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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) despite not including “means”.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorvik (US 2021/0144936) in view of Mouthaan (US 2018/0156622).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Priority
The priority date of this application is 04/19/2022.
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: “prohibition unit”, “determination unit”, “communication unit”, “reception unit”, “transmission unit”, “output unit” in claims 1-18. Note: the specification discloses a processor in Paragraph [0012] that functions as these units which represents sufficient structure to perform the stated functions.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A step-by-step analysis has been provided below:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes, this claim is directed towards a system (machine).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim recite a judicial exception?
Yes, the claim discloses “determin[ing] whether or not the position is within a felling prohibition area”.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the additional elements recited represent insignificant extra-solution activity, “receives a position…”, “outputs information…”.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the additional elements recited represent insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore does not cause the claim as-a-whole to represent significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorvik in view of Mouthaan. These references are analogous as both references are related to prohibiting action of a machine based on the area that machine is located in.
As per Claim 1:
Sorvik discloses the following limitations:
“A forestry machine provided with work equipment… the forestry machine comprising: a position measurement device that measures a position of the forestry machine”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches identifying a location of a forestry machine.
“is within a felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
Sorvik does not disclose the following limitations that Mouthaan teaches:
“…having a cutting tool for felling a tree…and a prohibition unit that prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the measured position…”
Mouthaan [0051] teaches prohibiting the use of a working implement of a working vehicle based on the location of said working vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Sorvik with the disabling of a work implement on a work vehicle based on the location of said vehicle taught by Mouthaan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by preventing action in a prohibited area.
With regards to Claim 2, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“an undercarriage that travels together with the work equipment, wherein the undercarriage is drivable in a case in which driving of the work equipment is prohibited by the prohibition unit.”
Mouthaan Figure 3A teaches a figure with an independent travelling component and working component. The vehicle continues to move even when the working component is disabled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Sorvik with the disabling of a work implement on a work vehicle based on the location of said vehicle taught by Mouthaan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by preventing action in a prohibited area.
With regards to Claim 3, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the prohibition unit prohibits an engine, which is a power source of the work equipment, from being started up in a case in which the measured position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Mouthaan Paragraph [0051] teaches disabling the power source of a work implement which one of ordinary skill in the art would realize would include an engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Sorvik with the disabling of a work implement on a work vehicle based on the location of said vehicle taught by Mouthaan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by preventing action in a prohibited area.
With regards to Claim 4, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position, wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination unit determines that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 5, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a communication unit that transmits position information indicating the position to a monitoring device that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on the position information, and receive a determination result, wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination result indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 6, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 5 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position, wherein, when communication with the monitoring device is enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits driving of the work equipment in a case in which the determination result received from the monitoring device indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area, and, when the communication with the monitoring device is not enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which a determination result of the determination unit indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 7, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the communication unit receives the map data from the monitoring device, and the determination unit performs the determination based on the map data last received from the monitoring device.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 8, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“A monitoring system comprising: the forestry machine according to claim 1; and a monitoring device that monitors the forestry machine wherein the forestry machine further includes: a communication unit that transmits the measured position to the monitoring device and receives a determination result of whether or not the position is within a felling prohibition area; the monitoring device includes: a reception unit that receives the measured position from the forestry machine; a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the received position; and a transmission unit that transmits a determination result of the determination unit to the forestry machine”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determined positions are being communicated.
As per Claim 9:
Sorvik discloses the following limitations:
“A monitoring system that monitors a forestry machine provided with work equipment …, the monitoring system comprising: a communication unit that transmits the measured position to a monitoring device and receives a determination result of whether or not the position is within a felling prohibition area; and a prohibition unit that prohibits felling work via the cutting tool in a case in which the measured position is within the felling prohibition area; and a monitoring device including: a reception unit that receives the measured position from the tracker; a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the received position; and a transmission unit that transmits a determination result of the determination unit to the tracker.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
Sorvik does not disclose the following limitations that Mouthaan teaches:
“…having a cutting tool for felling a tree… and a prohibition unit that prohibits felling work via the cutting tool in a case in which the measured position is within the felling prohibition area”
Mouthaan [0051] teaches prohibiting the use of a working implement of a working vehicle based on the location of said working vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Sorvik with the disabling of a work implement on a work vehicle based on the location of said vehicle taught by Mouthaan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by preventing action in a prohibited area.
As per Claim 10:
Sorvik discloses the following limitation:
“A monitoring system that monitors a forestry machine… the monitoring system comprising: a reception unit that receives a position of the forestry machine”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches identifying a location of a forestry machine.
“a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within a felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the received position; and an output unit that outputs information indicating a possibility of illegal felling in a case in which it is determined that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited. It would be obvious to alert about such an activity that is cited as being a reason for prohibiting action of the machine.
Sorvik does not disclose the following limitations that Mouthaan teaches:
“…a forestry machine provided with work equipment having a cutting tool for felling a tree…”
Mouthaan [0051] teaches prohibiting the use of a working implement of a working vehicle based on the location of said working vehicle. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any work implement could apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Sorvik with the disabling of a work implement on a work vehicle based on the location of said vehicle taught by Mouthaan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by preventing action in a prohibited area.
With regards to Claim 11, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further comprising:a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position,wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination unit determines that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 12, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position, wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination unit determines that the position is within the felling prohibition area”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 13, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the following limitations:
“:a communication unit that transmits position information indicating the position to a monitoring device that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on the position information, and receive a determination result ,wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination result indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 14, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a communication unit that transmits position information indicating the position to a monitoring device that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on the position information, and receive a determination result, wherein the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which the determination result indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 15, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further comprising: a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position, wherein, when communication with the monitoring device is enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits driving of the work equipment in a case in which the determination result received from the monitoring device indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area, and, when the communication with the monitoring device is not enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which a determination result of the determination unit indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 16, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further teaches the following limitations:
“a determination unit that determines whether or not the position is within the felling prohibition area based on map data indicating the felling prohibition area and the measured position,wherein, when communication with the monitoring device is enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits driving of the work equipment in a case in which the determination result received from the monitoring device indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area, and,when the communication with the monitoring device is not enabled, the prohibition unit prohibits felling work via the forestry machine in a case in which a determination result of the determination unit indicates that the position is within the felling prohibition area.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 17, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 15 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the communication unit receives the map data from the monitoring device, and the determination unit performs the determination based on the map data last received from the monitoring device.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
With regards to Claim 18, Sorvik in view of Mouthaan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the communication unit receives the map data from the monitoring device, and the determination unit performs the determination based on the map data last received from the monitoring device.”
Sorvik Paragraph [0048] teaches disabling use of a device due to the device being located in an area where felling trees is prohibited.
Related References
Matthews (US 2013/0166132)
Kaye (US 2014/0096871)
Takaura (US 2015/0308081)
Connell (US 2018/0338405)
Cherney (US 2021/0158674)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights