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 limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, “first and second tilt amount sensor” and control unit in claims 1, 4 and 5. According to paragraph [0030] of the instant specification, “acquisition unit” and “control unit” are interpreted as functional configuration composed of a combination of hardware, software such as a program. Furthermore, in paragraph [0025] of instant specification, it is disclosed that “The tilt amount can be represented by a value corresponding to, for example, the tilt angle, a movement amount of a grip portion, and the like. The angle sensor can be configured by, for example, a combination of a variable resistor (potentiometer) and a signal processing circuit, a combination of a hall element and a signal processing circuit,”. Accordingly, the “first and second tilt sensor” are interpreted as angle sensors that are a combination of a variable resistor (potentiometer) and a signal processing circuit, a combination of a hall element and a signal processing circuit.
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 § 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 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anahara et al., US20220290411A1, hereinafter “Anahara”, in view of Gray US20170123414A1, hereinafter “Gray”, further in view of Akahane et al., US20100000367A1, hereinafter “Akahane”, or in alternative rejection Anahara in view of Akihiko et al., JP2002104799A, hereinafter “Akihiko”
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Anahara teaches:
A control device and method of a work machine including work equipment ([0006], Fig. 1), and the work machine and the control device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to repeatedly acquire a first detection signal output according to a tilt amount of an operation lever by a first tilt amount sensor configured to detect the tilt amount of the operation lever of the work equipment tilted from a neutral position in a first direction or a second direction opposite to the first direction ([0026], “the operation device 4 includes operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b for electrically detecting the inclination amount of the operation lever in each direction, that is, the operation amount of the lever, and the operation amounts of the lever sensed by the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b are output to the controller 20.”,__inclination amount of operation lever reads on tilt amount of operation lever__, __also [0027], teaches operation device(operation lever), operating from neutral position to a direction (left side or right side on the other hand) that meet the claimed limitation__),
a second detection signal output according to the tilt amount by a second tilt amount sensor configured to detect the tilt amount ([0026], “the operation device 4 includes operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b for electrically detecting the inclination amount of the operation lever in each direction,”, __Sensors 4a and 4b according to the disclosure and Fig. 2 of Anahara, reads on first and second tilt amount sensor__).
Anahara doesn’t explicitly teach a control unit configured to repeatedly determine whether or not the first detection signal and the second detection signal are a value corresponding to the neutral position at a time of start of the work machine, for a predetermined time; output an alarm indicating that and stop the output of the alarm and generate and output a predetermined control signal for controlling the work equipment based on the first detection signal when both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are the value corresponding to the neutral position before the predetermined time elapses.
Nevertheless, Gray teaches:
a control unit configured to repeatedly determine whether or not the first detection signal ([0032]- [0033]),
output an alarm indicating that ([0032], “If they are not in the neutral position, the control system 140 then provides an error signal, potentially as a flashing light or similar device on the remote control”, [0033]),
and stop the output of the alarm and generate and output a predetermined control signal for controlling the work equipment based on the first detection signal when both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are the value corresponding to the neutral position before the predetermined time elapses (__Fig. 5 shows that when the position of the joystick is in neutral at step 422 (which reads on detection signal being corresponding to the neutral position), the control system enable operation of the vehicle and the tool attached to the vehicle, at step 424__, [0033], “only if after two redundant checks of the control joysticks that the control joysticks are in the neutral position, the control system 140 will then power the board in state 424 enabling operation of the vehicle and the tool attached to the vehicle.”, __two redundant checks reads on the results of two detection signals, for more detail see paragraph 15 of present office action__).
Although, Gray teaches determining whether or not the detection signal is a value corresponding to the neutral position at a time of start, however, Gray doesn’t teach determining whether or not the detection signal is a value corresponding to the neutral position at a time of start, for a predetermined time.
Nevertheless, Akahane teaches determining whether or not the detection signal is a value corresponding to the neutral position at a time of start, for a predetermined time ([0039]-[0040], [0048]-[0050]).
Also, For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in an alternative rejection, Akihiko teaches or suggested:
a control unit configured to repeatedly determine whether or not the first detection signal ([0004]-[0006], [0013], [0014], “for a predetermined time from when power is supplied to the operation control device.”, [0024], “when the power-on determination circuit 49 determines that power has been supplied to the controller 41 and the operation signal determination circuit 51 determines that the operating lever 23 a has been tilted, the operating device determination circuit 53 determines that there is an abnormality in the operating device 23 []. The operating device determination circuit 53 operates only for a predetermined time from when the main power switch 43 is turned on,”, [0027]), output an alarm indicating that value corresponding to the neutral position from a predetermined output unit in a case where both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are not the value corresponding to the neutral position ([0028], [0029], “if the operating device 23 is in a tilted state or in a malfunction state when the main power switch 43 is turned on [] the lighting of the operating device warning lamp 63 allows the operator to easily recognize an abnormality”), and stop the output of the alarm and generate and output a predetermined control signal for controlling the work equipment based on the first detection signal when ([0008], [0011], “if the operation control signal output from the operation control device in response to the operation command signal from the operating device does not include a signal to drive the work device within a predetermined time from when power is supplied to the operation control device by the power switch, operation control of the work device is permitted.”, [0028], “The operation control signal is a signal obtained by converting an electric signal (analog signal) output from the potentiometer 25 according to the tilt state of the operating lever 23 a of the operating device 23 by the operation control circuit 55 .”, [0029], __according to at least cited paragraphs of Akihiko when the vehicle power is on, if the operation device (lever) is tilted (not in neutral position) for a predetermined time, the an alarm is output to the operator and the operation of work vehicle(equipment) is restricted for safety and when the output is stop it is permitted. Therefore, the disclosure of Akihiko meets the claimed limitations__).
Furthermore, Although Anahara teaches first sensor and second sensor for detecting the position of operation lever ([0026], and Fig. 2, “Sensors 4a and 4b”), however Anahara, Akahane or Akihimo, doesn’t explicitly teach determining the results based on two sensors (first and second detection signal). However, Gray teaches two redundant checks of the control joystick being in neutral position, according to at least paragraphs ([0032]-[0033], therefore, using two tilt sensors would be obvious to one ordinary skill as taught by the combination of Anahara and Gray). On the other hand, the first and second detection signal both correspond to the tilt amount of the operation lever acquired by the first and second tilt amount sensor, as written in the claim. Therefore, first and second tilt sensors both acquire the value of the tilt amount of the operation lever, therefore, the second tilt sensor is a duplicate part. However, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts for details. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the parts of tilt amount detection sensor, with the motivation of providing additional safety step, for redundancy, as also taught by Gray.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work machine and periphery monitoring system that teaches detecting the inclination amount or tilt amount of the operation lever as taught by Anahara with the safety feature of warning the operator if the operation lever is not in neutral position when the vehicle starts as taught by Gray and Akahane, or in alternative rejection as taught by Akihiko, and further using two sensors for detecting/monitoring the tilt amount of operation lever to check if it is in neutral position for redundancy and as taught by Anahara and Gray, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the safety of working vehicle and improving the safe performance by outputting warning to the operator in case the operation lever is not in neutral position at the time of powering up the vehicle which results in undesired and dangerous sudden movement of vehicle or the vehicle’s equipment. This enhances the reliability of the machine by improving easiness and confidence/trust in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Anahara in view of Gray teaches the control device according to Claim 1, and Gray teaches wherein, in a case where any one of the first detection signal or the second detection signal is not the value corresponding to the neutral position, the control unit generates and outputs the control signal based on the other of the first detection signal or the second detection signal, and outputs predetermined information corresponding to a case where the one is not the value corresponding to the neutral position, from the predetermined output unit ([0032], “If they are not in the neutral position, the control system 140 then provides an error signal, potentially as a flashing light or similar device on the remote control”, __error signal reads on predetermined information and flashing light or similar device reads on the predetermined output unit__, [0033], “only if after two redundant checks of the control joysticks that the control joysticks are in the neutral position, the control system 140 will then power the board in state 424 enabling operation of the vehicle and the tool attached to the vehicle.”, __Gray suggesting two redundant checks to ensure that the joystick is in neutral position which suggest detecting two signals acquired from two tilt sensor as recited in the claim __).
On the other hand, as also mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 (See paragraph 15 of the present office action), first and second detection signal both correspond to the tilt amount of the operation lever acquired by the first and second tilt amount sensor, as written in the claim. Therefore, first and second tilt sensors both acquire the value of the tilt amount of the operation lever, therefore, the second tilt sensor is a duplicate part. However, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts for details. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the parts of tilt amount detection sensor, with the motivation of providing additional safety step, for redundancy, as also taught by Gray.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work machine and periphery monitoring system that teaches detecting the inclination amount or tilt amount of the operation lever as taught by Anahara with the safety feature of warning the operator if the operation lever is not in neutral position when the vehicle starts as taught by Gray and Akahane, or in alternative rejection as taught by Akihiko, and further using two sensors for detecting/monitoring the tilt amount of operation lever to check if it is in neutral position for redundancy and as taught by Anahara and Gray, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the safety of working vehicle and improving the safe performance by outputting warning to the operator in case the operation lever is not in neutral position at the time of powering up the vehicle which results in undesired and dangerous sudden movement of vehicle or the vehicle’s equipment. This enhances the reliability of the machine by improving easiness and confidence/trust in the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anahara in view of Gray, further in view of Akahane, (or in alternative rejection Anahara in view of Akihiko), further in alternative rejection in view of Hama et al., US20230167625A1, hereinafter “Hama”.
Regarding claim 3, Anahara in view of Gray and Akahane teaches the control device according to Claim 2, and Gray teaches wherein, in a case where any one of the first detection signal or the second detection signal is not the value corresponding to the neutral position, the control unit generates and outputs the control signal based on the other of the first detection signal or the second detection signal after limiting a function of the work equipment ([0033], “only if after two redundant checks of the control joysticks that the control joysticks are in the neutral position, the control system 140 will then power the board in state 424 enabling operation of the vehicle and the tool attached to the vehicle.”, __therefore even if one of the detection signals is not the value corresponding to the neutral position, the function of the work equipment is restricted which meet the claimed limitation__).
In alternative rejection, Hama also teaches wherein, in a case where any one of the first detection signal or the second detection signal is not the value corresponding to the neutral position, the control unit generates and outputs the control signal based on the other of the first detection signal or the second detection signal after limiting a function of the work equipment ([0012], “detection value of the operation amount of the first operation lever falls within a predetermined range determined in advance for a neutral position of the first operation lever and storing and retaining a control value for the lever drive actuator in the state satisfying the first condition while actuation of the hydraulic actuator is prohibited,”, __outputting the control signal satisfying the first condition while actuation hydraulic actuator is prohibited reads on after limiting a function of the work equipment__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work machine and periphery monitoring system that teaches detecting the inclination amount or tilt amount of the operation lever as taught by, with the safety feature of warning the operator if the operation lever is not in neutral position when the vehicle starts as taught by Gray and Akahane, or in alternative rejection as taught by Akihiko, and further using two sensors (in order to improve the accuracy of the output and the safety of the system) for detecting/monitoring the tilt amount of operation lever to check if it is in neutral position as taught by Anahara and Gray, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the safety of working vehicle and improving the accuracy of the acquired results based on two sensors while even if one sensor’s output represent that the operation lever is not in the neutral position, the functions of vehicle is limited . This enhances the reliability of the machine by improving easiness and confidence/trust in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669