DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 6, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the recitation of a function attributed to one of the control levers not rendering the number of operation levers unclear, has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to paragraph 16 of the specification has been withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 has overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the recitation of one or more processors executing the work machine control program does not lack clarity (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 60 discloses the control system has one or more processors, and appears to disclose the display processor and the like are functional sections. Paragraph 60 does not appear to explicitly recite the one or more processors of the computer system include the display processor, acquisition processor, detector, restriction processor, alert processor, and disabling processor. Therefore, it is unclear if the functional sections (e.g., the display processor) are physical processors, because they may be realized when one processor executes a work machine control program, and it is unclear how multiple processors are realized by one executing processor. Paragraph 60 further discloses the plurality of functional sections may be dispersed in a plurality of housings, therefore, it is further unclear how functional sections realized by one processor may be located in different housings. Additionally, figure 2 depicts the detector in the same manner as the display processor, however, paragraph 60 does not explicitly disclose that the detector is either a processor or a functional section. Therefore, it is unclear whether the display processor, acquisition processor, detector, restriction processor, alert processor, and disabling processor are physical processors, or merely elements representative of processing such as software modules or the results of executing the work machine control program. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraph 35 contains no recitation pertaining to sensors, it is noted that it is paragraph 27 that recites “various types of sensor (including cameras) that detect a detection target”. However, paragraph 68 further discloses “the detector 13 detects the detections target … based on outputs (image data) of the left camera 341, the right camera 342, and the rear camera 343. Specifically, the detector 13 performs image processing”. Paragraphs 67-70 appear to disclose the detector is an image processor that processes camera input, however, paragraph 27 appears to disclose it is the cameras themselves that perform the function of the detector (i.e., detecting a detection target). As discussed above, it is further unclear whether the detector is a processor and/or a functional section because it is depicted in a similar manner to the functional sections in figure 2 but explicitly omits the word “processor”. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kojima fails to disclose initiating execution of a restriction process when a detection result satisfies a specific condition during a predetermined period of time after termination of a specific operation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kojima, in paragraph 64, discloses the main routine of the safety control is repeatedly executed every time a preset sampling period (e.g., 50ms) elapses, and the motion limitation control is a subroutine of the safety control. The Applicant’s claims disclose the restriction process restricts motion of the work machine, therefore, the analogous restriction step of Kojima is inputting a limitation command to a target operation valve at S33. Kojima, further discloses, in paragraph 69, that the limitation command includes a stop command for stopping, i.e. terminating, an operation. Kojima discloses two different control paths, described below, that result in inputting the limitation command after judging that a detection object is present in the alarm area at S31, and after previously terminating an operation. The Applicant’s specification neither defines nor uses any variant of the term “initiate”, therefore, it is interpreted using the conventional definition of setting something to a starting position, value, or configuration. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, initiating execution of a restriction process includes inputting a limitation command multiple times. In addition, Kojima, in paragraph 57, discloses the safety control to be executed is based on the area in which the detection is present, and in paragraph 54, that the detection object may be a person. A person may move between detection areas, after they are detected, resulting in different input limitation commands being sent in subsequent executions of Kojima’s motion limitation control. As mentioned above, the two control paths of Kojima are:
During a first iteration of subroutine S30: a person is detected in an alarm area at S31; a restriction process is initiated by inputting a limitation command at S33 which results in terminating an operation; and control returns to the main routine at S40. During a second iteration, performed 50ms later, of subroutine S30: the person is again detected in an alarm area at S31; a restriction process is initiated again at S33; and control returns to the main routine at S40.
During a first iteration of subroutine S30: a person is detected in an alarm area at S31; a restriction process is initiated by inputting a limitation command at S33 which results in terminating an operation; and control returns to the main routine at S40. During subsequent iterations up to a preset target count value CCo, performed every 50ms, of subroutine S30: the person is not detected in the alarm area at S31; counter CC is incremented; and the limitation command is maintained. During one of the subsequent iterations, within the predetermined period of time 50ms * CCo: a/the person is detected in an alarm area at S31; a restriction process is initiated by inputting a limitation command at S33 which results in terminating an operation; and control returns to the main routine at S40.
Therefore, Kojima discloses initiating execution of a restriction process when a detection result satisfies a specific condition during a predetermined period of time after termination of a specific operation. See rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 60 discloses “the plurality of functional sections (display processor 11 and the like) are realized when the one or more processors execute a work machine control program”, however, it is unclear whether each functional section is executed by an individual processor or multiple functional sections are executed by a single processor. It is further unclear whether the functional sections are processors or merely elements representative of performing processing.
Paragraph 27 discloses the sensors are used for detecting the detection target. Paragraph 67 discloses the detector senses a detection target. Paragraph 68 further discloses the detector performs image processing. It is unclear whether the detector is an image processor or a plurality of sensors (e.g., cameras).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 4-6, “when a a detection target is detected … satisfies a specific condition” should read “when a [[a]] detection target that is detected … satisfies a specific condition”. These appear to be typographical errors.
In claim 3, line 8, “pertains to an the operation target” should read “pertains to an
In claim 7, line 4, it is unclear if the bracketed text is intended to limit the scope of the claim.
In claim 7, line 4, the added subject matter “[condition 2 - not compatible with condition 1 -> termination]” is not appropriately underlined in accordance with 37 CFR. § 1.121(c)(2).
In claim 11, line 4, the added subject matter “operation” in “a user operation” is not appropriately underlined in accordance with 37 CFR. § 1.121(c)(2).
Claim 12 indicates it is currently amended but does not appear to contain any changes.
In claim 14, lines 3-5, “when a detection target is detected … satisfies a specific condition” should read “when a detection target that is detected … satisfies a specific condition”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In claims 1 and 14, lines 7 and 6, respectively, “an operation device”. Paragraph 33 discloses operation device 35 is operation lever 351, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the operation device is a control lever.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-12, the limitation “disabling execution of the restriction process when the result of detection does not satisfy the specific condition” appears to be new matter because it appears the restriction process is disabled in response to a user input, not the result of detection. Paragraphs 57, 77 and 78 disclose the system is disabled by the user. Paragraph 94 discloses the restriction may be executed, not disabled, when the result of detection does not satisfy the specific condition. Paragraph 104 discloses a cancel condition for terminating the restriction process, however, the restriction process is not terminated when the detection does not satisfy the specific condition. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of disabling execution does not include merely not enabling or executing—disabling execution must prevent or exclude execution.
Claims 2-4 and 7-13 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-12, the limitation “disabling execution of the restriction process when the result of detection does not satisfy the specific condition” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the restriction process is executed when its execution is disabled when the result of detection does not satisfy the specific condition. As discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of disabling execution of the restriction process based on the detection, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the method comprises executing a restriction process when a target is detected and not executing (rather than disabling execution) when a target is not detected.
Regarding claim 2, lines 3-4, the limitation “relating one of traveling of the work machine or swivel of the work machine” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the operation relates the traveling or swiveling to, or if the operation relates the traveling to swiveling. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the operation relates to either traveling or swiveling of the work machine.
Regarding claim 4, lines 4-5, “compared to restriction of the second motion” should read “compared to the restriction of the second motion” to make it clear it is the same second motion restriction recited in claim 3, lines 6-7.
Regarding claim 11, line 4, the limitation “a user operation that switches the restriction process to a disabled state” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user operation is the specific operation performed on an operation device (para. 45: the operation device … is a user interface for accepting an operation input by the user) of the work machine in claim 1, lines 6-7. Paragraph 57 discloses a disabling switch that is a user interface for accepting an operation input from the user. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the operation for disabling the restriction process will be assumed to comprise the user activating a switch.
Claims 2-4 and 7-13 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kojima (US 2025/0270793).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kojima discloses a work machine (Kojima; para. 16: FIGS. 1 and 2 show a hydraulic excavator, which is a work machine on which a control device according to an embodiment of the present invention is installed.) control method, comprising: executing a restriction process (Kojima; fig. 6: S33), wherein the restriction process restricts a first motion of a work machine when a detection target is detected in a monitoring area around the work machine satisfies a specific condition (Kojima; para. 58: when the detection object is detected in the area AB1, the safety control determination part 74 determines, as the motion limitation control to be executed, a control of forcibly stopping the backward traveling motion, limiting the speed of the rightward turning motion and the leftward turning motion, and not limiting the forward traveling motion and a working motion, which is the motion of the work device) and a specific operation is performed on an operation device of the work machine (Kojima; para. 102: The control part, preferably, is configured to perform a motion limitation control when an motion limitation target operation included in the alarm target motion is applied to the operation device.), and execution of the restriction process is initiated when the detection result satisfies the specific condition (Kojima; para. 69: controller 70 … inputs a limitation command to the target operation valve corresponding to the area in which the detection object is present among the plurality of operation valves (step S33)) during a predetermined period of time (Kojima; para. 64: FIG. 5 shows the main routine of the safety control; FIG. 6 shows the flow of a motion limitation control that is a subroutine of the safety control and included in the safety control … The main routine shown in FIG. 5 is repeatedly executed every time a preset sampling period (e.g., 50 ms) elapses; para. 71: controller 70 increments a control duration count value CC for measuring a control duration time by 1 (step S36), and maintains the current command until the control duration count value CC reaches a preset target count value CCo [or performs S33 if a target is detected while the counter is running]) after termination of the specific operation (Kojima; in the case where a detection object lies in the area AB1 shown in FIG. 2 and table 1, the area AB1 corresponds to the stop area for the backward operation … the controller 70, therefore, inputs a stop command (a command for stopping the backward traveling motion) to the right and left traveling operation valves … This causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped); and disabling execution of the restriction process when the result of detection does not satisfy the specific condition (Kojima; fig. 6: S33 is not performed if a target is note detected in an alarm area at S31).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kojima discloses the specific operation includes an operation relating one of traveling of the work machine or swivel of the work machine (Kojima; para. 51: the limitation target motions correspond to the alarm target motions, including the turning motion of the upper turning body 12 with respect to the lower traveling body 10, and the traveling motion provided by the right crawler 11R and the left crawler).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, as best understood, Kojima discloses the restriction process comprises a first restriction process and a second restriction process, wherein the first restriction process restricts the first motion (Kojima; para. 69: controller 70, therefore, inputs a stop command (a command for stopping the backward traveling motion) to the right and left traveling operation valves), wherein the first motion pertains to an operation target targeted by the specific operation (Kojima; para. 69: This causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped when the backward traveling operation is performed) and wherein the second restriction process restricts a second motion of the work machine (Kojima; para. 69: and inputs a speed limitation command (a command for limiting respective speeds of the right and leftward turning motions) to the right and leftward turning operation valves), wherein the second motion pertains to an operation target not targeted by the specific operation (Kojima; para. 69: causes the speed of the actual rightward turning motion or the leftward turning motion to be limited to a speed lower than the speed corresponding to the operation amount of the rightward turning operation or the leftward turning operation when the rightward turning operation or the leftward turning operation is performed).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kojima discloses the restriction of the first motion occurs over a shorter time period as compared to restriction of the second motion (Kojima; para. 69: causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped when the backward traveling operation is performed and causes the speed of the actual rightward turning motion or the leftward turning motion to be limited to a speed lower than the speed corresponding to the operation amount).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kojima discloses the restriction process is executed when the specific operation is restarted while the detection result satisfies the specific condition (Kojima; para. 69: When judging that a detection object is present in the alarm area (YES in step S31), the controller 70 changes a control flag from the initial value 0 to 1 (step S32), and inputs a limitation command to the target operation valve corresponding to the area in which the detection object is present among the plurality of operation valves … This causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped when the backward traveling operation is performed; para. 64: FIG. 5 shows the main routine of the safety control; FIG. 6 shows the flow of a motion limitation control that is a subroutine of the safety control and included in the safety control … The main routine shown in FIG. 5 is repeatedly executed every time a preset sampling period (e.g., 50 ms) elapses.).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kojima discloses the restriction process is also executed when the specific operation is restarted within a predetermined period of time after the detection result does not satisfy the specific condition (Kojima; para. 71: even if the detection object becomes undetected in the alarm area (NO in step S31), the controller 70 continues the motion limitation control until a target duration time corresponding to the target count value CCo has elapsed. At the point in time when the control duration count value CC has reached the target count value CCo, that is, when the target duration has elapsed (NO in step S37), the controller 70 releases the current command to terminate the motion limitation control; para. 69: This causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped when the backward traveling operation is performed).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kojima discloses the manner of application of the restriction process is changed based on the order of occurrence of a first timing and a second timing (Kojima; para. 71: even if the detection object becomes undetected in the alarm area (NO in step S31), the controller 70 continues the motion limitation control until a target duration time corresponding to the target count value CCo has elapsed. At the point in time when the control duration count value CC has reached the target count value CCo, that is, when the target duration has elapsed (NO in step S37), the controller 70 releases the current command to terminate the motion limitation control), the first timing pertaining to when the specific operation is started (Kojima; para. 71: when the motion limitation control has been already started, the controller 70 increments a control duration count value CC for measuring a control duration time by 1 (step S36), and maintains the current command until the control duration count value CC reaches a preset target count value CCo; para. 102: The control part, preferably, is configured to perform a motion limitation control when an motion limitation target operation included in the alarm target motion is applied to the operation device.) and the second timing pertaining to when the detection result satisfies the specific condition (Kojima; para. 71: The control duration time is the elapsed time after the point in time when the detection of the detection object in the alarm area disappears (NO in step S31).).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Kojima discloses disabling execution of the restriction process in accordance with a user operation that switches the restriction process to a disabled state (Kojima; para. 105: In the case where the work machine is switchable between an operation lock state where an operation applied to the operation device is invalidated and an operation lock release state where the operation is validated, the control part may be configured to make the alarm device output the operation alarm only when the work machine is in the operation lock release state and configured to stop the operation alarm regardless of the target operation amount when the work machine is in the operation lock state. The suspension of the output of the operation alarm in the operation lock state, in which the alarm target operation is invalidated to disable the limitation target motion from being performed even when the alarm target operation is applied to the operation device, enables the frequency of the output of the operation alarm to be further reduced with high safety secured.).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kojima discloses presenting state information indicating enabling or disabling of the restriction process (Kojima; para. 67: In the operation lock release state (YES in step S20), the controller 70 inputs the display command signal to the display device 64, regardless of the content of the motion limitation control (step S30) and the alarm control (step S40), when a detection target is detected in the alarm area (in the present embodiment, when a detection target is present in any of the plurality of areas AR1, AR2, AB1, AB2, AL1, AL2 shown in FIG. 2; YES in step S50), and makes the screen of the display device switched to a screen displaying the object display image).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kojima discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to configure at least once processor to perform the work machine control method according to claim 1 (Kojima; para. 53: functions are implemented, for example, by the execution of a program prestored in a memory included in the controller 70 by a CPU included in the controller).
Regarding claim 14, Kojima discloses a work machine control system (Kojima; para. 16: FIGS. 1 and 2 show a hydraulic excavator, which is a work machine on which a control device according to an embodiment of the present invention is installed.), comprising: a restriction processor (Kojima; fig. 3: controller 70) that restricts a motion of a work machine when a detection target is detected in a monitoring area around the work machine satisfies a specific condition (Kojima; para. 58: when the detection object is detected in the area AB1, the safety control determination part 74 determines, as the motion limitation control to be executed, a control of forcibly stopping the backward traveling motion, limiting the speed of the rightward turning motion and the leftward turning motion, and not limiting the forward traveling motion and a working motion, which is the motion of the work device) and a specific operation is performed on an operation device of the work machine (Kojima; para. 102: The control part, preferably, is configured to perform a motion limitation control when an motion limitation target operation included in the alarm target motion is applied to the operation device.); and initiates execution of the restriction process when the detection result satisfies the specific condition (Kojima; para. 69: controller 70 … inputs a limitation command to the target operation valve corresponding to the area in which the detection object is present among the plurality of operation valves (step S33)) during a predetermined period of time (Kojima; para. 64: FIG. 5 shows the main routine of the safety control; FIG. 6 shows the flow of a motion limitation control that is a subroutine of the safety control and included in the safety control … The main routine shown in FIG. 5 is repeatedly executed every time a preset sampling period (e.g., 50 ms) elapses; para. 71: controller 70 increments a control duration count value CC for measuring a control duration time by 1 (step S36), and maintains the current command until the control duration count value CC reaches a preset target count value CCo [or performs S33 if a target is detected while the counter is running]) after termination of the specific operation (Kojima; in the case where a detection object lies in the area AB1 shown in FIG. 2 and table 1, the area AB1 corresponds to the stop area for the backward operation … the controller 70, therefore, inputs a stop command (a command for stopping the backward traveling motion) to the right and left traveling operation valves … This causes the backward traveling motion to be forcibly stopped).
Regarding claim 15, Kojima discloses a work machine, comprising: the work machine control system according to claim 14; and a machine body (Kojima; fig. 1: upper turning body 12).
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Kiyota et al. (US 2020/0291614), hereinafter Kiyota.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kojima discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Kojima does not appear to explicitly disclose a cancel condition for terminating the restriction process includes a predetermined operation of the operation device, wherein the predetermined operation is distinct from the specific operation.
Kiyota, in the same field of endeavor (work machine safety controls), discloses a cancel condition for terminating a restriction process includes a predetermined operation of an operation device, wherein the predetermined operation is distinct from an operation that causes the machine to move (Kiyota; para. 44: the shovel 500 cancels the alarm or the restriction of the operation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “alarm and the like”) in response to a predetermined condition, for example, a predetermined manipulation by an operator (manipulation of a cancellation switch 60 to be described later)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to cancel the operation restriction in response to a predetermined operator’s input that is not the operation that causes the machine to move, as disclosed by Kiyota, in the controller of Kojima, to yield the predictable result of enabling an operator to override an operational restriction thereby increasing productivity.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665