DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/13/2023. Claims 1-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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: "image capturing part that captures", "object detection part that is configured to detect", "position acquisition part that acquires", "type determination part that determines", "working area setting part that sets", and "unsafe state detection part that detects" in claim 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a worksite monitoring system).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim
recites the limitations:
A worksite monitoring system, comprising:
an image capturing part that captures an image of a worksite;
an object detection part that is configured to detect, on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing part, a working machine in the worksite;
a position acquisition part that acquires a position of the working machine detected by the object detection part;
a type determination part that determines a type of the working machine detected by the object detection part;
a working area setting part that sets a working area associated with the type determined by the type determination part for the working machine detected by the object detection part; and
an unsafety state detection part that detects an unsafety state on the basis of the position of the working machine acquired by the position acquisition part and the working area set by the working area setting part.
These limitations as drafted area are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover the performance of these limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of:
A worksite monitoring system, comprising:
an image capturing part that captures an image of a worksite;
an object detection part that is configured to detect, on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing part, a working machine in the worksite;
a position acquisition part that acquires a position of the working machine detected by the object detection part;
a type determination part that determines a type of the working machine detected by the object detection part;
a working area setting part that sets a working area associated with the type determined by the type determination part for the working machine detected by the object detection part; and
an unsafety state detection part that detects an unsafety state on the basis of the position of the working machine acquired by the position acquisition part and the working area set by the working area setting part.
The instructions to capture an image of a worksite, detect a working machine in the worksite, and acquire a position of the working machine are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to capture[s] an image of a worksite, detect…a working machine in the worksite, acquire[s] a position of the working machine), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the mere instructions to gather some vague understanding of the environment of a work machine using images and a map is also well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claims 2-11
These system claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the data gathering using sensors or understanding the sensors’ environment for the purpose of determining unsafe activity or areas, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al., US-20190331761-A1, in view of Tamazato, US-20210295460-A1, and Lv et al., US-20220281463-A1, hereinafter referred to as Wynn, Tamazato, and Lv.
As per claim 1
Wynn discloses [a] worksite monitoring system, comprising (machines are photographed with a camera mounted on the site - Wynn ¶22):
an unsafety state detection part that detects an unsafety state on the basis of the position of the working machine acquired by the position acquisition part and the working area set by the working area setting part (appreciate that a particular zone (e.g., zone 5 in front of the work machine 100) may be unsafe for one type of work machine 100 but may be considered an approved zone for a different type of work machine 100. Factors which may be taken into account when designating a particular zone Z as an approved zone or an unapproved zone… type) of the machine 100, location of the work machine 100 - Wynn ¶58 & ¶68).
Wynn does not specifically disclose a working area setting part that sets a working area associated with the type determined by the type determination part for the working machine detected by the object detection part.
However, Tamazato teaches a working area setting part that sets a working area associated with the type determined by the type determination part for the working machine detected by the object detection part (FIG. 4…for respective type of construction machines…Zone A, Zone B, Zone C, etc. as zone definitions, zone area definitions differ depending on the type of the construction apparatuses – Tamazato ¶80 & ¶82).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Tamazato teaches a wireless system for work safety management for construction machines and construction workers at construction sites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a wireless system for work safety management for construction machines and construction workers at construction sites, as taught by Tamazato, with a reasonable expectation of success for basic safety measures such as improving the layout of the installation and for improvement of the safety environment at the site and increase of the productivity of the construction work, see Tamazato ¶9 & ¶27 for details.
Wynn does not specifically disclose an image capturing part that captures an image of a worksite;
an object detection part that is configured to detect, on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing part, a working machine in the worksite;
a position acquisition part that acquires a position of the working machine detected by the object detection part;
a type determination part that determines a type of the working machine detected by the object detection part.
However, Lv teaches an image capturing part that captures an image of a [work]site (monitoring camera 5 to determine the position of the vehicle 6… vehicle 6 by judging the category of the vehicle 6 – Lv ¶39);
an object detection part that is configured to detect, on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing part, a [working] machine in the [work]site (monitoring camera 5 to determine the position of the vehicle 6… vehicle 6 by judging the category of the vehicle 6 – Lv ¶39);
a position acquisition part that acquires a position of the [working] machine detected by the object detection part (monitoring camera 5 to determine the position of the vehicle 6… vehicle 6 by judging the category of the vehicle 6 – Lv ¶39);
a type determination part that determines a type of the [working] machine detected by the object detection part (monitoring camera 5 to determine the position of the vehicle 6… vehicle 6 by judging the category of the vehicle 6 – Lv ¶39).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Lv teaches a method for monitoring vehicle overload based on gravity anomaly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a method for monitoring vehicle overload based on gravity anomaly, as taught by Lv, with a reasonable expectation of success for monitoring the total weight of the vehicle to judge if the vehicle is overloaded, see Lv ¶6 for details.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claims 1 and 2, respectively, and further in view of Nakao et al., US-20230041612-A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakao.
As per claim 2
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein the object detection part is further configured to detect a person in the worksite, the position acquisition part acquires a position of the person detected by the object detection part, and the unsafety state detection part detects an unsafety state on the basis of the position of the person acquired by the position acquisition part and the working area set by the working area setting part.
However, Nakao teaches wherein the object detection part is further configured to detect a person in the worksite, the position acquisition part acquires a position of the person detected by the object detection part, and the unsafety state detection part detects an unsafety state on the basis of the position of the person acquired by the position acquisition part and the working area set by the working area setting part (image data acquiring unit 11 acquires image data, the detecting unit 12 determines whether an unsafe condition, that is, an unsafe behavior of the worker or an unsafe surrounding environment is included in the image data…detecting unit 12 detects the motion of the worker in the image data,… for each unsafe condition…determines that the unsafe condition has occurred., FIG. 5 illustrates a map of a construction site…unsafe condition of entry of a worker into a prohibited area occurs in the work area B on the map - Nakao Fig 5 + ¶61 & ¶65).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Nakao teaches worker safety management system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with worker safety management system, as taught by Nakao, with a reasonable expectation so that an accuracy of monitoring can be improved to be capable of making notification of appropriate information necessary for safety management of a worker, see Nakao ¶7 & ¶108 for details.
As per claim 3
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein the unsafety state includes a state where the person is in the working area.
However, Nakao teaches wherein the unsafety state includes a state where the person is in the working area (image data acquiring unit 11 acquires image data, the detecting unit 12 determines whether an unsafe condition, that is, an unsafe behavior of the worker or an unsafe surrounding environment is included in the image data…detecting unit 12 detects the motion of the worker in the image data,…for each unsafe condition…determines that the unsafe condition has occurred. - Nakao Fig 5 + ¶61).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Nakao teaches worker safety management system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with worker safety management system, as taught by Nakao, with a reasonable expectation so that an accuracy of monitoring can be improved to be capable of making notification of appropriate information necessary for safety management of a worker, see Nakao ¶7 & ¶108 for details.
As per claim 4
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein the unsafety state includes a state where a working machine is in the working area.
However, Nakao teaches wherein the unsafety state includes a state where the person is in the working area (worker B is present in a dangerous entry area around the construction machine indicated by a broken line. Therefore, the detecting unit 12 detects that an unsafe condition of approach to the construction machine has occurred - Nakao Fig 10 + ¶79).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Nakao teaches worker safety management system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with worker safety management system, as taught by Nakao, with a reasonable expectation so that an accuracy of monitoring can be improved to be capable of making notification of appropriate information necessary for safety management of a worker, see Nakao ¶7 & ¶108 for details.
Claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claim 1, and further in view of Ogawa et al., US-20230392347-A1, hereinafter referred to as Ogawa.
As per claim 5
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein the unsafety state includes a state where a machine body of the working machine is beyond the working area therefor.
However, Ogawa teaches wherein the unsafety state includes a state where a machine body of the working machine is beyond the working area therefor (displayed in the image display area 41n3 may also be, for example, what estimates a situation to watch out for at a current worksite…area 41n3 may also be, for example, an image indicating the position of soft ground as an estimated caution area at a current worksite. This enables the shovel 100 to avoid entering soft ground where the entry may cause the shovel 100 to be buried in the ground - Ogawa Fig 11 (41n3, 421) + ¶183).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Ogawa teaches information communication systems for construction machines and machine learning apparatuses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with information communication systems for construction machines and machine learning apparatuses, as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation to improve the accuracy of information to present to a contractor and to improve the accuracy of predicting changes in weather conditions at a worksite, see Ogawa ¶20 & ¶42 for details.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claim 1, and further in view of Nishi, US-20220018096-A1, hereinafter referred to as Nishi.
As per claim 6
Wynn does not specifically disclose further comprising: an unsafety level determination part that determines, on the basis of the unsafety state, an unsafety level; and a control part that performs at least one of warning and stopping of the working machine in accordance with the unsafety level.
However, Nishi teaches further comprising: an unsafety level determination part that determines, on the basis of the unsafety state, an unsafety level; and a control part that performs at least one of warning and stopping of the working machine in accordance with the unsafety level (dangerous situation and the danger level, displayed input image…The message window G0 indicates that the current danger level is level 4, indoor alarm device to notify the operator of the shovel 100 of the risk that the dangerous situation - Nishi ¶72 & ¶76 & ¶78).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Nishi teaches a machine or system capable of grasping the situation at the work site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a machine or system capable of grasping the situation at the work site, as taught by Nishi, with a reasonable expectation for improving the determination accuracy with respect to an object around the shovel 100 in accordance with the update of the learned model, see Nishi ¶157 for details.
As per claim 11
Wynn does not specifically disclose further comprising: an unsafety level determination part that determines, on the basis of the unsafety state, an unsafety level; and an output part that outputs, per predetermined period, a result of the determination by the unsafety level determination part.
However, Nishi teaches further comprising: an unsafety level determination part that determines, on the basis of the unsafety state, an unsafety level; and an output part that outputs, per predetermined period, a result of the determination by the unsafety level determination part (dangerous situation and the danger level, displayed input image…The message window G0 indicates that the current danger level is level 4, indoor alarm device to notify the operator of the shovel 100 of the risk that the dangerous situation - Nishi ¶72 & ¶76 & ¶78).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Nishi teaches a machine or system capable of grasping the situation at the work site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a machine or system capable of grasping the situation at the work site, as taught by Nishi, with a reasonable expectation for improving the determination accuracy with respect to an object around the shovel 100 in accordance with the update of the learned model, see Nishi ¶157 for details.
Claim 7 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claim 1, and further in view of Uemura et al., US-20190113928-A1, hereinafter referred to as Uemura.
As per claim 7
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein types of working machines include an autonomous driving working machine, and the working area setting part sets a working area for the autonomous driving working machine on the basis of working plan information about autonomous driving.
However, Uemura teaches wherein types of working machines include an autonomous driving working machine, and the working area setting part sets a working area for the autonomous driving working machine on the basis of working plan information about autonomous driving (a work area determination function for determining the work area where the autonomous traveling work vehicle is to work…area designation for the map displayed by the displaying function, a work area information acquisition section 11a - Uemura ¶24 & ¶41).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Uemura teaches a work area determination system for an autonomous traveling work vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a work area determination system for an autonomous traveling work vehicle, as taught by Uemura, with a reasonable expectation to improve the accuracy of the synthesis of photographic image and so that the accuracy of the map to be generated can be enhanced, see Uemura ¶34 & ¶56 for details.
Claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, Lv, and Uemura, as per claim 7, and further in view of Aoki, US-6382667-B1, hereinafter referred to as Aoki.
As per claim 8
Wynn does not specifically disclose further comprising a determination part that determines whether an operator is on the autonomous driving working machine, wherein the working area setting part sets the working area for the autonomous driving working machine on the basis of a result of the determination by the determination part.
However, Aoki teaches further comprising a determination part that determines whether an operator is on the autonomous driving working machine, wherein the working area setting part sets the working area for the autonomous driving working machine on the basis of a result of the determination by the determination part (supply the actuation command to prohibit the ignition unit 3 from igniting even in the case of collision depending on the state of the passenger sitting on the front passenger seat. - Aoki Column 4 Lines 17-20 – Examiner reasons that the BRI of the claim means that the working area is not set if the vehicle is not activated because the driver is not present in the vehicle).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Aoki teaches a system to detect the presence of the child seat being fixed on the seat, and to prohibit deployment of the air bag even in the case of collision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a system to detect the presence of the child seat being fixed on the seat, and to prohibit deployment of the air bag even in the case of collision, as taught by Aoki, with a reasonable expectation so that the accuracy of determination of the state of the passenger by weight measurement can be improved, see Aoki Column 3 Lines 22-23 for details.
Claim 9 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claim 1, and further in view of Takaoka et al., US-20200407950-A1, hereinafter referred to as Takaoka.
As per claim 9
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein types of working machines include an operator driving working machine and a remotely driving working machine, the worksite monitoring system further comprising: a storage device that stores a work content of each of the operator driving working machine and the remotely driving working machine, wherein the working area setting part sets a working area for each of the operator driving working machine and the remotely driving working machine on the basis of the work content stored in the storage device.
However, Takaoka teaches wherein types of working machines include an operator driving working machine and a remotely driving working machine, the worksite monitoring system further comprising: a storage device that stores a work content of each of the operator driving working machine and the remotely driving working machine, wherein the working area setting part sets a working area for each of the operator driving working machine and the remotely driving working machine on the basis of the work content stored in the storage device (controller 26 automatically controls the work implement 13 based on the actual topography data…automatic control of the work implement 13 may be fully automatic control performed without manual operation by the operator…the traveling of the work vehicle 1 may be performed by manual operation by the operator, step S103, the controller 26 acquires actual topography data. The controller 26 acquires the actual topography data by computation from work site topography data acquired from the storage device 28, step S106, the controller 26 determines work zones 71 to 75. - Takaoka Fig 4 (S102-S107) + ¶45 & ¶49 & ¶57 - Examiner reasons that a single working machine can be classified as meeting the definition of two types of working machines: remotely driving and operator manipulating).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Takaoka teaches a control system for a work vehicle that determines a work zone at a work site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a control system for a work vehicle that determines a work zone at a work site, as taught by Takaoka, with a reasonable expectation to prevent a reduction in work efficiency even when work is performed on an uneven topography under automatic control of a work vehicle, see Takaoka ¶5 for details.
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn, in view of Tamazato, and Lv, as per claim 1, and further in view of Kadono et al., US-20230183943-A1, hereinafter referred to as Kadono.
As per claim 10
Wynn does not specifically disclose wherein types of working machines include at least two working machines among an operator manipulating working machine, a remotely driving working machine, and an autonomous driving working machine.
However, Kadono teaches wherein types of working machines include at least two working machines among an operator manipulating working machine, a remotely driving working machine, and an autonomous driving working machine (remote controller 2 remotely operates the work machines 1a and 1b, manual operating mode, the work machines 1a and 1b operate in response to an operation signal from the operating device 5. - Kadono ¶16 & ¶33 - Examiner reasons that a single working machine can be classified as meeting the definition of two types of working machines: remotely driving and operator manipulating).
Wynn discloses systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines. Kadono teaches a system and a method for controlling a work machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wynn, systems and methods for determining operator location to ensure approved operation of work machines, with a system and a method for controlling a work machine, as taught by Kadono, with a reasonable expectation so that work efficiency can be improved by automatically controlling the plurality of work machines, see Kadono ¶3 for details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F 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 S. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668