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 Application
Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are the independent claims. Claims 1-5 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 05/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 05/21/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims files on 05/21/2026, the Claim Interpretation section is removed in the Final Office section below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, set forth in the Applicant’s Remarks (pages 1–2) under 'Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103,' have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Because the arguments address the newly amended claims, and these amendments alter the scope of the original application, the Office has introduced new grounds for rejection, which are detailed in this Final Office Action.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 Katsuaki, JP 2006328759 A, hereinafter “Katsuaki ”, in view of Gray US20170123414A1, hereinafter “Gray”, further in view of Akahane et al., US20100000367A1, hereinafter “Akahane”.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Katsuaki teaches:
A control device of a work machine including work equipment, the control device comprising ([0001]):
a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a first detection signal output according to a tilt amount of an operation lever by a main angle 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, and a second detection signal output according to the tilt amount by a sub angle sensor configured to detect the tilt amount (at least [0004], “first and second detection units that detect the angle of the operation lever and output a detection signal.”, [0011]-[0012], [0021], “tilted in two opposing directions (arrows A and B) from a neutral position; an operation detection means 32 for detecting the angle θa of the operating lever 31 from the neutral position in the direction of arrow A and the angle θb (= -θa) of the operating lever 31 from the neutral position in the direction of arrow B; and a controller 40 for controlling the electromagnetic proportional valve 30A or 30B according to the angle θa or θb of the operating lever 31 detected by the operation detection means 32.”, [0026], “The controller 40 consists of a computer”__Note: first and second detection unit reads on a main angle sensor and a sub angle sensor. Also, the controller 40 in Katsuaki (See paragraphs [0026]-[0032]) reads on processor recited in the claim in view of present, paragraph [0030], and Fig. 2, block 100. __ );
responsive to the processor determining ([0021], [0024], “the operation detection means 32 includes a first detection unit 33 that outputs a detection signal (electrical signal) corresponding to the angle θa or θb of the operating lever 31”, [0025], “when the operation detection means 32 is functioning correctly, the sum of voltages V1 and V2, V12, is set to the normal value Vc.”, [0026]-[0027], __Note: first and second detection unit in Katsuaki, reads on main sensor and sub sensor recited in the claim. As further disclosed in paragraph [0027] of Katsuaki, the abnormality determination means determines whether the operation is normal or abnormal by comparing the sum of the values from first detection unit and second detection unit (corresponding to the angles of operation lever in two opposite direction), to a pre-stored normal value (reads on a certain value in the claim). __), and
responsive to the total value not being the certain value, stop the work equipment ([0005]-[0007], __Note: the abnormality is determined based on the sum of the values of first and second detection unit being different from a certain value, and if an abnormality occurs, the controller stops outputting a control signal to operate the front work implement/operating lever__) .
Katsuaki discloses first and second detection units that output a detection signal indicating the angle of the operation lever by voltage (from neutral position) and teaches an abnormality determination means that calculated the sum of the voltage of the detection signal of the first and second detection units and comparing this sum with a pre-stored normal value to determine an abnormality (According to Katsuaki’s disclosure at least paragraphs [0009] and [0011]) ,however, Katsuaki doesn’t explicitly disclose determining both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are the value corresponding the neutral position of operating lever at start of the vehicle for a predetermined time,
Therefore, Katsuaki doesn’t explicitly teach 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 both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are not the value corresponding to the neutral position
Nevertheless, Gray teaches:
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, ([0032]- [0033], Fig. 5, steps 410 and 418),
output an alarm indicating that both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are not the value corresponding to the neutral position in a case where both of the first detection signal and the second detection signal are not the value corresponding to the neutral position ([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]),
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__).
Accordingly, Gray teaches two step determination with two detection unit to ensure of the joystick (for controlling operation lever) being in neutral position at a time of start of the work machine (similar to the present application in view of Fig. 6-8 and paragraph [0038]-[0048]).
Further, 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method used in abnormality determination system taught by Katsuaki, in the vehicle safety control system taught by Gray in view of Akahane. Katsuaki teaches an abnormality determination system that assesses an operation lever position based on comparing the sum of first and second detection values from a neutral position to a certain (pre-stored) value. Gray teaches a two-step determination process to verify that an operation lever is in a neutral position before enabling the operation of a vehicle and its attached tool ([0033]). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings and apply the abnormality determination system of Katsuaki into Gray’s safety system by setting a certain/pre-stored value in Katsuaki as a value corresponding to the operation lever being at neutral position at a time of start of work, as suggested by Gray in view of Akahane, with a reasobale expectation of success, to improve the safety and reliability of a working machine by ensuring the operating lever is genuinely in the neutral position before starting the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Katsuaki in view of Gray and Akahane 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 processor 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 ([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 __).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the work machine abnormality determination system and method taught by Katsuaki with the safety and control systems taught by Gray and further include the safety warning feature of Gray. Katsuaki teaches detecting the tilt amount of an operation lever. Gray teaches a safety feature that warns an operator if an operation lever is not in the neutral position when the vehicle starts, preventing sudden dangerous movement. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Katsuaki’s lever tilt detection to monitor whether the lever is in the neutral position at startup as taught by Gray, with a reasonable expectation of success. This combination increases the safety and reliability of the work machine by warning the operator of an uncentered lever before powering up the vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuaki in view of Gray, further in view of Akahane, or in alternative rejection, claim 3 is rejected over Katsuaki in view of Gray, further in view of Akahane, further in view of Hama et al., US20230167625A1, hereinafter “Hama”.
Regarding claim 3, Katsuaki 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 processor 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 processor 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 apply the work machine abnormality determination system taught by Katsuaki in safety control system of Gray, and further include it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the safety and reliability of a working vehicle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights