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 . Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “circuitry configure to” but should instead recite --circuitry configured to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “driven element” in claim 2, “predetermined storage unit” in claim 6, “communication device” in claim 13, and “terminal device” in claim 13.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “driven element” in claim 2, “predetermined storage unit” in claim 6, “communication device” in claim 13, and “terminal device” in claim 13 all use a generic placeholder “element”, “unit”, or “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Driven element: page 6, lines 22-27 - For example, the shovel 100 operates driven elements such as the lower traveling body 1 (that is, the pair of left and right crawlers 1CL and 1CR), the upper turning body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 in response to an operation of an operator who boards the cabin 10.
Storage unit: page 21, lines 5-32 - The functions of the controller 30 may be implemented by given hardware, or a combination of given hardware and software, or the like. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the controller 30 includes an auxiliary storage device 30A, a memory device 30B, a central processing unit (CPU) 30C, and an interface device 30D, which are connected to each other via a bus B1. The auxiliary storage device 30A is a non-volatile storage unit, and stores a program to be installed. The auxiliary storage device 30A is, for example, an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a flash memory, or the like. The memory device 30B loads a program in the auxiliary storage device 30A so that the CPU 30C can read the program, for example, when an instruction to start the program is given. The memory device 30B is, for example, a static random access memory (SRAM).
Communication device: page 20, lines 1-24 - The communication device 60 is connected to an external communication line NW and communicates with a device provided separately from the shovel 100. The device provided separately from the shovel 100 may include a portable terminal device (mobile terminal) brought into the cabin 10 by the user of the shovel 100, in addition to the device outside the shovel 100. The communication device 60 may include, for example, a mobile communication module complying with a standard such as 4G (4th Generation) or 5G (5th Generation). The communication device 60 may include, for example, a satellite communication module. The communication device 60 may include, for example, a WiFi communication module or a Bluetooth (registered trademark) communication module. The communication device 60 may include a plurality of communication devices according to the communication line NW to be connected.
Terminal device: page 9, lines 7-23 - The terminal device for management may be, for example, a stationary terminal device such as a desktop personal computer (PC) or a portable terminal device (mobile terminal) such as a tablet terminal, a smartphone, or a laptop PC.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-6 and 10-14 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.
Claim 5 recites “report to the user when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine.” It is unclear what is meant by provided by notification. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is reported to the user when there is a discrepancy between the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine and the operation input to the work machine.
Claim 6 recites “record a log in a predetermined storage unit, when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine, the log representing the discrepancy.” It is unclear what is meant by provided by notification. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is recorded in a log when there is a discrepancy between the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine and the operation input to the work machine.
Claim 10 recites “an object around the work machine” and “a person around the work machine” and it is unclear if these are referring to the same object/person or a different one which is recited in claim 7. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that they are referring to the same object and person.
Claim 11 recites “a person” and it is unclear if this is referring to the same person or a different one which is recited in claims 7 and 10. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that they are referring to the same person.
Claim 12 recites “the detected person” and “the authenticated person” and it is unclear if this is referring to the same person or a different one which is recited in claims 7 and 10. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that they are referring to the same person.
Claim 13 recites “a user” and it is unclear if this is the same or a different user as the one recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that they are referring to different users.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 13 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A work machine comprising: circuitry configure to: receive an operation input by a user with respect to the work machine; receive an instruction relating to an operation of the work machine from outside the work machine; and notify the user of the received instruction relating to the operation of the work machine.”
The limitations of receiving an operation input, receiving an instruction, and notifying the user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “circuitry configure to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “circuitry configure to” language, receiving an operation input, receiving an instruction, and notifying the user in the context of the claim encompasses a person observing or perceiving actions performed by the operator and the instructor and communicating those observations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using circuitry to perform the recited steps. The circuitry recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic circuitry performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations of receiving an operation input and receiving an instruction can also be considered an additional element because they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data/input/instructions) and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of notifying the user is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic output) and is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Sending and receiving signals/instructions have been held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept-rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-13 and 15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 14 integrates the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application by reciting “a movement of the work machine is remotely operated, in response to a signal from the terminal device.”
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishi (WO 2020/032267 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Nishi discloses a work machine comprising: circuitry configure to: receive an operation input by a user with respect to the work machine (see at least [0235] – operation inputs for allowing an operator to remotely operate the operating elements of the excavator 100); receive an instruction relating to an operation of the work machine from outside the work machine (see at least [0186, 0192, 0239, 0244-0245] – control the operating elements of the excavator 100 in accordance with a gesture recognized by the operator outside the excavator 100); and notify the user of the received instruction relating to the operation of the work machine (see at least [0239, 0244-0245] – a notification allowing the remote operator to recognize that operation of the shovel by a worker at the work site based on the gesture operation function takes priority and that remote operation is prohibited).
Regarding claim 2, Nishi discloses wherein the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine includes at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a first instruction for an operation of specifying a driven element of the work machine and operating the driven element in a specific direction (see at least [0191, 0195-0202]), a second instruction for an operation of specifying a movement constituting a work item and executing the movement (see at least [0191, 0195-0202]), a third instruction for an operation of adjusting a movement speed of the work machine, or a fourth instruction relating to a procedure of a plurality of movements or a procedure of a plurality of work items.
Regarding claim 3, Nishi discloses wherein the circuitry receives the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine from an instructor around the work machine (see at least [0186, 0192, 0239, 0244-0245] – control the operating elements of the excavator 100 in accordance with a gesture recognized by the operator outside the excavator 100).
Regarding claim 4, Nishi discloses wherein the circuitry recognizes a gesture representing the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine from the instructor, based on sensing information representing a surrounding area of the work machine, to receive the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine (see at least [0186, 0192, 0239, 0244-0245] – gesture recognition unit 301 recognizes people around the shovel 100, such as workers and work site supervisors and recognizes predetermined gestures made by the recognized workers… control the operating elements of the excavator 100 in accordance with a gesture recognized by the operator outside the excavator 100).
Regarding claim 5, Nishi discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: report to the user when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine (see at least [0191, 0239, 0244-0245] – a notification allowing the remote operator to recognize that operation of the shovel by a worker at the work site based on the gesture operation function takes priority and that remote operation is prohibited).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Friend (US 2014/0303923 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: record a log in a predetermined storage unit, when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine, the log representing the discrepancy.
However, Nishi does disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: report to the user when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine (see at least [0191, 0239, 0244-0245] – a notification allowing the remote operator to recognize that operation of the shovel by a worker at the work site based on the gesture operation function takes priority and that remote operation is prohibited).
Friend, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the circuitry is further configured to: record a log in a predetermined storage unit, when there is a discrepancy between a content of the instruction relating to the operation of the work machine provided by notification and a content of a subsequent actual operation input to the work machine, the log representing the discrepancy (see at least [0043-0044, 0050-0051] – difference in position… error signal results in the issuance of an alert notification to an operator, an alert notification logged by control system 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Friend into the invention of Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that logged notifications can provide an indication of how often there is a discrepancy, what the discrepancy is, and any other relevant data that can be used for evaluation of how the operator or machine is performing. Storing instances of discrepancies would be generally obvious, since storing data allows it to be retrieved for later use such as improving future performance and safety of the machine.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Burke (US 2020/0347643 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nishi discloses further comprising: a first sensor configured to acquire information relating to an object around the work machine or inside a cabin, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: recognize gestures of a person around the work machine or inside the cabin, based on an output of the first sensor (see at least [0186, 0192, 0239, 0244-0245] – gesture recognition unit 301 recognizes people around the shovel 100, such as workers and work site supervisors and recognizes predetermined gestures made by the recognized workers… the gesture recognition unit 301 applies known image recognition processing based on information input from the spatial recognition device 70… control the operating elements of the excavator 100 in accordance with a gesture recognized by the operator outside the excavator 100); and authenticate the person around the work machine when the circuitry recognizes a first gesture of the person (see at least [0188] - if a worker or the like continues to stare at the lens of the imaging device serving as the spatial recognition device 70 for a certain period of time or more, the gesture recognition unit 301 may recognize and register the worker or the like as a gesture indicator).
Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose authenticate the person around the work machine when the circuitry recognizes a first gesture of the person and then the circuitry recognizes a second gesture of a same person.
Burke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: authenticate the person around the work machine when the circuitry recognizes a first gesture of the person and then the circuitry recognizes a second gesture of a same person (see at least [0099-0101] – determine the presence of an individual… gesture recognition may be used to authenticate an individual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Burke into the invention of Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that gestures can be user-defined for authenticating authorized individuals (Burke – [0100]). Once a human figure is detected, further processing may be used to identify certain gestures (Burke – [0101]). Specifically, implementing a two-step process for authenticating a user is well-known in various applications. The first step of identifying a person entering a predetermined area and being detected and a second step of performing a user-specific gesture would yield predictable results of improving security by only allowing certain individuals gesture based control over the machine.
Regarding claim 8, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second gesture is a gesture different from an action performed by another person present around the work machine or inside the cabin.
Burke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second gesture is a gesture different from an action performed by another person present around the area (see at least [0099-0101] – particular gestures are user-defined).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Burke is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first gesture includes an action of the person around the work machine approaching the work machine.
Burke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first gesture includes an action of the person around the area approaching the area (see at least [0074, 0097, 0099-0101] – user or occupant entering a designated area… determine the presence of an individual).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Burke is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above. Furthermore, Nishi already discloses the first gesture is looking into a camera lens and modifying this first gesture to be something such as approaching a camera would yield predictable results since Nishi and Burke teach various different types of gestures.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Burke and Frame (US 2003/0151508 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a second sensor configured to acquire information relating to an object around the work machine, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect a person around the work machine, based on an output of the second sensor; and activate a predetermined safety function when the person has been detected within a predetermined range around the work machine, and wherein the circuitry prohibits the activation of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine, relaxes the activation of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine, or relaxes an activation condition of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine.
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second sensor configured to acquire information relating to an object around the work machine (see at least Figs. 1, 4, [0013, 0022] – identify workers entered work zone), wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect a person around the work machine, based on an output of the second sensor (see at least Figs. 1, 4, [0013, 0022] – identify workers entered work zone); and activate a predetermined safety function when the person has been detected within a predetermined range around the work machine (see at least Figs. 1, 4, [0022] – an unauthorized worker is identified as being within the work zone of the vehicle, an alarm is activated), and wherein the circuitry prohibits the activation of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine, relaxes the activation of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine, or relaxes an activation condition of the predetermined safety function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine (see at least Figs. 1, 4, [0022] – identify workers entered work zone… if the worker is authorized, the process loops back and continuously repeats… if the worker is unauthorized an alarm is activated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Frame into the invention of Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is for enhancing the safety in a work zone surrounding operating equipment by identifying workers within said work zone, determining if they are authorized or not, and warning unauthorized workers within said work zone (Frame – [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined safety function includes a reporting function configured to report that a person has been detected within the predetermined range, and wherein the circuitry prohibits or relaxes activation of, or relaxes an activation condition of: a part of the reporting function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine.
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined safety function includes a reporting function configured to report that a person has been detected within the predetermined range, and wherein the circuitry prohibits or relaxes activation of, or relaxes an activation condition of: a part of the reporting function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine (see at least Figs. 1, 4, [0022] – identify workers entered work zone… if the worker is authorized, the process loops back and continuously repeats… if the worker is unauthorized an alarm is activated).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Frame is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined safety function includes a first reporting function configured to report to at least one of an operator of the work machine or surroundings of the work machine, and a second reporting function configured to report to the detected person, and wherein the circuitry prohibits or relaxes activation of, or relaxes an activation condition of only the second reporting function, from among the first reporting function and the second reporting function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine.
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined safety function includes a first reporting function configured to report to at least one of an operator of the work machine or surroundings of the work machine, and a second reporting function configured to report to the detected person (see at least Figs. 1-4, [0020] - If the vehicle mounted control unit 24 determines that the received code from a worker's portable unit 40 is that of an authorized worker, no further action is taken. If the code does not match, the alarms 74, 76 are activated to warn the vehicle operator 28. The unit 24 further transmits an alarm signal to the portable unit 40 of the unauthorized worker, e.g., 32, which, in turn, activates his alarms 98, 100.), and wherein the circuitry prohibits or relaxes activation of, or relaxes an activation condition of only the second reporting function, from among the first reporting function and the second reporting function when the authenticated person has been detected within the predetermined range around the work machine (see at least Figs. 1-4, [0020, 0022] – identify workers entered work zone… if the worker is authorized, the process loops back and continuously repeats… if the worker is unauthorized an alarm is activated).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Frame is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a communication device configured to communicate with a terminal device carried by a user of the work machine, wherein the circuitry transmits a signal for requesting the second gesture to the terminal device through the communication device when the first gesture is recognized.
Burke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second gesture after a first gesture is recognized (see at least [0099-0101] – determine the presence of an individual… gesture recognition may be used to authenticate an individual).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Burke is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a communication device configured to communicate with a terminal device carried by a user of the work machine, wherein the circuitry transmits a signal for requesting authorization to the terminal device through the communication device when a first action is recognized (see at least [0020] - During operation, the vehicle transceiver of the vehicle mounted control unit 24 transmits an interrogation signal, in effect, looking for workers within its zone of danger or work zone 80. If a worker comes within the zone, his potable unit receives the interrogation signal, transmits its code to the vehicle unit. If the vehicle mounted control unit 24 determines that the received code from a worker's portable unit 40 is that of an authorized worker, no further action is taken.).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Frame is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Nishi, Burke, and Frame to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Frame teaches communicating between a communication device of the work machine and a terminal device carried by a user such that in response to a first action (entering a work zone) the terminal device communicates to identify whether a user is authorized. Burke teaches identifying whether a user is authorized by performing a first gesture (entering a work zone) and a second gesture (unique to the user to identify the user). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed invention and yield predictable results. This method would allow the terminal device carried by the user to notify the user that they need to perform the gesture to identify themselves, while also ensuring that an unauthorized user isn’t carrying an authorized user’s device. This method would therefore improve security and safety.
Regarding claim 14, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a movement of the work machine is remotely operated, in response to a signal from the terminal device.
However, Nishi does disclose wherein a movement of the work machine is remotely operated, in response to a signal indicating authorization (see at least [0186, 0192, 0239, 0244-0245] – gesture recognition unit 301 recognizes people around the shovel 100, such as workers and work site supervisors and recognizes predetermined gestures made by the recognized workers… the gesture recognition unit 301 applies known image recognition processing based on information input from the spatial recognition device 70… control the operating elements of the excavator 100 in accordance with a gesture recognized by the operator outside the excavator 100).
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the signal indicating authorization is from the terminal device (see at least [0020] - During operation, the vehicle transceiver of the vehicle mounted control unit 24 transmits an interrogation signal, in effect, looking for workers within its zone of danger or work zone 80. If a worker comes within the zone, his potable unit receives the interrogation signal, transmits its code to the vehicle unit. If the vehicle mounted control unit 24 determines that the received code from a worker's portable unit 40 is that of an authorized worker, no further action is taken.).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Frame is the same as in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Nishi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: activate a predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine, and wherein the circuitry prohibits the activation of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person, relaxes the activation of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person, or relaxes an activation condition of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person.
Frame, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the circuitry is further configured to: activate a predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine (see at least Figs. 1-4, [0020, 0022] – identify workers entered work zone… if the worker is authorized, the process loops back and continuously repeats… if the worker is unauthorized an alarm is activated), and wherein the circuitry prohibits the activation of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person, relaxes the activation of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person, or relaxes an activation condition of the predetermined security function for access to or operation of the work machine by the authenticated person (see at least Figs. 1-4, [0020, 0022] – identify workers entered work zone… if the worker is authorized, the process loops back and continuously repeats… if the worker is unauthorized an alarm is activated).
The motivation to combine Nishi and Frame is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Bodensteiner (US 2018/0101235 A1) is directed to a material handler system including a plurality of components and material handler equipment, and methods for utilizing the same, is disclosed. A first component includes gesture command recognition and enhancement for controlling material handler equipment. A second component includes a safeguarding engine for testing the gesture command inputs and improving reliability of the gesture command recognition. A location tracking feature for tracking a location of the material handler equipment in view of a geo-fence is also referenced by the material handler system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights