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
Applicants Amendments filed on July 16, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s): 5-7
Independent Claim(s): 5
Amended Claim(s): 5
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
received on July 16, 2026.
In view of amendments filed on, the Applicant has amended independent Claim 5 to recite the additional limitation of “wherein the display section of the terminal displays a button "Allowed" indicating the inspection result without a problem, a button "Not Allowed" indicating the inspection result with some sort of problem, and a bar, wherein when any of the button "Allowed" and the button "Not Allowed" is selected as the input of the inspection result, a color of the selected button changes, and wherein when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes no problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Allowed" and when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes some sort of problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Not Allowed"”. Originally, (in the claim set dated July 19, 2024) Claim 5 was rejected under Kusaki et al. (US Pub No 20200142923) in view of Shike et al (US Pub No 20040054600), hereinafter Shike, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US Pub No 20190035070), hereinafter Fukuda.
As discussed in the following paragraphs, the combination of Kusaki, Shike, and Fukuda does not render obvious the newly amended claims. However, the Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Upon conducting a new search, the Examiner argues that the newly amended Claim(s) 5 is unpatentable over Kusaki, Shike, Fukuda, Engelbart et al. (US Pub No 20090169056), hereinafter Engelbart, and further in view of Andersson et al. (US Pub No 20130204406), hereinafter Andersson, since Engelbart and Andersson teach the limitation of displaying two buttons and an indicator over a selected button.
In view of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on July 16, 2026, with respect to the claims, the Applicant explained (on Remarks pg. 4-5) that although Kusaki teaches generating an inspection report indicating the result of the inspection (see Kusaki, paragraph [0111]), Kusaki fails to teach displaying buttons indicating the results of the inspection. The Examiner agrees. The Applicant then argued (on Remarks, pg. 5) that neither Shike nor Fukuda teach the added limitations. The Examiner agrees. Although Shike teaches a single button which may be used to indicate the results of an inspection (see Shike, paragraph [0176], “’result’ indicating a favorable or unfavorable inspection result with respect to the various inspection items”, and see Fig .11, where the results of the inspection are indicated by a drop down button which states ‘Good’), but fails to teach two separate button.
Thus, the Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in Office Action, and the independent claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaki, Shike, Fukuda, Engelbart, and Andersson. Therefore, the rejection to the dependent claims 6-7 are maintained.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaki et al. (US Pub No 20200142923), hereinafter Kusaki, in view of Shike et al (US Pub No 20040054600), hereinafter Shike, further in view of Fukuda et al. (US Pub No 20190035070), hereinafter Fukuda, further in view of Engelbart et al. (US Pub No 20090169056), hereinafter Engelbart, and further in view of Andersson et al. (US Pub No 20130204406), hereinafter Andersson.
As to Claim 1, Kusaki teaches a management system that inspects and manages a working machine (see paragraph [0028], “First, an outline of a management system 100 including an inspection report creation system of the present embodiment will be explained. The management system 100 of the present embodiment manages the operation information transmitted from the construction machine of the management object such as a hydraulic excavator 200”), comprising:
a server device that manages information of the working machine (see paragraph [0030], “The management system 100 of the present embodiment includes a management server 300,” and see paragraph [0038], “The portable terminal 400 is carried by a service person 401 at the time of inspection, photographs predetermined inspection positions of the hydraulic excavator 200, and transmits the photographs to the management server 300,”, where the hydraulic excavator is the working machine);
and a terminal communicatively connected to the server device (see paragraph [0030], “The management system 100 of the present embodiment includes a management server 300, a portable terminal 400, and a customer information processing device (customer PC) 500. The management server 300, the portable terminal 400, and the customer PC 500 are connected to each other through a network 101 such as a public line network for example.”),
wherein the server device includes a storage section (see paragraph [0043], “A hardware configuration of the management server 300 achieving this is shown in FIG. 3D. As shown in the present drawing, the management server 300 is an information processing device that includes a CPU 311, a memory 312, a storage device 313, an input/output interface (I/F) 314, and a communication I/F 315”),
the storage section stores inspection report information (see paragraph [0053], “The inspection application, the guidance data, and the like having been downloaded are captured in the storage device 413 and the like”)
that records an inspection item and a maintenance item of the working machine and an inspection result of the working machine including a photograph in which an inspection portion of the working machine is taken (see paragraph [0111], “As shown in the present drawing, the inspection report 700 includes a vehicle body information region 710 and a main body region 720. In the main body region 720, an image data region 721 and a comment region 722 are arranged for each image data”, and see Fig.13, where several inspection portions of the inspection and maintenance items are shown),
and the server device identifies the inspection report information based on a request from the terminal (see paragraph [0091], “When an input of the inspection type, the machine body ID, and the like is received through the machine body ID receiving section 431, the guidance data extracting section 434 extracts guidance data (step S1101)”, where the guidance data is the inspection report information)
and transmits the identified inspection report information to the terminal (see paragraph [0079], “The guidance display section 432 displays one sheet of a guidance image in the guidance image display region 611 of the guidance screen 610 (step S1102)”, and see Fig. 8B, where the guidance image is shown on the terminal),
wherein the terminal includes a display section and a photographing section (see Figure 8B, display section 611, and photographing section 612),
the display section displays the inspection report information identified by the server device (see paragraph [0087], “The guidance image information display region 613 is a region for displaying information of a guidance image that is displayed in the guidance image display region 611”),
and accepts an input of the inspection result (see paragraph [0088], “The comment receiving region 614 receives an input of a comment by the service person 401... Further, it is also possible to combine selection from the comment type 473 d and direct inputting. For example, only when “presence of abnormality” is selected, the content of the abnormality is inputted, and so on”, where ‘presence of abnormality’ is an inspection result),
and the photographing section takes the photograph of the inspection portion (see paragraph [0055], “The photographing section 450 photographs a photographic subject image (here, a photographing object) by the camera 416, and obtains image data. The photographic subject image photographed by the camera 416 is displayed in a region (finder region) as an electronic view finder of the display”, and see Fig. 13, where an inspection portion is shown on 633),
wherein when a previous inspection result regarding the working machine is present in the storage section (see paragraph [0063], “In the data holding section 370 of the management server 300, the operation information 371, vehicle body management information 372, report data 381, and a past report database (past report DB) 382 are held”),
the server device identifies the previous inspection result together with the inspection item and the maintenance item as the inspection report information and wherein when the previous inspection result identified as the inspection report information includes the photograph in which the inspection portion is taken (see paragraph [0121], “In this case, the inspection report creation section 340 creates an inspection report using the newest inspection data and inspection data (image data and a comment) of the same photographing object stored in the past report DB 382”, and see Fig. 13, where previous inspection images are shown parallel to current inspection images).
Kusaki fails to explicitly teach that the system is used to manage a working machine at a warehouse entry/exit. However, in an analogous art, Shike teaches a rental system for construction vehicles (see abstract),
which can be used to monitor the inspection data of the construction vehicle (see paragraph [0024], “Therefore, by storing the photographic data obtained by photographing each rental article when same is rented to a customer and returned from a customer, and so forth, it is possible to reliably make a judgment of whether or not damage to the rental article has been incurred in the course of the rental, and appropriate measures for such an accident can be easily taken”),
at warehouse entry and exit (see paragraph [0151], “The database further comprises: a warehousing/delivery basic information table 132 for recording basic information relating to a (delivery) procedure for removing a construction vehicle from a warehouse for delivery to a customer at the beginning of the rental period, and to a (warehousing) procedure for receiving the construction vehicle from the customer and putting the vehicle in the warehouse at the end of the rental period”, where removing and receiving correspond to entry and exit).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inspection system taught by for the purpose of monitoring vehicles at a warehouse, as taught by Shike. The motivation for doing so would be to optimize of maintenance of rental construction . Shike teaches in paragraph [0009], “Yet another problem is that optimized maintenance is difficult. In other words, as far as a vehicle which is being rented to a customer is concerned, because it is not possible for the rental company to independently identify the site where the vehicle is being used or the state of the vehicle, the rental company is unable to voluntarily send someone from the rental company to the site at the appropriate time to carry out maintenance on the vehicle”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the warehouse monitoring taught by Shike with the inspection system taught by Kusaki.
Kusaki fails to explicitly teach that the terminal displays a button to display the photograph in which the inspection portion is taken for each of the inspection items and the maintenance items.
However, in an analogous art, Fukuda teaches an inspection apparatus (see abstract),
which comprises buttons which can be used to display images of a portion of the inspection items and maintenance items (see paragraph [0038] “For example, when the inspector presses the position button image PB1 with an identifier “PI-101”, the display portion 120 displays a circuit configuration image including a meter in correspondence to the identifier “PI-101” and a photographic image of a part of the hydrogen station, the photographic image showing the meter in correspondence to the identifier “PI-101” and a structure around the meter”, where the meter is a portion of the inspection and maintenance items).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display button taught by Fukuda with the inspection system taught by Shike and Kusaki. The motivation for doing so would be to display images needed to complete the inspection, and thus reduce the risk of erroneous input. Fukuda teaches in paragraph [0038], “For example, when the inspector presses the position button image PB1 with an identifier “PI-101”, the display portion 120 displays a circuit configuration image including a meter in correspondence to the identifier “PI-101” and a photographic image of a part of the hydrogen station, the photographic image showing the meter in correspondence to the identifier “PI-101” and a structure around the meter. The inspector may check where the meter corresponding to the identifier “PI-101” is placed in the hydrogen station with reference to the circuit configuration image and the photographic image. Accordingly, there is a low risk of erroneous input of an inspection result”).
Kusaki in view of Shike and Fukuda fails to explicitly teach that the display section of the terminal displays a button "Allowed" indicating the inspection result without a problem, a button "Not Allowed" indicating the inspection result with some sort of problem, and a bar, wherein when any of the button "Allowed" and the button "Not Allowed" is selected as the input of the inspection result, a color of the selected button changes, and wherein when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes no problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Allowed" and when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes some sort of problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Not Allowed".
Shike teaches a single button which may be used to indicate the results of an inspection (see Shike, paragraph [0176], “’result’ indicating a favorable or unfavorable inspection result with respect to the various inspection items”, and see Fig .11, where the results of the inspection are indicated by a drop down button which states ‘Good’), but fails to teach two separate button in which colors change when selected.
However, in an analogous art, Engelbart teaches a system for inspection (see paragraph [0020], “Accordingly, the system and method may extensively reduce inspection cycle times and enhance accuracy of tow gap width measurements in fabrication of composite material"),
which comprises a terminal with a display section (see paragraph [0006], “A user interface may communicate with and be adapted to receive data analysis results from the data analysis computer”, and see Fig. 4, where the display of the user interface is shown,
wherein the display section displays a button "Pass" indicating the inspection result without a problem, a button "Fail" indicating the inspection result with some sort of problem (see paragraph [0023], “The pass/fail indicator 40 of the user interface 26 may include a pass button 40 a and a fail button 40 b. The data analysis computer 24 may be adapted to illuminate the pass button 40 a in the event that the calculated cumulative tow gap width meets the maximum allowable cumulative tow gap width criteria and may be adapted to illuminate the fail button 40 b in the event that the calculated cumulative tow gap width does not meet the maximum allowable cumulative tow gap width criteria”), and see corresponding Fig. 4, shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
214
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein when any of the button "Allowed" and the button "Not Allowed" is selected as the input of the inspection result, a color of the selected button changes (see paragraph [0024], “The pass button 40 a may be a highly-visible color such as red and the fail button 40 b may be a different color such as green, for example and without limitation”)”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pass and fail buttons taught by Engelbart with the inspection method taught by Kusaki, Shike, and Fukuda. The motivation to do so would be to clearly indicate the results of the inspection to the user (see paragraph [0024]). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Engelbart with the teachings of Kusaki, Shike, and Fukuda.
Kusaki, Shike, Fukuda, and Engelbart fail to explicitly teach that the display section comprises a bar, wherein when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes no problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Allowed" and when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes some sort of problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Not Allowed".
However, in an analogous art, Andersson teaches a user interface (see Abstract, “programmable user interaction control interface”)
which may display an indicator over a selected button (see paragraph [0060], “FIG. 30 illustrates navigation according to the third embodiment of the user interface 18…The brightness of the pushed button can be increased in order to indicate which operation program has been selected to the user. In order to further enhance clarity an indicator 11 can be displayed in the display above the button associated with the selected operation program”, and see corresponding Fig. 30, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
536
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed invention is directed towards displaying ‘a bar’ over each button, while Andersson teaches displaying a triangle over the selected button (see Andersson, Fig. 30). However, the shape of the indicator does not change the function of the indicator, which is to display which button is selected (see MPEP 2144.4, “ In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the indicator taught by Andersson with the pass and fail buttons taught by Engelbart such that when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes no problem, the indicator is displayed above the button "Pass" and when the previous inspection result included in the inspection report information includes some sort of problem, the bar is displayed above the button "Fail".
The motivation for doing so would be to clearly indicate which button is selected by the user (see paragraph [00060] of Andersson). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the buttons and indicators taught by Engelbart and Andersson with the teachings of Kusaki, Shike, and Fukuda in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Kusaki in view of Shike, Fukuda, Engelbart, and Andersson teaches the display section of the terminal has a first display region and a second display region, the first display region displays the photograph of the inspection portion, and the second display region displays related information on the inspection result (see Kusaki, Fig. 11, item 634, where a portion of inspection object is shown in the first half of display, and comments regarding the inspection portion are shown on the bottom half of the display, and see paragraph [0088], “The comment receiving region 614 receives an input of a comment by the service person 401”).
As to Claim 7, Kusaki in view of Shike, Fukuda, Engelbart, and Andersson teaches wherein the terminal outputs an inspection completion report that writes both of the previous inspection result and a current inspection result of the working machine (see Kusaki, paragraphs [0121] – [0123], “In this case, the inspection report creation section 340 creates an inspection report using the newest inspection data and inspection data (image data and a comment) of the same photographing object stored in the past report DB 382. For example, as an inspection report 700 as shown in FIG. 13, with respect to a same photographing object, inspection data of the time of creation of the inspection report of the last time and inspection data transmitted this time are presented in parallel”, and see Fig. 13, where previous inspection results are shown with current inspection results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knight et al. (US Pub No 20100217554) teaches displaying buttons which change color in respect to an inspection result. For example, if an item passes inspection, the button is green, and if the item fails inspection the color displayed is red.
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 SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/S.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664 /CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights