Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 12/04/2025 (about a priority document).
3. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Foreign Priority
4. Applicant claims a Japanese priority of 12/03/2021; this date is considered.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
5. Applicant filed two IDSs on 2/25/2025, and 5/21/2024; they are considered.
Claimed Interpretations
6. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
9. Claims 1, and 15-16 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 claims contain 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; in these claims, a limitation of "a controller" to calculate different claimed values .
Applicant does not show to one with skill in the art how to calculate a physical quantity, an error, and an assistance operation value as required in these claims in such full, clear, concise and exact claimed term (for prior art, the examiner interprets claimed “calculate” is “determine”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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.
10. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 “a controller” to perform .. (as in pending claims 1-16).
For examination purposes, the examiner assumes that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked for this pending application because “a controller” can be represented for many different things (e.g., a module, a circuit ...) both in software and in hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et (US Pub 20200224383) in view of HoSo et al (US Pub 20230041186 A), and in view of Chiba et al (CN 109757113 B).
A. Per claims 1, and 15: Ishida teaches a construction machine driving device comprising:
- an operation device to which an operation by an operator for moving a work device (i.e., a bucket – see Hoso Fig.5 ref. 403) with respect to a machine body (see Ishida, Figs. 1, 15) is given; and
Ishida and Hose teach a controller to:
- sets a target physical quantity that is a target of a physical quantity related to an orientation of the work device (see Ishida, Fig. 1, a bucket 10, and Fig. 4);
- determines a current physical quantity that is a physical quantity related to an actual orientation of the work device(see Hoso, Fig. 2 ref.60 “distance measurement sensor 60”).
Ishida and Hose do not disclose about:
- determines a physical quantity error that is an error between the target physical quantity and the current physical quantity (e.g., a distance of a bucket’s teeth & a working surface); however, Chiba’113 suggest this error – see Chiba’113 page 33 paragraph 4) (same as a limitation of pending claim 9).
Hose also suggests to:
- determines an assistance operation value for assisting the operation of the operator (see Hoso, para. [0071]-[0072]);
- corrects an operator operation value corresponding to the operation to an operator correction value such that (this “such that” language is not a limitation in a structure claim) the operator correction value becomes smaller when the physical quantity error is small as compared with when the physical quantity error is large (see Hoso, para [0152]);
- corrects the assistance operation value to an assistance correction value such that (not a limitation in a structure claim) the assistance correction value becomes larger when the physical quantity error is small as compared with when the physical quantity error is large (see Hoso, para. [0152],[0157]); and
Ishida also suggests:
- controls the orientation of the work device (insignificant extra solution activity/a limitation recited at a high level of generality) or transformation of an article to a different state) by using an assistance correction value (see Ishida’383 FIG. 18, and para. [0043]).
It 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 to implement Ishida’383 with HoSo’186 and with Chiba’113 to assist the driving device for a smaller error when performing a task on a physical object since their construction machine driving devices all suggest to improve an accuracy of controlling a bucket against a target (see HoSo’186 FIG.3).
B. Per dependent claim 5: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Ishida also teaches a notification device (i.e., a DISPLAY DEVICE 53, see Ishida, FIG. 4) for notifying the operator of a situation of control by the controller, wherein the controller controls operation of the notification device such that output from the notification device changes according to the physical quantity error.
C. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Ishida also suggests a controller to estimate/using an assisting value (see Ishida para. [0137]) based on the physical quantity error (with an intention to reduce a distance error).
D. Per dependent claim 7: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Ishida also suggests a controller: sets target quantities; and to determine work being performed by a construction machine (see Ishida, para. [0043],[0069]); and to select a target physical quantity corresponding to the determined work from target physical quantities (e.g., “set a limit value”, see Ishida, claim 8).
E. Per dependent claim 8: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Ishida also suggests a controller to decide a target work that is set in advance with an assistance (see Ishida, para. [0043]); controls the orientation of the work device by using the total value in a case where the target work is performed (see Hoso, Fig. 3 ref. 50); and controls the orientation of the work device/(a direction of the bucket 403 is controlled manually otherwise (see Hoso, para. [0056]).
F. Per dependent claim 9: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
HoSo also suggests that physical quantity error is a value corresponding to a distance between a tip of the bucket and a working surface (see Hoso, claims 2-3).
G. Per dependent claim 13: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Hoso also suggests about controlling a target device with assistance or with non-assistance using an ON/OFF switch 17 (see Hoso, para. [0046]).
H. Per dependent claim 14: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 13 are incorporated.
Hose uses a switch 17 for selecting a particular condition (see Hoso, para. [0046]).
It 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 to implement Ishida’383 with HoSo’186 and with Chiba’113 to use a switch to utilize an assistance control or not.
13. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of HoSo in view of Chiba’113, and in view of Narikawa Ryu et al. (WO 2022186215 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Per claim 10: Ishida in view of HoSo in view of Chiba’113 fail to disclose an actual orientation of the work device and a target orientation image which is an image related to a target orientation of the work device; however, Narikawa Ryu suggests this claimed idea (e.g., “the display device 55 displays an icon C indicating the current position of the front work device 2 in the height direction and the revolving speed of the upper revolving structure 7, superimposed on the correlation map A and the correlation map B. can be done. In FIG. 12, an icon C indicating the rotation angle .sub.θbm and the rotation angle .sub.θsw of the boom 8 corresponding to the current position of the front work device 2 in the height direction is displayed superimposed on the correlation map A and the correlation map B” see Narikawa Ryu, the abstract, and pg. 9, second paragraph).
It 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 to implement Ishida’383 in view of HoSo’186 and in view of Chiba’113 with Narikawa Ryu to monitor an image of a target orientation against the orientation of a work device to improve accuracies.
Per Claim 11. Narikawa Ryu also displays an intermediate/current-working images of the actual direction/orientation and the target direction/orientation (e.g., “At this time, the display device 55 displays an icon C indicating the current position of the front work device 2 in the height direction and the revolving speed of the upper revolving structure 7, superimposed on the correlation map A and the correlation map B. can be done. In FIG. 12, an icon C indicating the rotation angle θbm and the rotation angle θsw of the boom 8 corresponding to the current position of the front work device 2 in the height direction is displayed superimposed on the correlation map A and the correlation map B” see Narikawa Ryu, pg. 27, third paragraph).
Per Claim 12. Ishida also discloses a controller determine an intermediate orientation based on information related to an operation speed of the work device (see Ishida ‘383 para. [0100])“..are processes to be performed in a case where an orientation of the bucket toe speed vector to result from machine control is aligned with an orientation of the speed vector to result from operation by an operator. Additionally, the machine control may adopt a method of not intervening in a speed component in a direction parallel to a target surface”).
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of HoSo in view of Chiba’113, and in view of Sano (US Pub 20210017738 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated
Ishida in view of HoSo, and in view of Chiba’113 do not expressly disclose a remote operation device arranged at a place away from the construction machine; however, Sano discloses a remote control to operate a construction machine (see Sano para. [0164]).
It 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 to implement Ishida’383 in view of Hoso and in view of Chiba’113 with Sano to have a remote control device for remote accesses and for exchanging information.
Claimed Objections
15. Per dependent claims 2-4: Ishida in view of HoSo and in view of Chiba et al do not disclose a controller that calculates the operator correction value by multiplying the operator operation value by a value obtained by subtracting the assistance rate from a preset setting value.
Conclusion
16. Claims 1-16 are rejected.
17. The attached prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights