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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The list of claims 1-17 and 19-21 is pending. In the claim set filed 07/22/2026:
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 2-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 18 has/have been indicated as cancelled.
Claim(s) 21 has/have been newly added
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination(RCE) filed on 07/22/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the objection(s) of claim(s) 18, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the objection(s) of claim(s) 18 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 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) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 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 Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Rejection
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 claims 1 and 21; “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/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6 and 10-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UEMATSU et al. (Japanese Patent Publication 2017048521 A) in view of Larson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0367045 A1), referenced as Uematsu and Larson, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Uematsu discloses:
“An excavator, comprising: a lower running body” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a bulldozer/work machine(denoted 1 in Fig. 5), comprising a running gear(denoted 4 Fig. 5), which have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "excavator" and "lower running body," respectively; Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021];
“an upper rotating body rotatably mounted on the lower running body” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses an aircraft body(denoted 2 in Fig. 5) rotatably mounted to previously recited traveling device through a turntable(denoted 6 in Fig. 5), which have together been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "upper rotating body rotatably mounted on the lower running body;" Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021 Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021];
“an attachment attached to the upper rotating body” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses: "The working device 5 includes a first boom 8, a second boom 9, a third boom 10, an arm 11, and a working tool 12;" ¶: 0021; Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021];
“a plurality of actuators configured to drive the lower running body, the upper rotating body, and the attachment” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a plurality of hydraulic actuators including for at least the work tool and the prime mover. Uematsu further discloses a travel system hydraulic system to actuate the travel motor; Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021];
“a motor” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a diesel engine(denoted 18 in Fig. 1), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "motor;" Fig. 5; ¶: 0041];
“a first input part provided separately from the operation device and configured to receive an input to set a rotation rate of the motor independent of operating states of the plurality of actuators” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a first switch(denoted 67 in Fig. 1) independent from the previously recited accelerator lever(denoted 72 in Fig. 1) in order to set an upper limit of the engine speed independent of the state of the actuators; Fig. 1; ¶: 0046-0049];
“and a hardware processor configured to execute a restriction function of restricting the rotation rate of the motor” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a control device (denoted 70 in Fig. 1) comprising a setting unit (denoted 77 in Fig. 1) consisting of a computer program and electrical circuitry; wherein, the control unit performs the above recited upper limit of the engine speed restriction; Fig. 1; ¶: 0046-0049, 0053];
“wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, independent of a state of the excavator other than a state of the motor and a state of the restriction function, 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” [Uematsu; "When the first switch 67 enables control by the first control unit 75 (crane operation), the first control unit 75 sets the upper limit of the engine speed to 75% of the maximum engine speed (for example, fixing the upper limit of the engine speed to 1650 rpm). Therefore, even if the upper limit of the engine speed is increased beyond 1650 rpm by the accelerator lever 72, the engine speed will not exceed the value set by the first control unit 75. Furthermore, even if other controls of the work machine 1 stipulate that the engine speed should be greater than the upper limit set by the first control unit 75, the engine speed will not exceed 1650 rpm when the control by the first control unit 75 is enabled by the first switch 67;" ¶: 0049;];
“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” [Uematsu; This limitation does not require prior art mapping in order for the Uematsu reference to disclose the claimed invention, due to the "or" operator preceding the cited claim limitation];
And while Uematsu discloses: “an operation device configured to operate the plurality of actuators, the operation device including a lever” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses an operating lever to control the operating member as well as an accelerator lever(denoted 72 in Fig. 1); Fig. 1; ¶: 0029, 0030, 0046]; Uematsu does not specifically state: “an operation device configured to operate the plurality of actuators, the operation device including a lever and a pedal.”
Larson, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “an operation device configured to operate the plurality of actuators, the operation device including a lever” [Larson; "An operating apparatus 26 is connected to the pilot pump 15 via a pilot line and a gate lock valve D6. The operating apparatus 26 includes operating levers and operating pedals. Furthermore, the operating apparatus 26 is connected to the control valve 17 via a pilot line;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0041].
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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling an engine RPM to remain within a range set for a plurality of actuators controlled by at least a lever and a pedal 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, Uematsu does not specifically state: “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 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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling an engine RPM to remain within a range set for a plurality of actuators controlled by at least a lever and a pedal 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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu in view of IZUMIKAWA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0218744 A1), referenced as Izumikawa moving forward.
With respect to claim 21, Uematsu discloses:
“An excavator, comprising: a motor” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a bulldozer/work machine(denoted 1 in Fig. 5), comprising a at least a travel motor(¶:0031), which have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "excavator" and "motor," respectively; Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021 Fig. 5; ¶: 0019-0021];
“a first input part configured to receive an input to set a rotation rate of the motor” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a first switch(denoted 67 in Fig. 1) independent from the previously accelerator lever(denoted 72 in Fig. 1) in order to set an upper limit of the engine speed independent of the state of the actuators; Fig. 1; ¶: 0046-0049];
“and a hardware processor configured to restrict the rotation rate of the motor” [Uematsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Uematsu discloses a control device (denoted 70 in Fig. 1) comprising a setting unit (denoted 77 in Fig. 1) consisting of a computer program and electrical circuitry; wherein, the control unit performs the above recited upper limit of the engine speed restriction; Fig. 1; ¶: 0046-0049, 0053];
“wherein the hardware processor is further 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” [Uematsu; "When the first switch 67 enables control by the first control unit 75 (crane operation), the first control unit 75 sets the upper limit of the engine speed to 75% of the maximum engine speed (for example, fixing the upper limit of the engine speed to 1650 rpm). Therefore, even if the upper limit of the engine speed is increased beyond 1650 rpm by the accelerator lever 72, the engine speed will not exceed the value set by the first control unit 75. Furthermore, even if other controls of the work machine 1 stipulate that the engine speed should be greater than the upper limit set by the first control unit 75, the engine speed will not exceed 1650 rpm when the control by the first control unit 75 is enabled by the first switch 67;" ¶: 0049; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0046-0048, 0053];
“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” [Uematsu; This limitation does not require prior art mapping in order for the Uematsu reference to disclose the claimed invention, due to the "or" operator preceding the cited claim limitation].
Uematsu does not specifically state: “and the hardware processor is further configured to display a screen, the screen including information on the rotation rate of the motor set according to the input received by the first input part, an image of surroundings of the excavator, and restriction 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, the restriction information being superimposed on the image of the surrounding of the excavator.”
Izumikawa, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling work vehicles, teaches: “and the hardware processor is further configured to display a screen, the screen including information on the rotation rate of the motor set according to the input received by the first input part, an image of surroundings of the excavator, and restriction 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, the restriction information being superimposed on the image of the surrounding of the excavator” [Izumikawa; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Izumikawa teaches a display screen(see Fig. 8, for example), which displays a rotational speed mode display part(denoted 412 in Fig. 8) superimposed over images of the surroundings of a work machine. The rotational speed mode display part displays a symbol representative of an engine rotational speed set via an engine sped adjustment dial. In view of the above, the Examiner has interpreted the rotational speed mode display part as 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" for the selected rotational speed mode. In view of the above, the display as taught by Fig. 8 of Izumikawa has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's claimed display configuration; Fig. 8; ¶: 0056, 0057, 0090-0094, 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 Uematsu 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu in view of Larson and Izumikawa.
With respect to claim 20, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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 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, 0090-0094, 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 Uematsu 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) 3, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu in view of Larson and ONO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0056351 A1), referenced as Ono moving forward.
With respect to claim 3, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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, 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 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].
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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing a user to set a particular RPM maximum for each motive component of a shovel as taught by Ono 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 reduce fuel consumption by restriction of the engine by allowing an operator to set RPM limits for the motive components of each component of a shovel [Ono; ¶: 0094].
With respect to claim 4, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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 teaches: “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].
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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing a user to set a particular RPM maximum for each motive component of a shovel as taught by Ono 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 reduce fuel consumption by restriction of the engine by allowing an operator to set RPM limits for the motive components of each component of a shovel [Ono; ¶: 0094].
With respect to claim 8, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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 teaches: “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].
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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing a user to set a particular RPM maximum for each motive component of a shovel as taught by Ono 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 reduce fuel consumption by restriction of the engine by allowing an operator to set RPM limits for the motive components of each component of a shovel [Ono; ¶: 0094].
With respect to claim 9, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to simultaneously display, on the display, the setting screen and setting information set by an operator.”
Ono teaches: “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].
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 Uematsu to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing a user to set a particular RPM maximum for each motive component of a shovel as taught by Ono 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 reduce fuel consumption by restriction of the engine by allowing an operator to set RPM limits for the motive components of each component of a shovel [Ono; ¶: 0094].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu in view of Larson and Gotou et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0197465 A1), referenced as Gotou moving forward.
With respect to claim 7, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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, 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 Uematsu 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu in view of Larson and MIURA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0074481 A1), referenced as Miura moving forward.
With respect to claim 17, Uematsu in view of Larson does not specifically state: “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, 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 Uematsu 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.
Nishi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2009/0299613 A1) discloses: The engine speed control system for a work vehicle has a foot accelerator controller for carrying out foot accelerator control based on a pedal sensor, a hand accelerator controller for carrying out hand accelerator control based on a lever sensor, a manually operated input device, storage means for storing a predetermined engine speed, and a constant rotation controller for carrying out constant rotation control in which the engine speed stored in the storage means is used as the target rotational speed on the basis of an input to the input device. The constant rotation control is carried out when the input device has been operated in the case that the engine speed that corresponds to the output of the lever sensor is greater than an idling speed, and the constant rotation control is terminated when the input device is operated in the case that the engine speed that corresponds to the output of the lever sensor is equal to or less than the idling speed.
Ishikawa (United States Patent Publication 2010/0259359 A1) discloses: Limited operation of a vehicle for cargo handling, such as a forklift or a bulldozer, is allowed in the event of an emergency while theft of the vehicle is prevented even when the key is left in the vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with a storage unit for storing a password, a password input unit, a control unit for controlling selection of a normal operating mode with no restrictions on travel capability or cargo handling capability, an emergency operating mode where at least the travel capability of the vehicle is restricted, and a travel prohibited mode where neither the normal operating mode or the emergency operating mode is selected, and an emergency operating mode indicating unit. The control unit determines whether or not password entry is required when the vehicle is powered on and controls selection of the aforementioned normal operating mode when password entry is required or when a password entered and the password stored in the aforementioned memory unit match, the aforementioned emergency operating mode when emergency operation is indicated by the aforementioned emergency operating mode indicating unit, or the travel prohibited mode when neither the normal operating mode nor the emergency operating mode is selected within a predetermined specific amount of time or within a specific number of times of operation.
Hyodo et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0094803 A1) discloses: An engine speed control device for an industrial vehicle includes an approach detector that detects an approach of the industrial vehicle to an object to be approached; and an engine speed controller that restricts an upper limit of a rotation speed of an engine when the approach detector detects an approach of the industrial vehicle to an object to be approached.
TAKE (United States Patent Publication 2015/0315766 A1) discloses: A hybrid work machine includes: an engine; a generator motor; a storage battery; a motor; a transformer; a target engine speed calculation unit configured to calculate a target engine speed based on at least an engine load and an output state of the generator motor; a generation control unit configured to output a generator requesting minimum engine speed; an engine controlling target engine speed calculation unit configured to calculate and output an engine controlling target engine speed based on the target engine speed and the generator requesting minimum engine speed; an engine control unit configured to control an engine speed based on the engine controlling target engine speed; and an assist control unit configured to set the target engine speed to the generator controlling target engine speed and control engine assist based on the generator controlling target engine speed and the generator motor speed.
SHIOMI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0009634 A1) discloses: An engine device includes an engine, an exhaust gas purification device arranged on an exhaust path of the engine, and an engine control device that controls drive of the engine. The engine control device executes a plurality of regeneration controls with which particulate matter accumulated in the exhaust gas purification device is combusted and removed. As the plurality of regeneration controls, at least non-work regeneration control, in which an exhaust gas temperature is raised in combination of post-injection and a predetermined high rotational speed, is included. The engine control device drives the engine so as to solely combust and remove the particulate matter in the non-work regeneration control and compulsorily executes isochronous control in which a rotational speed of the engine is maintained constant, irrespective of variation in load of the engine.
Conclusion
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 - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights