DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-8 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 03/10/2026.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said interpretations.
(b) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
(c) The Applicant, via the claim amendments and arguments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0251961A1 (hereinafter, France), in further view of Kurokami et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0049476 (hereinafter, Kurokami).
Regarding Claim 1, France describes a display control device for acquiring a video of an area for work of a work machine provided with a bucket and displaying the video on a display (display device, which displays video on a display based on video of a work area of a work machine, including a bucket from the work machine, France, Paragraphs 0023-0026 and Figure 1), comprising:
-a terrain sensor that acquires terrain information indicating a three-dimensional shape of a terrain of the area for work (terrain sensor (e.g., LIDAR and RADAR and GPS systems), France, Paragraph 0025);
-an attitude sensor that acquires attitude information regarding an attitude of the work machine (attitude sensors to gather attitude information (e.g., angles) of the work machine, France, Paragraphs 0031-0035 and 0022-0025);
-a processor that calculates a position of the bucket in the area for work based on the attitude (work machine capable of determining (i.e., calculating) information regarding the work machine, such as the bucket position in the work area (i.e., attitude information), France, Paragraphs 0031-0037, and 0022-0025); information, and that generates an AR image to be overlaid over the video of the area for work and displayed on the display on the basis of the terrain information acquired from the terrain sensor and the calculated position of the bucket, wherein the processor generates, as the AR image (generate an AR image of the work area based on work area information and the position of the bucket, France, Paragraphs 0031 and 0035-0036 and Figures 2a and 2b): …
France does not specifically disclose the device to include a first figure highlighting a position of a claw tip of the bucket from a right end to a left end of the claw tip, and a second figure highlighting a part of a region adjacent to a region set as a non-display region of the AR image, the non-display region being a region including a portion in which the first figure is projected in a vertical direction or a front-rear direction of the area for work, the second figure avoiding highlighting the non-display region.
Kurokami discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kurokami describes a work machine wherein the work machine can highlight a position of the claw tip of the bucket (Kurokami, Paragraph 0073). Moreover, the work machine can highlight a part of the region adjacent to a non-display region (Kurokami, Paragraphs 0038-0039 Figures 2 and 12). Additionally, the non-display region can be a region which includes a portion for which the first figure is projected in a front-rear direction (e.g., an object seen via the transparent display) and the second figure is not highlighted (e.g., an object also seen in the transparent display) (Kurokami, Figure 12).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of France to include a first figure highlighting a position of a claw tip of the bucket from a right end to a left end of the claw tip, and a second figure highlighting a part of a region adjacent to a region set as a non-display region of the AR image, the non-display region being a region including a portion in which the first figure is projected in a vertical direction or a front-rear direction of the area for work, the second figure avoiding highlighting the non-display region, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kurokami.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying objects, such as the tip of the bucket allows for better visual by the operator and increased work efficiency (Kurokami, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, France, as modified, describes the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates: as the second figure, two figures highlighting portions corresponding to both ends of the first figure on a surface of the area for work when the first figure is projected in the vertical direction of the area for work (second figure highlighting various surfaces (e.g., 162, 164, 148, and 128), which can include surface area and the vertical direction of the work area, France, Paragraphs 0024 and 0033-0034 and Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 3, France, as modified, describes the display control device according to claim 2, wherein the processor generates, as the AR image, a line-like third figure connecting both ends of the first figure and the two figures of the second figure respectively, and extending in the vertical direction or the front-rear direction (highlighting various surfaces (e.g., 162, 164, 148, and 128), which can include surface area and the front-rear directions of the work area and these can be connected and/or extended, France, Paragraphs 0033-0034 and Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 4, France, as modified, describes the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates, as the first figure, a line-like figure indicating the position of a lower end of the bucket (edge of the lower end of the bucket (144), France, Paragraph 0033 and Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 5, France, as modified, describes the display control device according to claim 4, further comprising an object position calculation section that acquires detected information about an object present around the work machine to calculate the position of the object on the basis of the detected information, wherein the processor, if the object is present in the area for work, generates a fourth figure highlighting the position of at least a part of the object as the AR image (determining the position of objects and displaying / highlighting said objects in the AR display, France, Paragraph 0032 and Figure 2c).
Regarding Claim 6, France, as modified, describes the display control device according to claim 5, wherein the processor, if the object is present across the non-display region and a region for displaying the second figure, sets an upper-end portion of the object when the first figure is projected as a new non-display region, generates, as the fourth figure, a figure highlighting the upper-end portion of the object adjacent to the newly set first non-display region (can adjust the display to highlight desired regions, for example changing the width of the bucket can change to regions being highlighted or not highlighted, France, Paragraph 0041 and Figures 2C-4).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. U.S. 2018/0251961A1 (hereinafter, France), in view of Kurokami et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0049476A1 (hereinafter, Kurokami), in further view of Shiratani et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0136215A1 (hereinafter, Shiratani).
Regarding Claim 7, France describes the display control device according to claim 1.
France does not specifically disclose the device to include the processor switches a display mode of the AR image in accordance with a work state of the work machine.
Shiratani discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Shiratani describes the ability to switch AR image generation modes of the work machine (Shiratani, Paragraphs 0103-0107).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of France to include the processor switches a display mode of the AR image in accordance with a work state of the work machine, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Shiratani.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having the ability to display desired images and image information allows for the operator to view the desired construction related information (Shiratani, Paragraphs 0103-0107).
Regarding Claim 8, France describes the display control device according to claim 1.
France does not specifically disclose the device remote operation and an operation device that includes the display and provided in a position spaced apart from the work machine to operate the work machine while performing communication with the work machine.
Shiratani discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Shiratani describes the ability to operate and display information remotely (Shiratani, Paragraph 0150).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of France to include the device remote operation and an operation device that includes the display and provided in a position spaced apart from the work machine to operate the work machine while performing communication with the work machine, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Shiratani.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having the ability to display desired images and image information remotely allows for the operator to view the desired construction related information and operate not on site, thus increasing safety (Shiratani, Paragraph 0150).
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner finds that independent claim 1, considered as a whole, is directed to an improvement in the operation of the system itself and, therefore, amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–16 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Prosecution Insights