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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/848,586 and the preliminary amendments filed on 09/19/2024.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “swing body”, “support” in Claims 1, 9 and 10; “movement control unit” in claims 1, 3-5 and 8; have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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 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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5 and 8, claim elements ““movement control unit” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding claimed function in claims 1, 3-5, 8 and the specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claim function. Therefore, the claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependency on the rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “movement control unit” to perform the corresponding claimed function in claims 1, 3-5 and 8. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of their dependency on the rejected claims.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 cites the limitation “a plan view from above”, which seems to be incomplete statement. Does the applicant mean a “plan view above the loading target”? then the follow up limitation “that is lower than the loading target” conflicts an interest. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of their dependency on the rejected claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Konda et al. (US 2020/0263385) teaches a control device for a loading machine (See Para. [0017], Fig. 1, “loading machine 100”) comprising a swinging body (See Fig. 1, Para. [0018], “swing body 120”) that swings about a swing center (See Para. [0007], “a swing body swinging about a center”), a support that supports the swinging body (See Para. [0018], “The swing body 120 is supported by the traveling body 110”), and work equipment (See Para. [0018],-[0019], Fig. 1, “work equipment 130”) that is composed of multiple link components including a work tool and that is attached to the swinging body (See Para. [0019], “The work equipment 130 includes a boom 131, a boom cylinder 134, an arm cylinder 135, are attached to swing body 120”), wherein: the control device comprises a movement control unit that performs automated control for automatically moving the work tool from above a loading target to a goal position that is distanced from the loading target in a plan view from above and that is lower than the loading target (See Para. [0007], “a movement processing unit [i.e., movement control unit] configured to generate an operation signal for moving the bucket [i.e., work tool as claimed] to a loading point”, and see Para. [0058], “he outer shape of the bucket 133 does not interfere with the loading object 200 in the plan view, and which is closest to the loading position P13”, and Para. [0083], “the height of the bucket 133 is lower than the loading point P21, the loading machine 100 further generates an operation signal for raising the work equipment 130”); and
the movement control unit, during the automated control,
outputs an operation signal for swinging the swinging body until a portion of the swinging body to which the work equipment is attached faces the goal position (See Para. [0007], [0030], discloses “a movement processing unit configured to generate an operation signal of the work equipment and the swing body for moving the bucket to a loading point based on an start command of an automatic movement of the bucket; and a stop processing unit configured to brake the swing of the swing body based on a stop command of the automatic movement of the bucket, and further configured to generate an operation signal for retracting [which constitutes that the work equipment is attached faces the goal position] the work equipment when a height of the bucket is lower than the loading point.”),
outputs an operation signal for upwardly actuating a first link component, which is one of the multiple link components (See Para. [0071]-[0072], “the boom 131 [construed as fist link component] rises [i.e., upwardly actuating the boom] from the excavation completion position P10 toward the swing start position P11.”, and/or see Para. [0077], “processing unit 1108 generates an operation signal for raising the boom 131 [construed as first link component]”. Additionally, see Para. [0060], “When the position of the tip of the arm 132 is not in the vicinity of the interference avoidance position P12, the movement processing unit 1107 generates an operation signal of the boom 131 [i.e., first link component] and the arm 132 [i.e., second link component] that moves the tip of the arm 132 to the interference avoidance position P12”),
outputs an operation signal for downwardly actuating the first link component and the second link component (See Para. [0073], “during the period from the interference avoidance position P12 to the loading position P13, the tip of the arm 132 is moved only by swing the swing body 120 without relying on the driving of the work equipment 130. During the movement of the arm 132 from the swing start position P11 to the loading position P13, the swing body 120 decelerates so that the position of the tip of the arm 132 becomes equal to the loading position P13”).
Another prior art, Shovick (US 3,807,589) cited in claim 1 that a dipper stick and a pivotally mounted bucket on the outer end of said dipper stick movable by a fluid motor between a substantially vertical loaded position and a forwardly and upwardly pivoted unloading position.
Another prior art, Padgett et al. (US 6,643,577 B1) discloses in page 6, lines 48-68 that “the second longitudinal axis controller 47 controls the vertical movement of the boom 16 [construed as first link component] and extends between a boom down position 16a and a boom up position 16b, and the second lateral axis controller 48 controls the movement of the stick 14 and extends between the stick out 14a and the stick in position 14b. The first longitudinal axis controller 45 controls the movement of the pair of arms 17 and extends between the arms lowered position 17a and the arms lifted position 17b, and the first lateral axis controller 46 controls the movement of the loader bucket 18 and extends between the loader rack position 18a and the loader dump position 18b”.
Another, prior art, Myers et al. (US 2019/0360175 A1) (hereinafter Myers) discloses in Para. [0035], “the boom 90 may be moved from the loading position as illustrated in FIG. 1A to the carrying position. This may be accomplished by extending the hydraulic cylinders 340 and simultaneously rolling back the attachment 100 to the carry position by retracting the intermediate hydraulic cylinder 270. In the carry position, the load in the implement may be transported to another location where it is to be discharged.” Furthermore, Myers discloses in Para. [0037], “the boom sensor 120 (shown in FIG. 3) may be associated with the vertical pivoting motion of the attachment 100 imparted by hydraulic cylinders 340 (i.e. associated with the lifting and lowering motions [i.e., upwardly and downwardly movement] of boom arms 150 [i.e., second link component as claimed] relative to frame 50 [i.e. work equipment])”.
Nevertheless, the cited prior arts explicitly spell out where “output an operation signal for upwardly actuating a first link component, when the work tool is positioned above the loading target; and output an operation signal for downwardly actuating a second link component, when the work tool is positioned above the loading target, and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1, and therefore, they would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 9 is directed to a loading machine control method corresponding to a control device for a loading machine claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter. Therefore, claim 9 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 10 is directed to a control system for a loading machine claim corresponding to a control device for a loading machine claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter. Therefore, claim 10 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657