DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 were originally presented having a filing date of December 12, 2023 and claiming priority to Japanese Application JP 2022-200121 that was filed on December 15, 2022.
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on December 22, 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 “control operation unit” in claims 1-5.
A “first operation element” in claim 2. The “first operation element” is disclosed in the originally filed specification in [0121], “the setting processing unit 714 performs settings related to horizontal control in accordance with a user operation on the control operation unit (first operation elements K531 and K532, etc., see FIG. 50) included at least in a UFO (horizontal control) operation screen Dp5 (see FIG. 50).”
A “second operation element” in claim 3. The “second operation element” is disclosed in the originally filed specification in [0257], “The UFO operation screen Dp5 (the UFO operation screen Dp51 relating to the horizontal control) is an example of the "horizontal control operation screen". The UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a control operation unit that accepts an operation of the user (operator). As illustrated in FIG. 50, the control operation unit includes first operation elements K531 and K532, a second operation element K54, a third operation element K55, and fourth operation elements K561 to K564. Further, the UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a tilt display object Ob5.”
A “third operation element” in claim 4. The “third operation element” is disclosed in the originally filed specification in [0257], “The UFO operation screen Dp5 (the UFO operation screen Dp51 relating to the horizontal control) is an example of the "horizontal control operation screen". The UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a control operation unit that accepts an operation of the user (operator). As illustrated in FIG. 50, the control operation unit includes first operation elements K531 and K532, a second operation element K54, a third operation element K55, and fourth operation elements K561 to K564. Further, the UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a tilt display object Ob5.”
A “fourth operation element” in claim 5. The “fourth operation element” is disclosed in the originally filed specification in [0257], “The UFO operation screen Dp5 (the UFO operation screen Dp51 relating to the horizontal control) is an example of the "horizontal control operation screen". The UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a control operation unit that accepts an operation of the user (operator). As illustrated in FIG. 50, the control operation unit includes first operation elements K531 and K532, a second operation element K54, a third operation element K55, and fourth operation elements K561 to K564. Further, the UFO operation screen Dp51 includes a tilt display object Ob5.”
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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
In claim 1, claim limitation “control operation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure disclosed in the specification in connection with the “control operation unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Catron, et al. (Publication US 2021/0155093 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Catron”.)
As per claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 9), Catron discloses an operation control method for a work machine including a machine body and a work implement attached to the machine body, the operation control method comprising:
displaying a horizontal control operation screen relating to horizontal control that controls a tilt of the work implement with respect to the machine body [see at least Catron Fig. 2B; [0017] "As shown in FIGS. 2B and 3, the control device 102 and user interface 104 can be collectively arranged within the operator cab 160 on a console 107 located to the right side of the operator seat 162. The control device 102 can comprise one or more control units 113, 115, 117 arranged to adjust a configuration of the implement 152 or other apparatus attached to the work vehicle 150 or other vehicle components or machine settings in response to an operator input. ... each of the control units 113, 115, 117 can move the implement 152 between a first position and a second position in a corresponding direction of movement as indicated by arrows 133, 135, 137, which can be displayed on the user interface 104. In other embodiments, the control units 113, 115, 117 can comprise a variety of controls such as push buttons (e.g., rocker switches), rotary dials, joystick controllers, or other suitable control devices to adjust a configuration of the implement 152. For example, the joystick controller can provide an increased range of motion that allows the implement 152 to be moved in several directions."]; and
performing setting related to the horizontal control in accordance with a user operation on a control operation unit included in the horizontal control operation screen [see at least Catron Fig. 2B; [0017] "...The control device 102 can comprise one or more control units 113, 115, 117 arranged to adjust a configuration of the implement 152 or other apparatus attached to the work vehicle 150 or other vehicle components or machine settings in response to an operator input. ...".]
As per claim 2, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Catron discloses … wherein the control operation unit includes a first operation element to which a function of adjusting a tilt angle of the work implement with respect to the machine body is assigned [see at least Catron Fig. 2B "133a, 133b"; [0017] "...For example, each of the control units 113, 115, 117 can move the implement 152 between a first position and a second position in a corresponding direction of movement as indicated by arrows 133, 135, 137, which can be displayed on the user interface 104. "]
As per claim 3, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Catron discloses … wherein the control operation unit further includes a second operation element to which a function of changing an amount of change in the tilt angle with respect to an operation of the first operation element is assigned [see at least Catron [0017] "...In other embodiments, the control units 113, 115, 117 can comprise a variety of controls such as push buttons (e.g., rocker switches), rotary dials, joystick controllers, or other suitable control devices to adjust a configuration of the implement 152. For example, the joystick controller can provide an increased range of motion that allows the implement 152 to be moved in several directions."]
As per claim 5, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Catron discloses … wherein the control operation unit further includes a fourth operation element to which a function of switching a control mode of the horizontal control is assigned [see at least Catron [0028] "...the user interface 104 can further comprise a mode selection button 420 (FIG. 5), which can include a toggle switch, that allows the operator to interchangeably switch control operations of the implement 152 between the user interface 104 and the control units 113, 115, 117.]
As per claim 6, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Catron discloses … further comprising changing a tilt display object indicating a tilt angle of the work implement included in the horizontal control operation screen in conjunction with a change in the tile angle of the work implement with respect to the machine body [see at least Catron Fig. 2B "133a, 133b"].
As per claim 7, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Catron discloses … wherein the tilt display object is not in conjunction with a change in the tilt angle associated with switching of a control mode of the horizontal control [see at least Catron Fig. 2B "130a, 130b".]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catron, in view of Sivinski (Publication US 2020/0053944 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Sivinski”.)
As per claim 4, Catron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Catron discloses … wherein the control operation unit further includes a third operation element to which a function of … the tilt angle of the work implement adjusted by the first operation element is assigned [see at least Catron Fig. 2B "133a, 133b"; [0017] "...For example, each of the control units 113, 115, 117 can move the implement 152 between a first position and a second position in a corresponding direction of movement as indicated by arrows 133, 135, 137, which can be displayed on the user interface 104. "]
Catron fails to disclose … function of resetting…the work implement ... . However, Sivinski teaches this limitation [see at least Sivinski Fig. 14 "73"; [0104] "To clear all settings back to zero, press the reset button 73."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Catron to use … function of resetting…the work implement ... as disclosed in Sivinski with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved control of the positioning of agricultural implements. [See at least Sivinski [0004].]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668