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 .
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As to claim 1, Applicant argues, broadly, that “Nishigori does not disclose the jog dial is positioned between the first lever and the second lever at a position facing the operator's seat from the back, as recited, in relevant part, in independent Claim 1.” Accordingly, Applicant argues that NISHIGORI is silent as to the following claim limitations:
“wherein the jog dial is positioned between the first lever and the second lever at a position facing the operator’s seat from the back”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. NISHIGORI anticipates the claim limitations at issue. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed invention does not claim the particular set of Cartesian coordinates or any specific locations of the levers or the jog dial. The Examiner notes that drawings can be used as prior art. FIG. 46 (the jog dial 81A) of NISHIGORI shows that the jog dial 81A is positioned between the operation lever 77R and the dozer lever 80 at a position facing the operator’s seat from the back.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the mapping of NISHIGORI to Applicant’s claimed invention is appropriate. Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 102 are maintained.
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:
“operation tool” in claim 4.
“authentication device” in claim 6.
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NISHIGORI et al., JP 2019116755 A, hereinafter referred to as NISHIGORI.
As to claim 1, NISHIGORI teaches a work machine including an upper body pivotably supported by a lower traveling body equipped with a soil removing device and a work unit supported by the upper body (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 8-10 regarding the work machine 1 includes a machine body (swivel base) 2, a traveling device 3, and a work device 4. A dozer device 7 is attached to the front of the traveling device 3), the work machine comprising:
a first lever arranged next to one side of an operator’s seat of the work machine and operating the work unit (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraph 37 regarding the operating lever 77R can also operate two operating objects, for example, the boom 15 and the bucket 17);
a second lever arranged on one side of the first lever and operating the soil removing device (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraph 38 regarding the dozer lever 80 is a lever for operating the dozer device 7);
a display device arranged in front of the operator’s seat, the first lever, and the second lever (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraph 119 regarding a display device 191); and
a jog dial for operating the display device (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraphs 34-39 and 119 regarding a display device 191 that is operated by a jog dial 81A),
wherein the jog dial is positioned between the first lever and the second lever at a position facing the operator’s seat from the back (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraphs 34-39 and 119 regarding a jog dial 81A).
As to claim 2, NISHIGORI teaches wherein the jog dial is arranged next to the first lever in plan view (see at least FIG. 46 and paragraphs 34-39).
As to claim 3, NISHIGORI teaches wherein a display unit of the display device is positioned above the jog dial at the position facing the operator’s seat from the back (see at least FIGS. 45-46 & 57 and paragraphs 34-39).
As to claim 4, NISHIGORI teaches wherein the display device includes an operation tool for operating the display device and the operation tool is arranged between the display unit and the jog dial at the position facing the operator’s seat from the back (see at least FIG. 57 and paragraph 122 regarding the button operation unit is a first switch 194 and a second switch 195. The first switch 194 and the second switch 195 are arranged side by side in the front and rear (up and down). The jog dial 81A, the first switch 194, and the second switch 195 constitute the first operating tool 81 for operating the display items displayed on the display unit 191a).
As to claim 5, NISHIGORI teaches wherein a key switch for activating a prime mover of the work machine is arranged on a console on which the first lever is erected, behind the first lever, and the jog dial is arranged above the key switch at the position facing the operator’s seat from the back (see at least FIGS. 46 & 61 and paragraph 39 regarding a power switch 82a for turning the power on and off).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIGORI et al., JP 2019116755 A, hereinafter referred to as NISHIGORI, in view of TAKEYASU et al., JP 2004288124 A, hereinafter referred to as TAKEYASU, and further in view of STUDEN, DE 10219249 A1, hereinafter referred to as STUDEN, respectively.
As to claim 6, NISHIGORI does not explicitly teach an authentication device that
However, such matter is taught by TAKEYASU (see at least paragraphs 97-114 regarding a password authentication process by the CPU 21 of the vehicle 1 will be described with reference to a flowchart of FIG. This processing is performed when a user of the vehicle 1 enters the vehicle 1 and turns on an ignition switch, or an action for operating the vehicle 1 (for example, an act of turning a key to start an engine). Is started. The CPU 21 determines whether or not the authentication of the authentication password has succeeded in the process of step S35, andproceeds to step S37 when determining that the authentication has succeeded. Notifying the telephone 2 of the successful authentication, and transmitting the number of the vehicle 1, GPS data, and vehicle information including the remaining fuel amount and the mileage. In step S38, the CPU 21 starts the engine by turning on the ignition switch after unlocking the vehicle 1 so as to allow the authenticated user to operate the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of TAKEYASU which teaches an authentication device that performs authentication operation for permitting the activation of the prime mover after the key switch is keyed on with the system of NISHIGORI as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling the vehicle based on the input, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having an authentication device that performs authentication operation for permitting the activation of the prime mover after the key switch is keyed on and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of NISHIGORI.
NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU, does not explicitly teach an authentication device that is provided adjacent to the jog dial.
However, such matter is taught by STUDEN (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 15-17 regarding a display 3 is arranged on a front surface 2 of the driver information unit 1, in which information to be output is displayed and which serves as the user interface of the driver information unit 1. For this purpose, push buttons 4 and a rotary knob 5 are arranged next to the display 3. Furthermore, a security unit 6 is embedded in an opening in the front surface 2, which has a fingerprint detection unit 7 and a release button 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of STUDEN which teaches an authentication device that is provided adjacent to the jog dial with the system of NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU, as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling the vehicle based on the input, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having an authentication device that is provided adjacent to the jog dial and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of NISHIGORI as modified by TAKEYASU.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIGORI et al., JP 2019116755 A, hereinafter referred to as NISHIGORI, in view of TAKEYASU et al., JP 2004288124 A, hereinafter referred to as TAKEYASU, in view of STUDEN, DE 10219249 A1, hereinafter referred to as STUDEN, and further in view of MATSUMOTO et al., US 2024/0375611 A1, hereinafter referred to as MATSUMOTO, respectively.
As to claim 7, NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN, does not explicitly teach wherein the jog dial is arranged in front of the authentication device.
However, such matter is taught by MATSUMOTO (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 41-43 and 55-59 regarding the rotary switch 144. The monitor controller 204 controls a display on the touch panel 145D included in the control system 145, and notifies occurrence of a touch operation on the touch panel 145D. The monitor controller 204 is an example of an authentication device that authenticates the operator of the work machine 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MATSUMOTO which teaches wherein the jog dial is arranged in front of the authentication device with the system of NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN, as both systems are directed to a system and method for activating a work machine, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the jog dial is arranged in front of the authentication device and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of NISHIGORI as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN.
As to claim 8, NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN, does not explicitly teach wherein the authentication device is arranged next to the second lever.
However, such matter is taught by MATSUMOTO (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 41-49 and 55-59 regarding the right operation lever 143RO and the right travel lever 143RT. The monitor controller 204 controls a display on the touch panel 145D included in the control system 145, and notifies occurrence of a touch operation on the touch panel 145D. The monitor controller 204 is an example of an authentication device that authenticates the operator of the work machine 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MATSUMOTO which teaches wherein the authentication device is arranged next to the second lever with the system of NISHIGORI, as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN, as both systems are directed to a system and method for activating a work machine, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the authentication device is arranged next to the second lever and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of NISHIGORI as modified by TAKEYASU and STUDEN.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached 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 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666