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 .
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 limitations are:
“a construction data storage unit that stores a plurality of design surfaces” in claim 1;
“an expansion surface creation unit that creates…an expansion surface” in claim 1;
“a working equipment control unit that controls…working equipment” in claim 1;
“a toe of slope determination unit that determines whether a toe of slope is present” in claim 2;
“a input data acquisition unit that acquires input data from an input device” in claim 4;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Examiner interprets these limitations in light of ¶ [0028] and [0035-0036] where the “construction data storage unit”, “expansion surface creation unit”, and “input data acquisition unit” are part of a controller; the “working equipment control unit” and “toe of slope determination unit” are part of a control device; and the “input device” can be “a button switch, a computer keyboard, and[/or] a touch panel.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “A work machine comprising the control system of a work machine according to claim 1.” As structured, this claim is dependent on claim 1; however, no new limitations are introduced that further limit claim 1. Both a work machine and corresponding control system are introduced in claim 1, and claim 5 does not further limit those features with new limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. (JP 2014148893 A) in view of DenBraber et al. (US 6131061 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Nomura discloses a control method (claim 6) and system of a work machine (claim 1; see at least ¶ [0018] and [0023] of the machine translation), the control system comprising:
a construction data storage unit that stores a plurality of design surfaces set as an excavation object of the work machine (see at least ¶ [0006] and [0029] of the machine translation disclosing a storage unit for the display controller that holds a plurality of design surfaces for a design topography);
an expansion surface creation unit that creates, in a top-of-slope direction, an expansion surface obtained by expanding a target construction surface indicating a target shape of a slope of the excavation object designated from among the plurality of design surfaces (see at least ¶ [0033-0034] and [0046-0048] of the machine translation and Figs. 5-6 disclosing calculating and displaying an extension line of a target surface line that extends it beyond the top of a slope a hydraulic shovel is working);
and a working equipment control unit that controls, when the expansion surface is created in the top-of-slope direction, working equipment provided in the work machine based on the expansion surface in the top-of-slope direction and the target construction surface (see at least ¶ [0029], [0034], and [0046] of the machine translation disclosing controlling the hydraulic shovel in accordance to the target surface line and extension line calculated and presented in the display controller).
Nomura does not explicitly disclose the expansion surface creation unit that creates an expansion surface in a toe of slope direction,
and, when the expansion surface is created in the toe-of-slope direction, controlling the working equipment without using the expansion surface in the toe-of-slope direction.
However, DenBraber teaches an apparatus to prevent underdigging of a work machine operating on a slope, where an underdigging boundary is set up along the slope and/or underneath the work machine with corresponding half planes where the work machine is not permitted to excavate (see at least abstract; columns 3-4, lines 37-67 and 1-2; columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7; and Figs. 4, 6, and 8).
While DenBraber does not disclose an expansion line following a toe of slope direction of a target construction surface, what DenBraber demonstrates is that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious not to dig underneath the work machine to avoid destabilizing it or damaging the machine (see BACKGROUND OF ART in column 1 of DenBraber). While DenBraber demonstrates this at the top of a construction surface, this consideration is applicable to Nomura to avoid the work machine underdigging at the bottom of a construction surface to promote the same stability and avoid damage as taught. Therefore this suggests controlling the working equipment without using the expansion surface in the toe-of-slope direction and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the underdigging prevention measures of DenBraber into the target construction surface of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions use virtual lines to construct parallel planes to design surfaces that prevents a work machine from excavating beyond the design surfaces. This would prevent the work machine from taking damage caused by underdigging beneath the work machine in the toe-of-slope direction.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Nomura does not explicitly disclose determining whether a toe of slope is present at a boundary between the target construction surface and an adjacent design surface connected to the target construction surface among the plurality of design surfaces based on a relative position between the adjacent design surface and the expansion surface;
and controlling, when it is determined that the toe of slope is present, the working equipment based on the target construction surface and the adjacent design surface.
However, DenBraber teaches an apparatus to prevent underdigging of a work machine operating on a slope, where an underdigging boundary is set up along the slope and/or underneath the work machine with corresponding half planes where the work machine is not permitted to excavate (see at least abstract; columns 3-4, lines 37-67 and 1-2; columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7; and Figs. 4, 6, and 8), including the underdigging boundary being beneath a secondary boundary and/or a top periphery where adjacent half planes intersect (see at least column 3, lines 37-60 and columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7).
While DenBraber does not disclose an expansion line following a toe of slope direction of a target construction surface, what DenBraber demonstrates is that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious not to dig underneath the work machine to avoid destabilizing it or damaging the machine (see BACKGROUND OF ART in column 1 of DenBraber). While DenBraber demonstrates this at the top of a construction surface, this consideration is applicable to Nomura to avoid the work machine underdigging at the bottom of a construction surface to promote the same stability and avoid damage as taught. Additionally, DenBraber places adjacent half planes to form the underdigging boundary and one of the half planes is adjacent to the plane the work vehicle travels on. Therefore this suggests determining whether a toe of slope is present at a boundary between the target construction surface and an adjacent design surface connected to the target construction surface among the plurality of design surfaces based on a relative position between the adjacent design surface and the expansion surface; and controlling, when it is determined that the toe of slope is present, the working equipment based on the target construction surface and the adjacent design surface and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the underdigging prevention measures of DenBraber into the target construction surface of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions use virtual lines to construct parallel planes to design surfaces that prevents a work machine from excavating beyond the design surfaces. This would prevent the work machine from taking damage caused by underdigging beneath the work machine in the toe-of-slope direction.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Nomura does not explicitly disclose the toe of slope determination unit determines that the toe of slope is present when determining that the adjacent design surface is present at a position higher than the expansion surface at a same point in a horizontal direction.
However, DenBraber teaches an apparatus to prevent underdigging of a work machine operating on a slope, where an underdigging boundary is set up along the slope and/or underneath the work machine with corresponding half planes where the work machine is not permitted to excavate (see at least abstract; columns 3-4, lines 37-67 and 1-2; columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7; and Figs. 4, 6, and 8), including the underdigging boundary being beneath a secondary boundary and/or a top periphery where adjacent half planes intersect (see at least column 3, lines 37-60 and columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7).
While DenBraber does not disclose an expansion line following a toe of slope direction of a target construction surface, what DenBraber demonstrates is that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious not to dig underneath the work machine to avoid destabilizing it or damaging the machine (see BACKGROUND OF ART in column 1 of DenBraber). While DenBraber demonstrates this at the top of a construction surface, this consideration is applicable to Nomura to avoid the work machine underdigging at the bottom of a construction surface to promote the same stability and avoid damage as taught. Additionally, DenBraber places adjacent half planes to form the underdigging boundary and one of the half planes is adjacent to the plane the work vehicle travels on. Therefore this suggests the toe of slope determination unit determines that the toe of slope is present when determining that the adjacent design surface is present at a position higher than the expansion surface at a same point in a horizontal direction and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the underdigging prevention measures of DenBraber into the target construction surface of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions use virtual lines to construct parallel planes to design surfaces that prevents a work machine from excavating beyond the design surfaces. This would prevent the work machine from taking damage caused by underdigging beneath the work machine in the toe-of-slope direction.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Nomura discloses acquiring input data from an input device (see at least ¶ [0027-0029] and [0056] of the machine translation disclosing and input unit of the display device receiving operator input).
While Nomura suggests controlling, based on the input data, the working equipment based on the expansion surface in the top-of- slope direction and the target construction surface (see at least ¶ [0027-0029], [0034], [0046], and [0056] of the machine translation disclosing controlling the hydraulic shovel in accordance to the target surface line and extension line calculated and presented in the display controller and input to the display device from the operator), it does not explicitly disclose controlling the working equipment based on and an adjacent design surface connected to a lowermost portion of the target construction surface among the plurality of design surfaces without using the expansion surface in the toe-of-slope direction.
However, DenBraber teaches an apparatus to prevent underdigging of a work machine operating on a slope, where an underdigging boundary is set up along the slope and/or underneath the work machine with corresponding half planes where the work machine is not permitted to excavate (see at least abstract; columns 3-4, lines 37-67 and 1-2; columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7; and Figs. 4, 6, and 8), including the underdigging boundary being beneath a secondary boundary and/or a top periphery where adjacent half planes intersect (see at least column 3, lines 37-60 and columns 4-5, lines 40-67 and 1-7).
While DenBraber does not disclose an expansion line following a toe of slope direction of a target construction surface, what DenBraber demonstrates is that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious not to dig underneath the work machine to avoid destabilizing it or damaging the machine (see BACKGROUND OF ART in column 1 of DenBraber). While DenBraber demonstrates this at the top of a construction surface, this consideration is applicable to Nomura to avoid the work machine underdigging at the bottom of a construction surface to promote the same stability and avoid damage as taught. Additionally, DenBraber places adjacent half planes to form the underdigging boundary and one of the half planes is adjacent to the plane the work vehicle travels on. Therefore this suggests controlling the working equipment based on and an adjacent design surface connected to a lowermost portion of the target construction surface among the plurality of design surfaces without using the expansion surface in the toe-of-slope direction and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the underdigging prevention measures of DenBraber into the target construction surface of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions use virtual lines to construct parallel planes to design surfaces that prevents a work machine from excavating beyond the design surfaces. This would prevent the work machine from taking damage caused by underdigging beneath the work machine in the toe-of-slope direction.
Regarding claim 5, Nomura discloses a work machine comprising the control system of a work machine according to claim 1 (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights