DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed March 7, 2025. Claims 21-40 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ITOH et al (US 2021/0381203).
As per claim 21, ITOH et al teach a control system, comprising:
a work machine comprising a projection device (see at least fig 1, paragraphs [0058-0059]); and
a remote control unit comprising an operator interface, the remote control unit to control the work machine based on commands received via the operator interface (see at least paragraphs [0040, 0076]);
wherein the projection device causes information associated with the work machine to be projected onto a surface associated with the work machine (see at least fig 3, paragraphs [0058-0059]).
As per claim 22, ITOH et al teach wherein the work machine comprises a demolition robot (non-functional descriptive language).
The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 23, ITOH et al teach the remote control device comprises a location sensor; and the projection devices causes the information to be projected onto the surface based on data received from the location sensor (see at least paragraphs [0055-0056]).
As per claim 24, ITOH et al teach wherein the data received from the location sensor is indicative of both a position and an orientation of the remote control device (see at least paragraphs [0055-0056]).
As per claim 25, ITOH et al teach wherein the projection device causes the information to be projected onto the surface responsive to a command received from the remote control unit (see at least paragraphs [0071-0072]).
As per claim 26, ITOH et al teach wherein the projection device causes the information projected onto the surface to vary based on sensor data associated with the work machine (see at least paragraphs [0055-0056]).
As per claim 27, ITOH et al teach wherein the projection device causes the information projected onto the surface to vary by: changing a color associated with the information projected onto the surface; adding a symbol to the information projected onto the surface; modifying a graphic associated with the information projected onto the surface; or changing a frequency of pulsated light associated with the information projected onto the surface (see at least paragraphs [0090, 0092, 0098]).
As per claim 28, ITOH et al teach wherein the surface is on the work machine (non-functional descriptive language). The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 29, ITOH et al teach wherein the surface is not on the work machine (non-functional descriptive language). The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 30, ITOH et al teach wherein the information projected onto the surface comprises a boundary area associated with the work machine (see at least figs 3-4).
As per claim 31, ITOH et al teach wherein the information projected onto the surface is associated with a power supply for the work machine (non-functional descriptive language, however, this feature is inherent. Also see paragraph [0087]). The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 32, ITOH et al teach wherein the information projected onto the surface is associated with an arm system of the work machine (non-functional descriptive language, however, see figs 3-4). The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 33, ITOH et al teach wherein the work machine comprises a second projection device that causes second information associated with the work machine to be projected onto a second surface associated with the work machine (see at least paragraphs [0095-0096]) .
Claims 34-40 contain similar limitation as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664