting regarding any other safety function;" Fig. 8; ¶: 0056, 0057, 0089-0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding simultaneously displaying multiple regions including the surroundings of the vehicle as well as an area to modify other safety functions as taught by Izumikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to present to the operator in an efficient manner the mode that the operator has selected to satisfy the workload and fuel efficiency constraints [Izumikawa; ¶: 0057].
With respect to claim 20, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 20.
Izumikawa teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, over an image of surroundings of the excavator, information indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit or that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit” [Izumikawa; ¶: In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Izumikawa discloses a display device, denoted D3 in Fig. 8, that comprises a mode display part(denoted 412 in Fig. 8) that "displays a rotational speed mode set by the engine rotational speed adjustment dial 75 as operating information of the shovel" (¶: 0092); wherein the rotational speed mode corresponds to a predetermined constant engine rotational speed, i.e. the rotational speed of the engine is equal to a predetermined limit value. The mode display part is overlayed on top of a camera image display part(denoted 420 in Fig. 8), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "over an image of surroundings of the excavator;" See also: ¶: 0056, 0057, 0090, 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding simultaneously displaying multiple regions including the surroundings of the vehicle as well as an area to modify other safety functions as taught by Izumikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to present to the operator in an efficient manner the mode that the operator has selected to satisfy the workload and fuel efficiency constraints [Izumikawa; ¶: 0057].
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of MIURA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0074481 A1), referenced as Miura moving forward.
With respect to claim 17, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 17.
Miura, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor, or display a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit by the hardware processor” [Miura; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Miura discloses a display simultaneously displaying a prompt to increase the engine speed above a minimum engine speed using both a text message, for example "increase engine speed, please" as well as an icon B, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's recited: "wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0211, 0318-0321].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying a plurality of notifications pertaining to a restricted engine rotation rate on a display screen as taught by Miura with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to provide warnings pertaining to violations of predetermined engine speed thresholds such that the engine may be able to operate in a more efficient range and thus: “decreasing of the deposition amount of the particulate matter progresses, and the regeneration of the DPF can be efficiently performed” [Miura; ¶: 0052].
With respect to claim 18, Ono does not specifically state the limitations of claim 18.
Miura teaches: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on a same screen, an icon representing a function of restricting the rotation rate of the motor and a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor, or display, on a same screen, the icon representing the function of restricting the rotation rate of the motor and a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to higher than or equal to the predetermined lower limit by the hardware processor” [Miura; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Miura discloses a display simultaneously displaying a prompt to increase the engine speed above a minimum engine speed using both a text message, for example "increase engine speed, please" as well as an icon B, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's recited: "wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on a same screen, an icon representing a function of restricting the rotation rate of the motor and a text message indicating that the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit, when the rotation rate of the motor is restricted to lower than or equal to the predetermined upper limit by the hardware processor;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0211, 0318-0321].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel as disclosed by Ono to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying a plurality of notifications pertaining to a restricted engine rotation rate on a display screen as taught by Miura with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a shovel and system/method for controlling the shovel that is more robust in its ability to provide warnings pertaining to violations of predetermined engine speed thresholds such that the engine may be able to operate in a more efficient range and thus: “decreasing of the deposition amount of the particulate matter progresses, and the regeneration of the DPF can be efficiently performed” [Miura; ¶: 0052].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights