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 were previously pending. Claims 1, 3-7, 10-13, and 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 16-20 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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 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: “operation device” in claims 1-13 and 15-20, “driven element” in claim 2, and “communication 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: “operation device” in claims 1-13 and 15-20, “driven element” in claim 2, and “communication device” in claim 13 all use a generic placeholder “device” or “element” 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:
Operation device: page 13, line 5 – page 14, line 13 – The operation device 26… pedal device… lever device… The operation device 26 may be a hydraulic type… The operation device 26 may be an electric type.
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.
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.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer (US 2022/0139252 A1) in view of Braun (US 2013/0264139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sawyer discloses a machine (see at least [0090]) comprising: a cabin (see at least [0122] – cabin 7); an operation device provided in the cabin and configured to operate the machine (see at least [0102-0103] – controls 12); and circuitry configured to receive an operation input by an operator in the cabin through the operation device with respect to the machine (see at least [0102-0105] – controls 12 receive inputs from the student 2); receive an instruction relating to an operation of the machine from outside the machine (see at least [0106, 0129-0132, 0189-0191] – instructor 4 can select a task for the student 2 to perform); notify the operator of the received instruction relating to the operation of the machine (see at least Fig. 5, [0106, 0129-0132, 0145, 0206] – provide information to the student 2… instructor 4 can select a task for the student 2 to perform… tasks 82 including type of maneuver and variations of the maneuver… task details… cause the training device 6 to present a task for the operator/student 2 to perform, such as a movement of the vehicle); and move the machine according to the operation input by the operator having been notified of the received instruction (see at least Fig. 5, [0102-0106, 0122, 0129-0132, 0145, 0206] – controls 12 receive inputs from the student 2… control system 8 can send signals to the motion element 16 to move the cabin 7 in response to input to the controls 12 received from the student operator… cause the training device 6 to present a task for the operator/student 2 to perform, such as a movement of the vehicle).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose that the machine is a work machine. Sawyer’s machine may take various forms (see at least [0090]) and may emulate operation inputs by moving the cabin (see at least [0033, 0122]). However, Sawyer’s machine does not perform work.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work machine (see at least abstract – construction machinery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Braun into the invention of Sawyer with a reasonable expectation of success. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize Sawyer’s process in real construction machinery as taught by Braun, instead of in a simulator. The motivation of doing so is to create construction machinery that enables operation of all of the functions by a first person to the extent possible, but a second trained person can intervene in the events at any time when necessary for safety reasons (Braun – [0011]). This would provide more realistic training experience to better train the student on the actual operations of the construction machinery.
Regarding claim 2, Sawyer discloses wherein the instruction relating to the operation of the 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 machine and operating the driven element in a specific direction (see at least [0132]), a second instruction for an operation of specifying a movement constituting a work item and executing the movement (see at least [0132]), a third instruction for an operation of adjusting a movement speed of the machine (see at least [0132]), or a fourth instruction relating to a procedure of a plurality of movements or a procedure of a plurality of work items (see at least [0132]).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose that the machine is a work machine.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work machine (see at least abstract – construction machinery).
The motivation to combine Sawyer and Braun is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive the instruction relating to the operation of the machine from an instructor around the machine (see at least [0106]).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose that the machine is a work machine.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work machine (see at least abstract – construction machinery).
The motivation to combine Sawyer and Braun is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to report, to the operator, a discrepancy between a content of the received instruction of which the operator is notified and a content of the operation input by the operator having been notified of the received instruction, in response to determining presence of the discrepancy (see at least [0156, 0216] – deviation for a task 82 performed by the student 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to record, in a predetermined storage, a log representing presence of a discrepancy between a content of the received instruction of which the operator is notified and a content of the operation input by the operator having been notified of the received instruction, in response to determining the presence of the discrepancy (see at least [0120, 0156, 0164-0166, 0216] – deviation for a task 82 performed by the student 2).
Regarding claim 17, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive a method of operating the operation device as the instruction relating to the operation of the machine (see at least Fig. 5, [0106, 0129-0132, 0145, 0206] – provide information to the student 2… instructor 4 can select a task for the student 2 to perform… tasks 82 including type of maneuver and variations of the maneuver… task details… cause the training device 6 to present a task for the operator/student 2 to perform, such as a movement of the vehicle).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose that the machine is a work machine.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work machine (see at least abstract – construction machinery).
The motivation to combine Sawyer and Braun is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Sawyer discloses wherein the operation device includes a plurality of operation devices, and the circuitry is further configured to receive an instruction indicating a target operation device to be operated among the plurality of operation devices and indicating a direction in which the target operation device is to be operated, as the instruction relating to the operation of the machine (see at least Fig. 5, [0102-0106, 0129-0132, 0145, 0206] – provide information to the student 2… instructor 4 can select a task for the student 2 to perform… tasks 82 including type of maneuver and variations of the maneuver… the features can also relate to positions or inputs to controls, including positions of a stick or wheel, rudder pedals, brakes, throttle settings, forces applied to the controls, etc… cause the training device 6 to present a task for the operator/student 2 to perform, such as a movement of the vehicle).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose that the machine is a work machine.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a work machine (see at least abstract – construction machinery).
The motivation to combine Sawyer and Braun is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to display a screen including a plurality of images representing the plurality of operation devices, an image indicating the target operation device, and an image indicating the direction in which the target operation device is to be operated (see at least Fig. 5, [0132, 0205] - Another feature may describe settings of control elements of the vehicle, including settings for landing gear, flaps, ailerons, slats, rudders, elevators, stabilizers, air brakes, and the like. The features can also relate to positions or inputs to controls, including positions of a stick or wheel, rudder pedals, brakes, throttle settings, forces applied to the controls, etc.… user interface 100A includes training tasks field 106 which displays information about a task or tasks 82 to be performed by the student during the training session).
Regarding claim 20, Sawyer discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine presence or absence of a discrepancy between a content of the received instruction of which the operator is notified and a content of the operation input by the operator having been notified of the received instruction (see at least [0156, 0216] – deviation for a task 82 performed by the student 2).
Sawyer does not appear to explicitly disclose restrict a movement of the work machine in response to determining the presence of the discrepancy.
Braun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: restrict a movement of the work machine in response to determining the presence of the discrepancy (see at least abstract – when the first and second control devices are simultaneously actuated, the second control devices override the first control devices).
The motivation to combine Sawyer and Braun is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-13, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitation of claim 4 in its entirety:
“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”
Sawyer teaches the following limitations: wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive the instruction relating to the operation of the machine from the instructor (see at least [0106]).
Braun teaches the following limitations: the work machine (see at least abstract).
Nishi (WO 2020/032267 A1, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 12/29/2025 and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive a command relating to the operation of the work machine by recognizing a gesture representing the command relating to the operation of the work machine from the instructor based on sensing information representing a surrounding area 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).).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Sawyer to be implemented in a work machine as taught by Braun, and to further modify the invention such that the instruction received by the operator in the cabin is provided by recognizing a gesture performed by an instructor surrounding the work machine indicating the operation to be performed by the work machine. Although Nishi does disclose an operator surrounding the work machine performing a gesture to control the machine, Nishi does not disclose that the gesture is recognized as representing the instruction for operation of the work machine and is then provided as the instruction to the operator in the cabin. Combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would require impermissible hindsight.
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitation of claim 7 in its entirety:
“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; and authenticate the person around the work machine when the circuitry recognizes a first gesture of the person”
Nishi teaches the following limitations: a first sensor configured to acquire information relating to an object around the work machine or inside the 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, 0191, 0239, 0244-0245]); and authenticate the person around the work machine or inside the cabin in response to recognizing a first gesture of the person (see at least [0188]).
Burke (US 2020/0347643 A1) teaches the following limitations: to recognizing a first gesture of the person and then recognizing a second gesture of the same person (see at least [0099-0101] – determine the presence of an individual … gesture recognition may be used to authenticate an individual).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Sawyer to be implemented in a work machine as taught by Braun, and to further modify the invention such that a first sensor recognizes gestures of a person around the work machine and authenticates the person by recognizing a first gesture as taught by Nishi, and to further modify the invention to include Burke’s presence determination and gesture recognition for authentication. Combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would require impermissible hindsight.
Claims 8-13 and 15-17 are dependent upon claim 7, and therefore would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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