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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/861,707 filed on 10/30/2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 30th, 2024, November 12th, 2025, and December 22nd, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“3”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“an acquisition unit” in claim 1,
“an operating unit” in claims 3-4 and 7-8,
“While the A/M switch 35 that is an example of the operating unit is described as being mounted to the work machine in the above embodiment, the present invention is not limited in this way. The functions of the A/M switch 35 may be built into a mobile terminal owned by the user who is the administrator of the work machine. In this case, a predetermined signal is transmitted to the drive controller 65 due to the administrator operating the mobile terminal and the drive controller 65 may determine there is the right to use the MC function and unlock or lock the MC function. When the functions of the A/M switch 35 are built into a mobile terminal, the mobile terminal serves as an example of the "operating unit" according to the present disclosure.” (Detailed Description of Embodiment(s) – 96th paragraph, FIG. 1)
“a charging unit” in claims 5 and 9.
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 § 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of requesting “the communication unit 55 of the management server 52 for the contract information via the management controller 62 and the communication unit 61 in order. While the timing of the request for the contract information by the acquisition unit 73 is not limited in particular, the request for the contract information is desirably issued at the engine activation of the hydraulic excavator 100. The acquisition unit 73 acquires the contract information from the communication unit 55 of the management server 52 via the communication unit 61 and the management controller 62 in order. The acquisition unit 73 stores the acquired contract information in the storage unit 72 of the management controller 62”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to request. The use of “the communication unit 55 of the management server 52 for the contract information via the management controller 62 and the communication unit 61 in order. While the timing of the request for the contract information by the acquisition unit 73 is not limited in particular, the request for the contract information is desirably issued at the engine activation of the hydraulic excavator 100. The acquisition unit 73 acquires the contract information from the communication unit 55 of the management server 52 via the communication unit 61 and the management controller 62 in order. The acquisition unit 73 stores the acquired contract information in the storage unit 72 of the management controller 62” is not adequate structure for performing the requesting function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a charging unit configured to calculate” in claim 5, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of acquiring “an unlock time period of the MC function from a belowmentioned storage unit 56 in the management server 52. The charging unit 54 calculates the charging amount for the use of the MC function based on the unlock time period of the MC function. The method for calculating the charging amount is not limited and may include, for example, a method that involves multiplying the unlock time period (minutes) by one unit of a usage amount, or a method that involves multiplying the number of days in which the unlock time period is equal to or greater than a predetermined time period by one unit of the usage amount. While the unlock time period of the MC function is explained below, the unlock time period of the MC function is measured when the usage pattern included in the contract information is the usage pattern B. Therefore, when the usage pattern included in the contract information is the usage pattern A or the usage pattern C, the charging unit 54 does not calculate the charging amount for the user of the MC function. However, the time period or the number of days that the MC function is used may also be measured for the usage pattern A”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to acquire. The use of “an unlock time period of the MC function from a belowmentioned storage unit 56 in the management server 52. The charging unit 54 calculates the charging amount for the use of the MC function based on the unlock time period of the MC function. The method for calculating the charging amount is not limited and may include, for example, a method that involves multiplying the unlock time period (minutes) by one unit of a usage amount, or a method that involves multiplying the number of days in which the unlock time period is equal to or greater than a predetermined time period by one unit of the usage amount. While the unlock time period of the MC function is explained below, the unlock time period of the MC function is measured when the usage pattern included in the contract information is the usage pattern B. Therefore, when the usage pattern included in the contract information is the usage pattern A or the usage pattern C, the charging unit 54 does not calculate the charging amount for the user of the MC function. However, the time period or the number of days that the MC function is used may also be measured for the usage pattern A” is not adequate structure for performing the acquiring function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
As the Applicant has invoked 112(f) properly but the specification does not provide a clear linking statement as to what the structural equivalents are, the Applicant’s claim limitations will be afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of, for example, acquiring contract information relating to the use of the machine control function, calculating a charging amount for the use of the machine control function based on an unlock time period of the machine control function, and a charging amount for the use of the predetermined function based on the unlock time period of the predetermined function in claims 1, 5, and 9. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed towards a control system (machine). Dependent claims 2-10 are also directed towards a control system (machine). Claim 11 is directed towards a control method (process).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 1 as one example, the claim recites a drive controller configured to control the drive mechanism, an acquisition unit configured to acquire contract information relating to the use of the machine control function, and the drive controller being configured to determine whether there is the right to use the machine control function based on the contract information. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an individual verifying if a tractor may legally be used by a driver at a work site and providing driving instructions to the driver of the tractor after confirming legality based on a work contract. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claim 1 recites three additional elements – a drive controller, a drive mechanism, and an acquisition unit. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive controller, drive mechanism, and acquisition unit. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites one additional element – a drive mechanism. The drive mechanism is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a means to transmit and receive data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive mechanism. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1-11 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claim 1, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a drive controller, a drive mechanism, and an acquisition unit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive controller, drive mechanism, and acquisition unit. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a drive controller, a drive mechanism, and an acquisition unit cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 11, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a drive mechanism amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive mechanism. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a drive mechanism cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 3 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
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, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP 2002123848 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Enomoto teaches:
A control system that determines whether there is a right to use a machine control function of a drive mechanism provided in a work machine, the control system comprising:, (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs))
a drive controller configured to control the drive mechanism;, (“The present invention relates to a means for controlling a vehicle operation such as a running speed of a work vehicle including the forklift and a work operation of a device mounted on the vehicle so that the vehicle operation and the work operation become the standard setting contents. […] A detection device (sensor) 202 that performs the traveling operation of the vehicle 200 and the operation operation of the work equipment according to a command from the on-vehicle control device 2 are mounted.” (Enomoto: Description – 19th-20th paragraphs))
and an acquisition unit configured to acquire contract information relating to the use of the machine control function, the drive controller being configured to determine whether there is the right to use the machine control function based on the contract information., (“The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Enomoto further teaches:
The control system according to claim 1, wherein the machine control function includes one or more automatic control functions,, (“The present invention relates to a means for controlling a vehicle operation such as a running speed of a work vehicle including the forklift and a work operation of a device mounted on the vehicle so that the vehicle operation and the work operation become the standard setting contents. […] A detection device (sensor) 202 that performs the traveling operation of the vehicle 200 and the operation operation of the work equipment according to a command from the on-vehicle control device 2 are mounted.” (Enomoto: Description – 19th-20th paragraphs))
[…] and the drive controller is configured to determine whether there is the right to use each of the one or more automatic control functions based on the contract information., (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 11:
Enomoto teaches:
A control method comprising: acquiring contract information relating to a use of a machine control function of a drive mechanism provided in a work machine;, (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The present invention relates to a means for controlling a vehicle operation such as a running speed of a work vehicle including the forklift and a work operation of a device mounted on the vehicle so that the vehicle operation and the work operation become the standard setting contents. […] A detection device (sensor) 202 that performs the traveling operation of the vehicle 200 and the operation operation of the work equipment according to a command from the on-vehicle control device 2 are mounted.” (Enomoto: Description – 19th-20th paragraphs))
and determining whether there is a right to use the machine control function based on the contract information., (“The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP 2002123848 A) in view of Matsunaga (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0342422 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Enomoto further teaches:
The control system according to claim 1, wherein the drive controller is configured to determine that there is the right to use the machine control function when the contract information indicates that there is a need to, (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Enomoto does not teach but Matsunaga teaches:
[…] charge for the use of the machine control function., (See (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 46th-47th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 196th-207th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Matsunaga in order to create a user-friendly control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Matsunaga’s system and method for assisting a usage of an object in order to determine a charge amount for a usage of a work machine. Combining Enomoto and Matsunaga would thus provide “a use assistance system and a method for using a usage object, the system being configured so as to temporarily apply use authority to a large number of specific or unspecified users to make use of the usage object, to give approval to the contents of use, to collect and confirm the use data as a use log, and to effectively reduce false processing or the like that is different from the fact.” (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 27th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Enomoto further teaches:
The control system according to claim 1, wherein the contract information includes, (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Enomoto does not teach but Matsunaga teaches:
[…] at least one of a usage pattern that requires charging for the use of the machine control function and a usage pattern that does not require charging for the use of the machine control function that indicate a usage form for the machine control function., (See (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 46th-47th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 196th-207th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Matsunaga in order to create a user-friendly control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Matsunaga’s system and method for assisting a usage of an object in order to determine a charge amount for a usage of a work machine. Combining Enomoto and Matsunaga would thus provide “a use assistance system and a method for using a usage object, the system being configured so as to temporarily apply use authority to a large number of specific or unspecified users to make use of the usage object, to give approval to the contents of use, to collect and confirm the use data as a use log, and to effectively reduce false processing or the like that is different from the fact.” (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 27th paragraph)
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP 2002123848 A) in view of Luo (EP 3726405 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Enomoto further teaches:
[…] in a case in which it has been determined that there is the right to use the machine control function., (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Enomoto does not teach but Luo teaches:
The control system according to claim 2, further comprising: an operating unit configured to receive a lock operation and an unlock operation of the machine control function, the drive controller being configured to unlock the machine control function when the operating unit received the unlock operation, (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-10th and 14th-20th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th, 32nd, 35th, and 38th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Enomoto does not teach but Luo teaches:
The control system according to claim 3, wherein the drive controller is configured to lock the machine control function when the operating unit received the lock operation., (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-10th and 14th-20th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th, 32nd, 35th, and 38th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Enomoto further teaches:
[…] for which it has been determined that there is the right to use the machine control function., (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, […] Means for stopping the vehicle operation or the work operation when the difference from the contract content is not resolved.” (Enomoto: Description – 9th-12th paragraphs) Enomoto further mentions “The configuration and operation of this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 1 which shows a control block diagram of the operation management system for a forklift having the above configuration. […] That is, the operation can be controlled so as to be within the range of the contract contents satisfying the standard setting contents regarding the use of the vehicle, and the vehicle can be operated correctly without departing from the contract contents (setting contents) set in the memory card. Can be done.” (Enomoto: Description – 21st-33rd paragraphs))
Enomoto does not teach but Luo teaches:
The control system according to claim 6, further comprising: an operating unit configured to receive a lock operation and an unlock operation of the one or more automatic control functions, the drive controller being configured to unlock a predetermined function when the operating unit received the unlock operation for the automatic control function, (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-10th and 14th-20th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th, 32nd, 35th, and 38th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Enomoto does not teach but Luo teaches:
The control system according to claim 7, wherein the drive controller is configured to lock the predetermined function when the operating unit received the lock operation for the predetermined function., (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-10th and 14th-20th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th, 32nd, 35th, and 38th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP 2002123848 A) in view of Matsunaga (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0342422 A1) in further view of Luo (EP 3726405 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Enomoto does not teach but Matsunaga teaches:
The control system according to claim 4, further comprising: a charging unit configured to calculate a charging amount for the use of the machine control function, (See (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 46th-47th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 196th-207th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Matsunaga in order to create a user-friendly control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Matsunaga’s system and method for assisting a usage of an object in order to determine a charge amount for a usage of a work machine. Combining Enomoto and Matsunaga would thus provide “a use assistance system and a method for using a usage object, the system being configured so as to temporarily apply use authority to a large number of specific or unspecified users to make use of the usage object, to give approval to the contents of use, to collect and confirm the use data as a use log, and to effectively reduce false processing or the like that is different from the fact.” (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 27th paragraph)
Enomoto in view of Matsunaga does not teach but Luo teaches:
[…] based on an unlock time period of the machine control function., (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-11th and 14th-21st paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th-32nd and 39th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto in view of Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Enomoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Enomoto does not teach but Matsunaga teaches:
The control system according to claim 8, further comprising: a charging unit configured to calculate a charging amount for the use of the predetermined function, (See (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 46th-47th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment – 196th-207th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto with these above aforementioned teachings from Matsunaga in order to create a user-friendly control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Matsunaga’s system and method for assisting a usage of an object in order to determine a charge amount for a usage of a work machine. Combining Enomoto and Matsunaga would thus provide “a use assistance system and a method for using a usage object, the system being configured so as to temporarily apply use authority to a large number of specific or unspecified users to make use of the usage object, to give approval to the contents of use, to collect and confirm the use data as a use log, and to effectively reduce false processing or the like that is different from the fact.” (Matsunaga: Disclosure of the Invention – 27th paragraph)
Enomoto in view of Matsunaga does not teach but Luo teaches:
[…] based on the unlock time period of the predetermined function., (See (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 8th-11th and 14th-21st paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 30th-32nd and 39th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Enomoto in view of Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Luo in order to create a safe control system and control method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Enomoto’s operation control system for a forklift with Luo’s vehicle authorization management method and system in order to lock/unlock an operation of a work machine control function based on a lock/unlock time period of the control function. Combining Enomoto and Luo would thus provide “a vehicle authorisation management method, which comprises the steps of: receiving request information of a vehicle; and executing a corresponding authorisation mode according to the request information, wherein the authorisation modes comprise a service authorisation mode and an active authorisation mode.” (Luo: Summary of the Invention – 4th paragraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights