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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2024 and January 5, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “Disclosed is” on line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shintani et al. (USPGPub 2021/0332566).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11: Shintani discloses a method and control system (as seen in figures 1-20) of a work machine (as seen in figure 2, generally 100), the control system comprising:
a construction data storage unit (as seen in figure 5, at 205; also, page 9, paragraph [0118]) that stores a plurality of design surfaces set as a construction object of the work machine;
a selection unit that selects a plurality of adjacent design surfaces (as seen In figure 6, at line G1 which contains 2 “surfaces”) to be offset (as seen in figure 6, at line G2 which contains 2 “surfaces”) in directions that are perpendicular to the design surfaces (as seen in figure 6) from among the plurality of design surfaces; and
an offset control unit (as seen in figure 11, at 207) that edits the selected design surfaces and offsets the edited design surfaces in the perpendicular directions (page 6, paragraph [0082] and pages 7 and 8, paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 2: Shintani discloses the control system of a work machine of claim 1. Further, Shintani discloses a working equipment control unit (as seen in figure 3, at 126) that controls working equipment provided in the work machine based on the design surfaces after being edited and offset (page 9, paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 3: Shintani discloses the control system of a work machine of claim 1. Further, Shintani discloses a display control unit (as seen in figure 3, at 127; also, page 2, paragraph [0045]) that causes a display device (as seen in figure 3, at 128) to display the design surfaces.
Regarding method claim 9: Shintani discloses the control method of a work machine of claim 8. Further, Shintani discloses controlling working equipment provided in the work machine based on the design surfaces after being edited and offset (page 9, paragraph [0114]).
Regarding method claim 10: Shintani discloses the control method of a work machine of claim 8. Further, Shintani discloses causing a display device to display the design surfaces (as seen in figure 6, at G2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 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 does not disclose or reasonably suggest in a control system of work machines wherein the control system comprising editing of the design surfaces includes forming each of the design surfaces after being offset into a quadrangle based on vertices of each of the design surfaces before being offset or wherein the third design surface is adjacent to the first design surface, and when the second design surface and the third design surface after being edited and offset intersect each other, the offset control unit further edits the first design surface, the second design surface, and the third design surface after being edited and offset. The closest prior art is that applied in the above rejection (Shintani et al. (USPGPub 2021/0332566). No other prior art found discloses or suggests editing of design surfaces into quadrangle based on vertices or the repetitive editing of design surfaces based on relative locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Igarashi et al. (USPGPub 2024/0376691) discloses a control system for a work machine employing perpendicular offset means.
Meguriya et al. (USPGPub 2024/0026656) discloses a control system having a targeted computing section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights