DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 1, 2024. Claims 1 – 13 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 limitations are: “a work machine storage part”, “a work machine communication part” and “a data group storage part” in claim 9; “a data group storage part” in claim 11; and “a management device communication part” and “a data group setting part” in claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited JP 2001142506 A to Naito et al. (herein after "Naito et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 10 and 13,
the Naito et al. publication discloses a control system (see FIGS. 1 and 4) for controlling a work machine (1)(see FIG. 1), the work machine control system comprising:
a manipulation device (“operation lever 3” and “operation lever 44”) to which manipulation for operating an object to be controlled in the work machine (1) is given by an operator (see FIGS. 1 and 4, ¶10 for “operation lever 3”, and ¶14 for “operation lever 44”); and
a controller (“learning controller 2” and “learning controller 47”), wherein the controller:
stores a plurality of data groups related to past work, each of the plurality of data groups including manipulation ability past data and control parameter past data associated with the manipulation ability past data (see ¶10, where “[t]he learning controller 2 is composed of a neural network composed of three layers of an input layer 18, an intermediate layer 19 and an output layer 20, and stores parameters used by a skilled operator in advance”; see also ¶16, where “[l]earning parameters of these learning controllers and discrimination information between skilled and unskilled persons can be saved by recording them in an external medium or reproduced by reading them from an external medium”)(Emphasis added);
determines manipulation ability of the operator (see ¶15, where “the operator determination device 50 evaluates the skill level of the operator”);
sets a control parameter by using the plurality of data groups and operation information that is information including the manipulation ability (see ¶10, where “[t]he learning controller . . . stores parameters used by a skilled operator in advance”)(Emphasis added);
calculates, by using the control parameter, an assist amount for assisting the manipulation by the operator (see ¶14, where “the operation signal 45 from the operation lever 44 [is] multiplied by the coefficient k1 by the multiplier 46 and the output of the learning controller 47 multiplied by the coefficient k2 by the multiplier 48); and
calculates a control command for operating the object to be controlled by using the assist amount and a manipulation amount of the manipulation given to the manipulation device, and inputs the control command to the object to be controlled (see ¶10, where “[t]he learning controller 2 is composed of a neural network composed of [different] layers . . . [including] . . . an input layer 18”; see also ¶14 – ¶16).
As to claim 3,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the controller selecting at least one data group suitable for the operation information from the plurality of data groups, and sets the control parameter by using the control parameter past data included in the selected at least one data group. (See ¶10, where “[t]he learning controller 2 is composed of a neural network . . . and stores parameters used by a skilled operator in advance . . . By using the learning controller in this manner, even when an unskilled operator works in various situations, it is possible to appropriately drive each actuator in accordance with the working environment and the situation inside the vehicle.”)(Emphasis added.)
As to claim 4,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the controller selecting at least one data group suitable for the operation information from the plurality of data groups, and sets the control parameter by using the control parameter past data included in the selected at least one data group. (See ¶10, where “[t]he learning controller 2 is composed of a neural network . . . and stores parameters used by a skilled operator in advance . . . By using the learning controller in this manner, even when an unskilled operator works in various situations, it is possible to appropriately drive each actuator in accordance with the working environment and the situation inside the vehicle.”)(Emphasis added.)
As to claim 9,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the controller including: a work machine storage part that is mounted on the work machine and stores the operation information; a work machine communication part mounted on the work machine; and a data group storage part that is mounted in a management device arranged at a place away from the work machine and stores the plurality of data groups, wherein the work machine communication part transmits the operation information stored in the work machine storage part to the management device when work by the work machine is finished or interrupted. (See FIG. 1.)
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 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.
Claims 2, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited Naito et al. publication in view of cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0289926 A1 to Alig et al. (herein after "Alig et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 2,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the controller determining work content which is content of work performed by the work machine, the operation information further including the work content, and each of the plurality of data groups further including work content past data.
A controller that determine work content to be performed by the work machine is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Alig et al. publication who discloses “break[ing] or segment[ing] a particular operation into a plurality of quantitatively measurable tasks with each of the tasks being measured against a desired threshold. In other words, an operation may be divided into a plurality of tasks that may be evaluated based upon desired positions and speeds of the machine 10 and its various components”. (See ¶42.) “The controller 41 may be configured to store different thresholds for each task.” (See ¶64.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the controller determining work content which is content of work performed by the work machine, the operation information further including the work content, and each of the plurality of data groups further including work content past data.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Naito et al. publication so that the controller determines work content which is content of work performed by the work machine, the operation information further including the work content, and each of the plurality of data groups further including work content past data, as suggested by the Alig et al. publication, in order to help inexperienced operators operate a machine more effectively based upon the operator selecting the proper mode for his skill level.
As to claim 8,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the plurality of data groups including a data group related to another operator different from the operator.
The Alig et al. publication discloses that “the controller 41 may be configured to determine the skill level of the operator based on inputs from at least one sensor that is configured and arranged to provide signals relating to at least one operating characteristic of the machine 10 . . . The controller 41 may also use other historical operating characteristic data in determining the skill level of the operator . . . The controller 41 may use the data from these various sources in a comparison against predetermined thresholds that differentiate the various operator skill levels. For example, the thresholds may differentiate between expert and novice skill levels or expert, intermediate and novice skill levels.” (See ¶39.) Such disclosure suggests the plurality of data groups including a data group related to another operator different from the operator.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Naito et al. publication so that the plurality of data groups includes a data group related to another operator different from the operator, as suggested by the Alig et al. publication, in order to help inexperienced operators operate a machine more effectively based upon the operator selecting the proper mode for his skill level.
As to claim 11,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a management device used in the work machine control system according to claim 1 and arranged at a place away from the work machine, the management device comprising a data group storage part that stores the plurality of data groups.
The Alig et al. publication discloses “[t]he control system 40 and the controller 41 may be located on the machine 10 or may be distributed with components also located remotely from the machine such as at a command center (not shown). The functionality of control system 40 may be distributed so that certain functions are performed at machine 10 and other functions are performed remotely. In such case, the control system 40 may include a communications system such as wireless network system (not shown) for transmitting signals between the machine 10 and a system located remote from the machine such as at the command center.” (See ¶28.) Such disclosure suggests a management device used in the work machine control system . . . and arranged at a place away from the work machine, the management device comprising a data group storage part that stores the plurality of data groups.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Naito et al. publication with a management device used in the work machine control system . . . and arranged at a place away from the work machine, the management device comprising a data group storage part that stores the plurality of data groups, as suggested by the Alig et al. publication, in order to help inexperienced operators operate a machine more effectively based upon the operator selecting the proper mode for his skill level.
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited Naito et al. publication in view of cited WO 2020100562 A1 to Koiwai et al. (herein after "Koiwai et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 5 and 6,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
setting target manipulation ability in association with the manipulation ability; and setting the control parameter according to the target manipulation ability, and further comprising a target input device capable of inputting a target of the manipulation ability, wherein the controller sets the target manipulation ability by using the input target of the manipulation ability and the manipulation ability.
The Koiwai et al. publication discloses “[t]he operator operat[ing] the operation unit 22 to input his/her own skill determination value into the controller 51, or selects the corresponding skill from the skill categories that the controller 51 outputs and displays on the monitor.” Such disclosure suggests setting target manipulation ability in association with the manipulation ability and setting the control parameter according to the target manipulation ability, and further comprising a target input device capable of inputting a target of the manipulation ability, wherein the controller sets the target manipulation ability by using the input target of the manipulation ability and the manipulation ability.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Naito et al. publication so that the controller sets target manipulation ability in association with the manipulation ability and sets the control parameter according to the target manipulation ability, and provide a target input device capable of inputting a target of the manipulation ability, wherein the controller sets the target manipulation ability by using the input target of the manipulation ability and the manipulation ability, as suggested by the Koiwai et al. publication, in order to help inexperienced operators operate a machine more effectively based upon the operator selecting the proper mode for his skill level.
As to claim 7,
the Naito et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a display that displays the manipulation ability.
The Koiwai et al. publication discloses “[t]he operator operat[ing] the operation unit 22 to input his/her own skill determination value into the controller 51, or selects the corresponding skill from the skill categories that the controller 51 outputs and displays on the monitor.” (Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests a display that displays the manipulation ability.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Naito et al. publication with a display that displays the manipulation ability, as suggested by the Koiwai et al. publication, in order to help inexperienced operators operate a machine more effectively based upon the operator selecting the proper mode for his skill level
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666