FINAL REJECTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under the prior rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art given the amendments.
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 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) method steps to identify a user including data processing functions which are all encompassed within mental processes using commonly processing of data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as construction machine (interpreted as intended usage phrase) a password a time point, a smart key, storage device, etc., when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory (password, setting and operation information stored in storage device), which are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 14 is interpreted similarly, wherein further conventional computer functions are performed to process data.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (US 20170240181 A1) in view of LOGHIN et al. (US 20220271810 A1) further in view of KIM et al. (US 20200290565 A1) further in view of AGINSKY et al. (US 8995981 B1).
Re claim 1. YU discloses (abstract) a construction machine [0004, 32] (under broadest reasonable interpretation – any work tool (i.e. computer, tablet, cellular smart phone, etc.) or vehicle (i.e. dump trucks, loaders, graders, tractors, combines, excavators, etc.) is capable of performing construction related work and considered a machine – FIG.1-2) comprising:
a storage device 110 configured to store data, [0007, 0074-76]
[0007] In one aspect the disclosure provides a fleet management system for a plurality of work vehicles each having a respective work tool. The work vehicles are associated with an owner and a plurality of operators. The fleet management system includes a source of input data that provides operator identification data for the work vehicles and operator permissions data that indicates at least which of the work vehicles each of the operators is permitted to operate. The fleet management system includes a remote processing system having a processor that receives and processes the operator identification and operator permissions data, outputs fleet management data that includes a fleet operator profile for the work vehicles based on the operator identification and operator permissions data, and communicates the fleet management data to a controller of each of the work vehicles.
[0074] The operator profile datastore 110 stores one or more tables (e.g., lookup tables) that provide operator profiles for each operator associated with a particular fleet of work vehicles 12 associated with a particular owner ID. In other words, the operator profile datastore 110 stores one or more tables that provide operator profile(s) 174 based on the fleet data 172. In one example, the operator profile(s) 174 comprises the operator data 136 received from the UI control module 102 and operator preferences 176 received from the communication control module 116. Thus, the operator profile datastore 110 may store one or more tables that provide the operator profile(s) 174 based on the fleet data 172. As an example, one or more tables can be indexed by various parameters such as, but not limited to, the owner, the fleet of work vehicles, etc., to provide the operator profile(s) 174.
a manipulation device (i.e. control system 200 is embedded within module 202 (FIG.3A-3B) [0082] – control system operates within the vehicle fleet of different machines/vehicles) configured to receive a command or data used (FIG.4-10) to control an operation [0007] of the construction machine (any of vehicles in FIG.1 – claim language should be changed to indicate construction machine is a vehicle itself or the same machine/vehicle as in preamble);
an output device 204 configured to generate at least one of information related to the operation of the construction machine;
a user login device 102 configured to identify a current user (steps 520-522) [0122-123] of the construction machine (FIG.1) as any one ([0059] – various levels of authority are determined for each operator ranging from full authority or restricted authority – commonly used in fields of various vehicle fleets) of a public user, a previous user, or a specific user (i.e. given that these types of users are not further defined, any user including that of owner or one of plurality of operators, which include ‘public’ operator or a new operator, which can be added (FIG.4-5) to plurality of operators, a ‘previous’ user or stored operator (FIG.8) to operate vehicle/machine and ‘specific’ user such as an owner performing various functions to adjust vehicle control permissions etc.);
[0123] At 522, the method processes the received operator ID data 220, and at 524, the method determines whether the received operator data 226 matches one of the operator profiles 246 stored in the operator datastore 208. If the operator data 226 matches, the method retrieves the operator profile 246 from the operator datastore 208 at 526. Otherwise, at 528, the method outputs the error operator interface 240 and ends at 530.
a processor [0009, 25-26, 36, 51] configured to control at least one of the user login device, a storage device, a manipulation device, and an output device.
However, YU fails to explicitly disclose:
output device configured to generate at least one of visual information, auditory information, and tactile information.
LOGHIN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention (a communication device 1 similar in operation to that of output module 204 of YU), wherein device 1 including an output interface 13 comprises generation of visual, auditory and tactile information 31 [0063] for the purpose of providing user perception in various forms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try modifying the output module as taught by LOGHIN to use either of visual, auditory and tactile information in order to provide information for different user perceptions as desired.
However, YU as modified by LOGHIN fails to explicitly disclose:
at which a smart key is used.
KIM teaches (abstract) in a similar and related field of invention (i.e. control system for construction machinery) (FIG.1) wherein a smart key is operated by an operator for the purpose of communicating control operations to construction machine [0045, 60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a smart key as taught by KIM instead of entering a PIN input as in YU in order to obtain a secure and easier method of identifying an authorized operator and eliminate the need for operator to remember PIN data.
However, YU as modified by LOGHIN and KIM fails to explicitly disclose:
based on usage of a password and a time point and apply the identified current user's settings to the construction machine,
wherein the specific user is a user logged in using the password and whose setting and operation information are stored in the storage device, the previous user is a last user that used the construction machine, and the public user is a user which is not the specific user or the previous user.
AGINSKY teaches (abstract) similar field of invention, a system and method using specific configurations for specific users (c.9, l.18-25) wherein such users would require their own passwords used at a point in time, for the purpose of applying the identified current user’s settings (claims 4, 33, 39).
4. The method of claim 2 wherein identifying at least one specific user further comprises identifying a plurality of specific users; wherein said control application establishes on said controlling device a unique function control interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique function control interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique function control interface accepting commands from said each specific user to exercise said control of said specific functions of said controllable device.
33. The programmable remote device of claim 25 further configured to: identify a plurality of users, wherein said application establishes on said remote device a unique user interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique user interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique user interface accepting commands from said each specific user.
One of ordinary skill in the art that any user from a plurality of users can be defined as a current user, specific user, etc. given that once plural users are defined as being able to use their own specific passwords, each user can be identified as being a current or prior user. In some cases, an administrator user with password and settings is defined.
Only the current user logged in with proper password, would be identified as the current user with specific preferred settings.
The prior art also teaches the known technique of defining plurality of users each with their password and specific settings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of defining each user as a distinct role, such as current user, prior user, public user, or administrator and guest, would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability for protecting certain functions from being achievable by certain users (i.e. limiting functions for specific user, such as a public user who may have more restricted functions).
Re claim 2. YU discloses (FIG.10 – steps 704-716) the construction machine of claim 1, wherein the user login device identifies the current user of the construction machine as the previous user when the same smart key as a previous user's smart key is recognized within a lock suspension time after the construction machine is turned off in a state in which a start lock function is activated.
(whether the recognized at least one key matches a previous user's key (i.e. FIG.8-10 – within steps 710-716 – an inputted PIN helps identify authorized operator), and apply the identified user's settings (steps 532-518/716) to the construction machine (i.e. setting up machine (i.e. operator preferences [0028]) with enable data 262 based on capability data 252 associated with operator profile 246, which comprises one or more control signals for engine…))
Re claim 3. YU discloses (FIG.10 – steps 704-716) discloses the construction machine of claim 2, wherein the user login device identifies the current user of the construction machine as the public user when at least one smart key recognized within the lock suspension time after the construction machine is turned off in a state in which the start lock function is activated is not the previous user's smart key, or when the at least one smart key is recognized after the lock suspension time is exceeded after the construction machine is turned off in the state in which the start lock function is activated.
Re claim 4. YU discloses (FIG.10 – steps 704-716) the construction machine of claim 2, wherein the user login device identifies the current user of the construction machine as a public user when the at least one smart key is recognized in a state in which the start lock function is deactivated (i.e. shutdown request processed).
Re claim 5. YU discloses (FIG.8-10) the construction machine of claim 1, wherein the user login device maintains the previous user's settings and operation information when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the previous user (i.e. authorized operator is considered previous user known to the system).
Re claim 6. YU discloses (FIG.8-10) the construction machine of claim 1, wherein the user login device initializes the previous user's settings and the operation information when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the public user (i.e. after adding a new operator).
Re claim 7. YU discloses (FIG.8-10) the construction machine of claim 1, wherein the user login device applies the specific user's settings and operation information that correspond to the password input by the specific user when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the specific user (i.e. once PIN is inputted as key by operator, corresponding operator data is obtained and processed).
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (US 20170240181 A1) in view of KIM et al. (US 20200290565 A1) further in view of AGINSKY et al. (US 8995981 B1).
Re claim 8. YU discloses (abstract – a s applied for claim 1) a construction machine (FIG.1-2) comprising:
a start lock device 210 configured to set a lock suspension time (FIG.3A-3B) based on an input of a previous user of the construction machine [0100]; and
a user login device 102 configured to
identify a current user (steps 520-522) [0122-123] of the construction machine (FIG.1) as any one ([0059] – various levels of authority are determined for each operator ranging from full authority or restricted authority – commonly used in fields of various vehicle fleets) of a public user, a previous user, or a specific user (i.e. given that these types of users are not further defined, any user including that of owner or one of plurality of operators, which include ‘public’ operator or a new operator, which can be added (FIG.4-5) to plurality of operators, a ‘previous’ user or stored operator (FIG.8) to operate vehicle/machine and ‘specific’ user such as an owner performing various functions to adjust vehicle control permissions etc.);
apply the identified current user’s settings to the construction machine. (steps 532-518/716)
However, YU fails to explicitly disclose:
at least one smart key interworking with a construction machine;
at which the at least one smart key is used.
KIM teaches (abstract) in a similar and related field of invention (i.e. control system for construction machinery) (FIG.1) wherein a smart key is operated by an operator for the purpose of communicating control operations to construction machine [0045, 60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a smart key as taught by KIM instead of entering a PIN input as in YU in order to obtain a secure and easier method of identifying an authorized operator and eliminate the need for operator to remember PIN data.
However, YU as modified by KIM fails to explicitly disclose:
based on usage of a password and a time point,
wherein the specific user is a user logged in using the password and whose setting and operation information are stored in the storage device, the previous user is a last user that used the construction machine, and the public user is a user which is not the specific user or the previous user.
AGINSKY teaches (abstract) similar field of invention, a system and method using specific configurations for specific users (c.9, l.18-25) wherein such users would require their own passwords used at a point in time, for the purpose of applying the identified current user’s settings (claims 4, 33, 39).
4. The method of claim 2 wherein identifying at least one specific user further comprises identifying a plurality of specific users; wherein said control application establishes on said controlling device a unique function control interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique function control interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique function control interface accepting commands from said each specific user to exercise said control of said specific functions of said controllable device.
33. The programmable remote device of claim 25 further configured to: identify a plurality of users, wherein said application establishes on said remote device a unique user interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique user interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique user interface accepting commands from said each specific user.
One of ordinary skill in the art that any user from a plurality of users can be defined as a current user, specific user, etc. given that once plural users are defined as being able to use their own specific passwords, each user can be identified as being a current or prior user. In some cases, an administrator user with password and settings is defined.
The prior art also teaches the known technique of defining plurality of users each with their password and specific settings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of defining each user as a distinct role, such as current user, prior user, public user, or administrator and guest, would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability for protecting certain functions from being achievable by certain users (i.e. limiting functions for specific user, such as a public user who may have more restricted functions).
Re claim 9. YU discloses (abstract – as for claim 1) a user login method (i.e. processes in FIG.4-10 – particularly FIG.8-10) comprising:
identifying (steps 520-522) [0122-123] a current user of a construction machine (FIG.1) as any one ([0059] – various levels of authority are determined for each operator ranging from full authority or restricted authority – commonly used in fields of various vehicle fleets) of a public user, a previous user, or a specific user (i.e. given that these types of users are not further defined, any user including that of owner or one of plurality of operators, which include ‘public’ operator or a new operator, which can be added (FIG.4-5) to plurality of operators, a ‘previous’ user or stored operator (FIG.8) to operate vehicle/machine and ‘specific’ user such as an owner performing various functions to adjust vehicle control permissions etc.); and
setting the construction machine (steps 532-518/716) based on the identified current user (i.e. setting up machine (i.e. operator preferences [0028]) with enable data 262 based on capability data 252 associated with operator profile 246, which comprises one or more control signals for engine…).
[0123] At 522, the method processes the received operator ID data 220, and at 524, the method determines whether the received operator data 226 matches one of the operator profiles 246 stored in the operator datastore 208. If the operator data 226 matches, the method retrieves the operator profile 246 from the operator datastore 208 at 526. Otherwise, at 528, the method outputs the error operator interface 240 and ends at 530.
However, YU fails to explicitly disclose:
at which a smart key is used.
KIM teaches (abstract) in a similar and related field of invention (i.e. control system for construction machinery) (FIG.1) wherein a smart key is operated by an operator for the purpose of communicating control operations to construction machine [0045, 60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a smart key as taught by KIM instead of entering a PIN input as in YU in order to obtain a secure and easier method of identifying an authorized operator and eliminate the need for operator to remember PIN data.
However, YU as modified by KIM fails to explicitly disclose:
based on usage of a password and a time point,
wherein the specific user is a user logged in using the password and whose setting and operation information are stored in the storage device, the previous user is a last user that used the construction machine, and the public user is a user which is not the specific user or the previous user.
AGINSKY teaches (abstract) similar field of invention, a system and method using specific configurations for specific users (c.9, l.18-25) wherein such users would require their own passwords used at a point in time, for the purpose of applying the identified current user’s settings (claims 4, 33, 39).
4. The method of claim 2 wherein identifying at least one specific user further comprises identifying a plurality of specific users; wherein said control application establishes on said controlling device a unique function control interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique function control interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique function control interface accepting commands from said each specific user to exercise said control of said specific functions of said controllable device.
33. The programmable remote device of claim 25 further configured to: identify a plurality of users, wherein said application establishes on said remote device a unique user interface for each specific user in said plurality of specific users, said unique user interface specific to said each specific user, and said unique user interface accepting commands from said each specific user.
One of ordinary skill in the art that any user from a plurality of users can be defined as a current user, specific user, etc. given that once plural users are defined as being able to use their own specific passwords, each user can be identified as being a current or prior user. In some cases, an administrator user with password and settings is defined.
The prior art also teaches the known technique of defining plurality of users each with their password and specific settings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of defining each user as a distinct role, such as current user, prior user, public user, or administrator and guest, would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability for protecting certain functions from being achievable by certain users (i.e. limiting functions for specific user, such as a public user who may have more restricted functions).
Re claim 10. YU discloses (as for claim 2) the user login method of claim 9, wherein the identifying the current user of the construction machine includes identifying the current user of the construction machine as the previous user when the same smart key as a previous user's smart key is recognized within a lock suspension time after the construction machine is turned off in a state in which a start lock function is activated.
Re claim 11. YU discloses (as for claim 5) the user login method of claim 10, wherein the setting the construction machine includes setting the construction machine to maintain the previous user's settings and operation information when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the previous user.
Re claim 12. YU discloses (as for claim 3) the user login method of claim 10, wherein the identifying the current user of the construction machine includes identifying the current user of the construction machine as the public user when the at least one smart key is recognized in a state in which the start lock function is deactivated or a smart key different from the previous user's smart key is recognized in a state in which the start lock function is activated.
Re claim 13. YU discloses (as for claim 6) the user login method of claim 12, wherein the setting the construction machine includes setting the construction machine to initialize the previous user's settings and operation information when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the public user.
Re claim 14. YU discloses (as for claim 7) the user login method of claim 9, wherein the setting the construction machine includes setting the construction machine to change the settings and operation information of the construction machine into settings and operation information that correspond to the password input by the specific user when the current user of the construction machine is identified as the specific user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 Form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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 CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 2/19/2026