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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejections presented in the previous office action. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are presented in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Processing Device” in claim 1. The first processing device 15 and second processing device 70 are both described a performing a processing function. For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as the structure for these devices: first processing device (“first processing device 15 includes a first detection device 16” in combination with “As the first detection device 16, a near-infrared moisture meter using near-infrared rays can be employed” [0027]) and second processing device (“The second processing device 70 includes a hopper 71, the sediment feeder 72, a sieve 73, and the discharge belt conveyor 74 to sieve an excavated object.” [0050])
“Change Mechanism” in claim 3 and claim 6. The first change device 17 is described as performing a change function (“first change device 17 changes a rate of water” [0029]). For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the first change device 17 (“first change device 17 uses a liquid supply device that supplies liquid such as water to the excavated object. The liquid supply device includes a liquid tank 18 that stores water, and a pump, a nozzle, a pipe, and the like” [0029])
“Detection device” in claim 7. The first detection device 16 is described as performing a detection function (“first detection device 16 that detects a property of the excavated object” [0027]). For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure is described as the first detection device 16 (“As the first detection device 16, a near-infrared moisture meter using near-infrared rays can be employed” [0029]).
“First conveyance mechanism” and “Second conveyance mechanism” in claim 8. The Working device 60 (“working device 60 conveys the excavated object” [0091]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 conveys an excavated object” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 conveys to a dump truck” [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (“discharge member 75 may be configured to convey” [0112]) are each described as performing a conveying function. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as the structure for any two of these four devices: Working device 60 (“working device 60 includes the boom 53, a boom cylinder 54, an arm55, an arm cylinder 56, a bucket 57, and a bucket cylinder 58.” l[0043]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 includes a belt 72a, the pair of frames 72b, and a support portion 72c” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 includes a belt 74a, the pair of frames 74b, and a support portion 74c [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (shown to be an inclined plane in Fig. 7).
“Folding portion” in claim 9. The hinge portion 72d and a motor (“hinge portion 72d foldable toward the lower main body device 40b and a motor (not illustrated) that drives the hinge portion 72d” [0099]) and hinge portion 74d and a motor (“hinge portion 74d foldable toward the lower main body device 40b and a motor (not illustrated) that drives the hinge portion” [0099]) are described as performing folding. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as a combination of a hinge and a motor.
“First working device” and “second working device” in claim 10. The Working device 60 (“working device 60 conveys the excavated object” [0091]) is described as performing a work function. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as a multiple working devices (“working device 60 includes the boom 53, a boom cylinder 54, an arm55, an arm cylinder 56, a bucket 57, and a bucket cylinder 58.” [0043]).
“Crushing device” in claim 11. The rotary crushing device 80 is described as performing a crushing function. For the purpose of examination, corresponding structure will be interpreted as the rotary crushing device 80 (“The rotary crushing device 80 includes a motor 81, a driving pulley 82, a belt 83, a driven pulley 84, a rotating shaft 85, and a crushing unit 86.” [0122])
“Mass Body that corrects” in claim 13. The counter mass 43 is described as performing a correcting function. For the purposes of examination, corresponding structure will be interpreted as the counter mass 43 (counter mass shown in Figs. 1 and 5)
“Revolving device” in claim 14. The revolving device 30 is described a performing a revolving function (“The revolving device 30 revolves” [0032]). For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the revolving device 30 (“The revolving device 30 includes a bearing (not illustrated) and a revolving motor 31” [0032]).
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 § 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, 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(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uetake et. al. (US2018/0258608), hereinafter referred to as “Uetake”.
Re Claim 1, Rigter discloses a construction machine comprising:
a main body device (carriage 1 and crane 2) that is movable (two wheels 24, 25 provide movability) by a moving device (wheels 24, 25), wherein the main body device includes a lower main body device (carriage 1) and an upper main body device (crane 2) that is configured to revolve with respect to the lower main body device (“The crane 2 is rotatable relative to the carriage 1 about the axis 21” Col. 2, Lines 44-45);
a conveyance device (conveyor track 7, comprising conveyors 11, 13) having a frame (sides of conveyor track 7 shown in Fig. 1) to convey an excavated object excavated by a working device (arm 3) to an outside of the main body device via the main body device (Fig. 1); and
a processing device that performs processing (cleaning bed 12) on the excavated object in a space located below the upper main body (Fig. 1) device while the conveyance device conveys the excavated object (cleaning bed 12 and conveyors 11 and 13 function simultaneously).
Ritger does not disclose a moving device (wheels 24, 25) having a motor
Uetake teaches a moving device (driving wheels 34D) having a motor (“The respective driving wheels 34 D are independently and separately driven. In the present embodiment, the excavation machine 30 is provided with travel motors for the respective driving wheels 34 D.” [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ritger by incorporating the motors as taught by Uetake in order to drive the wheels of Ritger and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation success.
Re Claim 2, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the processing device includes a sieve (cleaning bed 12) that selects the excavated object (cleaning bed 12 sieves the excavated object by “removing material adhering to bulk goods” Col. 3, Lines 41-42).
Re Claim 6, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the processing device comprises a change mechanism (cleaning bed 12) that changes a property of the excavated object selected by the sieve (cleaning bed 12 selects the excavated object by “removing material adhering to bulk goods” Col. 3, Lines 41-42).
Re Claim 7, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose a detection device that detects a property of the excavated object.
Uetake further teaches a detection device (humidity sensor 42) that is provided to the main body device to detect a property of the excavated object (“a humidity sensor 42 for measuring ambient humidity… the humidity detected by the humidity sensor 42 becomes information indicating am amount of moisture of the rock mass” [0080])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter, in view of Uetake, to incorporate the further teachings of Uetake by adding to detection device to measure the humidity of the excavated mass and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 8, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), the conveyance device includes a first conveyance mechanism (conveyor 11) that conveys the excavated object excavated by the working device to the main body device, and a second conveyance mechanism that conveys to the outside of the main body device (conveyor 13) the excavated object conveyed to the main body device.
Re Claim 12, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the main body device includes an upper main body device (crane 2) and a lower main body device (carriage 1) provided below the upper main body device, the working device (arm 3) is connected to the upper main body device (“a crane 2, projecting from the carriage 1, with an arm 3 and two scoops 4,5, carried by the arm” Col. 2, Lines 6-8), and the processing device (cleaning bed 12) is connected to the lower main body device (“the cleaning bed 12 is integrated into the crane machine” Col. 4, Lines 4-5).
Re Claim 13, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein a mass body that corrects an unbalanced load acting on the main body device caused by driving the working device (arm 3) is provided in each of the upper main body device (see Fig. 1 illustrated below) and the lower main body device (supporting legs 22,23).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
1407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Rigter, illustrated
Re Claim 14, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), further comprising a revolving device located between the upper main body device and the lower main body device to revolve the upper main body (“The crane 2 is rotatable relative to the carriage 1 about the axis 21” Col. 2, Lines 44-45).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atsumi (US2021/0403146).
Re Claim 3, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a change mechanism that changes a property of the excavated object processed by the processing device.
Atsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying (aircraft 100) that are capable of spraying water ([0133]) and are discloses to be compatible with excavators (Atsumi teaches that the unmanned aerial vehicle can be used with “construction vehicle such as bulldozer or a excavator” [0212]).
Rigter, in view of Uetake, contains a construction machine upon which the invention of claim 3 could be seen as an improvement by adding a change mechanism, which is defined in the specification as a liquid supply device. Atsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying that is capable of being a liquid supply device, or an equivalent thereof, and is applicable to the device of Ritger. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the unmanned aerial vehicle of Atsumi to the construction machine of Rigter, in view of Uetake, since the modification would predictably result in an improved system that could alter the water content of the excavated material by spraying more water on it.
Re Claim 4, Ritger, in view of Atsumi, discloses the construction machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the change mechanism is provided in an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying.
Re Claim 5, Ritger, in view of Atsumi, discloses the construction machine according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), and Atsumi further discloses that a number of the unmanned aerial vehicles is larger than a number of the working devices (“When multiple aircraft 100 are coupled side by side in the horizontal direction in a row, for example, it is possible to efficiently perform operations such as disinfect injection, water spraying” [0133]. Ritger only discloses one working device, so the multiple aircraft of Atsumi is a larger quantity of aircraft than the quantity of working devices).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, in view of Mallaghan (US2002/0124441) and Uetake et. al. (US2018/0258608).
Re Claim 9, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the conveyance device includes a folding portion that rotatably supports the frame to fold the conveyance device, and the construction machine further includes a control device that comprises a CPU configured to control the positioning of the working device with respect to the folded-conveyance device when the conveyance device is folded.
Mallaghan teaches that the conveyance device includes a folding portion that rotatably supports the frame to fold the conveyance device (“When it is desired to transport the device by road, the conveyor 2 be folded laterally inwardly inside the wheel base of the excavator 1. It may also be folded longitudinally as is common in transportation of conveyors” [0023])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter, in view of Uetake, to incorporate the folding capability of Mallaghan to help transport the construction machine and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a reasonable chance of success.
Uetake teaches a control device (processing device 76) that comprises a CPU (“The processing device 76 is a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU)” [0105]) configured to control the positioning of the working device with respect to the folded-conveyance device (“The processing device 76 controls at least the operation of the excavation device” [0106]) when the conveyance device is folded.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rigter, in view of Uetake and Mallaghan, to incorporate the control device of Uetake to automatically control the operations of the construction machine including the positioning of the working device and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ali et. al. (US2018/0234626), hereinafter referred to as “Ali”.
Re Claim 10, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the working device includes a first working device connected to one side of the main body device (crane arm 3), but fails to disclose a second working device connected to the other side of the main body device.
Ali discloses a second working device (first implement 110) connected to the other side of the main body device (“The machine 100 may include a first implement 110 and a second implement 112” [0016] where the first implement is at a first end 114 of the construction machine [0016] and the second implement is at the second end 112 of the construction machine [0017]).
Rigter, in view of Uetake, contains a construction machine upon which the construction machine of claim 10 could be seen as improved by having two working devices on either side of main body device. Ali contains a construction machine that has been improved by having a first working device connected to one side of the main body device, and a second working device connected to the other side of the main body device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the second working device of Ali to the construction machine of Rigter, in view of Uetake, in a manner such that the first and second working devices are oriented in the manner they are in Ali for moving material with a loader bucket and a backhoe mechanism. The results of this combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) in view of Moriya et. al. (US2001/0054657), hereinafter referred to as “Moriya”.
Re Claim 11, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the processing device includes a crushing device that comprises a crushing unit configured to crush the excavated object
Moriya teaches that the processing device includes a crushing device (cone type crusher 10) that comprises a crushing unit (cone type crusher 10) configured to crush the excavated object (“The cone type crusher 10 is structured such as to crush in accordance with a rotary power output from an input shaft 16” [0003]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter, in view of Uetake, to incorporate the teachings of Moriya by including a crushing device so that the construction machine can have the additional functionality of crushing rocks (Moriya, “crusher for rocks” [0001]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mallaghan (US2002/0124441).
Re Claim 15, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose a drive system that is housed in the upper main body device, the drive system driving at least one of the moving device and the processing device.
Mallaghan teaches a drive system (engine 33) that is housed in the upper main body device (Fig. 4), the drive system driving at least one of the moving device (tracks 31) and the processing device
While Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses a moving device and a processing device, Ritger fails to disclose a drive system. Combined with Mallaghan, the prior art includes each element claimed although not in a single reference and the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is actual combination of elements in a single reference. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combine the references by putting the engine of Mallaghan in the crane of Rigter, in view of Uetake, and, in combination, each element performs the same function as they do individually. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake and Mallaghan (US2002/0124441), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wutke et. al. (US2014/0083089), hereinafter referred to as “Wutke”.
Re Claim 16, Rigter, in view of Uetake and Mallaghan, disclose the construction machine according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), but fails to disclose that the drive system includes a fuel tank configured to store ammonia or hydrogen.
Wutke teaches a fuel supply that contains hydrogen gas ([0020]).
Rigter, in view of Uetake and Mallaghan, teach a construction machine that does not disclose its fuel source. Wutke a similar machine (Wutke, Fig. 1) teaches a fuel supply that contains hydrogen gas. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the fuel tank of Wutke to the drive system of Rigter, in view of Uetake and Mallaghan, for powering the engine and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kruse (US2013/0255112) and Bullen (US2018/0248061).
Re Claim 17, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose a perovskite solar cell that is provided on the upper main body device.
Kruse teaches that a machine can be powered with a solar cell (“Power pack 106 can include one or more generators, one or more engines, one or more batteries, one or more solar panels, one or more compressors, one or more storage tanks or the like.” [0036]) that is provided on the upper main body device (Fig. 1).
Rigter, in view of Uetake, contained a construction machine upon which the claimed invention could be seen as improved upon by adding a solar cell that is provided on the upper main body device. Kruse teaches a solar cell that is provided on the upper main body that could be applied to the construction machine of Rigter, in view of Uetake. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adding a solar cell on the upper main body of the construction machine of Rigter, in view of Uetake, would achieve the predictable result of powering the construction machine and would improve the system by adding a power source.
Rigter, in view of Uetake and Kruse, does not disclose making the solar cell of perovskite. Bullen teaches that perovskite solar cells use inexpensive components and are simple to process ([0003]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rigter, in view of Uetake and Kruse, to use the perovskite solar cell of Bullen because of their inexpensive components and simplicity in processing and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter, in view of Uetake, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cowgill (WO2020/232082)
Re Claim 18, Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses the construction machine according to claim 12, but fails to disclose that the upper main body device includes a take-off and landing portion where an unmanned aerial vehicle is able to take off and land.
Cowgill teaches that wherein the upper main body device includes a take-off and landing portion (“home device 33 operates as a base for the unmanned vehicle 36 and is optionally capable of acting as a power source, transmitter/receiver, base/hub, anchor, landing spot, garage, vehicle, connector, etc” [33]) where an unmanned aerial vehicle (unmanned vehicle 36) is able to take off and land portion.
Rigter, in view of Uetake, discloses a construction machine upon which the claimed invention could be seen as an improvement by including an unmanned aerial vehicle and a portion of the upper main body device where the unmanned aerial vehicle can take off and land. The construction machine of Cowgill has been improved by including an unmanned aerial vehicle and a location on the upper main body where the unmanned aerial vehicle can take off and land. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an unmanned aerial vehicle and a take off and landing portion to the construction machine of Rigter, in view of Uetake, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results would be predictable.
Re Claim 19, Rigter, in view of Uetake and Cowgill, discloses the construction machine according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), and Cowgill further teaches that the unmanned aerial vehicle includes an image capture device (sensor 31) that performs image capture (“electronic device 31 may be a surface characterization device, e.g., a camera” [29]) at the take-off and landing portion (there is no indication that the sensor 31 is inoperable at the home device 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
“In the interest of expediting prosecution, Applicant amends claim 1 to include at least in relevant part the following features: "a main body device that is movable by a moving device having a motor, wherein the main body device includes a lower main body device and an upper main body device that is configured to revolve with respect to the lower main body device;" "a conveyance device having a frame to convey an excavated object excavated by a working device to an outside of the main body device via the main body device;" and "a processing device that performs processing on the excavated object in a space located below the upper main body device while the conveyance device conveys the excavated object." Support for these amendments can be found in at least par. [0030], [0041], [0052], and [0054]. Applicant respectfully asserts that at least the above features are not taught by Rigter”
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
“By way of example, Applicant submits that Rigter does not appear to disclose a processing device as claimed, whereby the processing device performs processing on an excavated object in a space below the main body device while the conveyance device conveys that excavated object. Instead, Rigter appears to disclose a cleaning bed 12 that is provided outside of a carriage 1. That is, Rigter does not appear to disclose a construction machine having a higher degree of freedom in layout as presently claimed. Moreover, Applicant notes that such defects of Rigter are not remedied by the addition of any of the secondary references cited with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections identified in the Office Action. As such, Applicant believes that the rejection of claim 1 and all dependent claims is improper.”
Applicant argues that a processing device provided outside the main body device cannot be below the main body device. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “below” would include “in a lower place” (Meriam-Webster). An object does not have to be directly underneath another object to be below it. This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s Fig. 7, where the processing device (sieve 73a) is below the upper main body device (40a) despite being provided outside of it. The cleaning bed of Ritger is shown in Fig. 1 of Ritger to be below the upper main body device as identified in Ritger.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights