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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “real machine” and the “working machine” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the description of benefits in the first sentence and the reference numbers should be in parenthesize. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “executing switch from the working machine” should be changed to – execute switching from the working machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
The examiner is not sure he understands the difference between a “working machine” and a “real machine”. See the drawing objection above. Reading the specification including the “Reference Signs List” at the end, the difference between the real and working machines was not apparent. The examiner will interpret both to be essential the same thing.
The last couple lines of claim 1 are not understood: “during a period since the execution of the real machine stop operation (¶0178) until the specified operation is to be executed (¶0007 last sentence).” Maybe it is just a grammatical problem but maybe the last phrase should be changed to, --during a period between the execution of the real machine stop operation (¶0178) and the specified operation is to be executed (¶0007 last sentence)--.
Claim 3 phrase “an apparatus side” is not understood. There are various apparatuses described. Applicant should positively recite the particular apparatus they are referring too before further limiting it with claim language.
In claims 6 & 7 “an engine” is recited and then “an internal combustion engine” is recited. The examiner will interpret these engines to be the same. Applicant should consider positively reciting either or both an engine and internal combustion engine.
Claim 10 is not understood. The third line reads “a success in an authentication of the operator”. Then, the next to last line reads “executes the authentication of the operator”. This sounds like the authentication is might be done twice. The examiner will interpret this claim as reciting that the authentication is done only once.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Kamiya et al (US2021/0009392).
A remote operation system (¶0001, “remote operation system 10” & figures 1, 19 & 20) for an operator (“remote operator”, figures 8 & 22) to perform a remote operation (“remote operation”) of a working machine (“forklift 20”) via a remote operation apparatus (“remote operation device 70”) with a remote input unit (“touch panel 71”), the remote operation system comprising:
a remote control element (70) configured to execute resumption processing (e.g., fig. 8 Ic3) or end processing (e.g., fig. 8 Ic2, ic5, 71(72), ¶0182 “remote stop icon Icy”) of the remote operation when a specified operation for executing resumption or end of the remote operation has been executed in the remote input unit by the operator (pushing buttons on device 7) in a case where a real machine stop operation of the working machine (“forklift 20”) has been executed via the remote operation apparatus by the operator during execution of the remote operation (fig. 12); and
a communication control element (fig. 3) configured to establish a communication connected state (SGx1 ~ SGx4 & SGy) between the remote operation apparatus (70) and the working machine (20) such that, when the remote operation is to be started, the remote operation of the working machine is enabled (fig. 7 REMOTE OFF to ON) and to maintain the communication connected state (“maintaining the communication connection state” throughout reference) during a period since the execution of the real machine stop operation (¶0178) until the specified operation is to be executed (¶0007 last sentence).
Claim 2 Kamiya disclose the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein after the execution of the real machine stop operation, when the specified operation for ending the remote operation has been executed in the remote input unit by the operator, the communication control element ends the communication connected state (¶0011 1st sentence, ¶0041 “ the communication connection state is canceled accompanying the shift from the remote mode to the abnormal stop mode”, ¶0519 “During the abnormal stop mode or the manned mode, both communication units 69 and 76 may cancel the communication connection state.”).
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.
Claim 11 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Kamiya et al (US2021/0009392) in view of CN112823226A.
Kamiya does not disclose that the remote input unit is installed in a vicinity of a set for the operator.
CN112823226A discloses a remote operation system with a remote input unit installed in a vicinity of a seat for an operator (figures 1 & 2). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the remote operation system of Kamiya with the remote input unit installed in a vicinity of a seat for an operator of CN112823226A. A motivation for this improvement to Kamiya would be to provide ease and comfort to the operator to facilitate a longer work period. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods , or products) in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658