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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 02/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 8-16 have been newly added. Claims 1-16 are now pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claim language have overcome the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation noted in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/02/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/31/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-060816 application filed 03/31/2022 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with regards to the claim interpretation presented in the previously filed Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with regards to the 35 USC 102 rejections presented in the previously filed Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered, but are moot because amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejections presented in the previously filed Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Koga as modified by Ogawa fails to teach the limitation of “a hardware processor configured to transmit Controller Area Network (CAN) data to a management apparatus, the CAN data being associated with video data transmitted from a device different from the excavator to the management apparatus” in independent claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0011]-[0015] state: “The image input device 23 is a device for inputting image data and the like of the excavator 50. The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20. Further, the image input device 23 may be, for example, a USB port or the like. In this case, the image data of the excavator 50 taken by the digital camera is input to the excavator support device 20 through the USB port.
The processing device 24 collates the image data of the excavator 50 input through the image input device 23 with the image data of the excavator 50 having the same aircraft identification information (aircraft number) acquired in the past, and checks the excavator 50. Identify the parts involved. The image data of the excavator 50 acquired in the past may be stored in, for example, the storage device 25, or may be stored in the storage device 33 of the management device 30.”
As such, the arguments are found unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Koga in view of Ogawa et al (JP WO2019181923 A1), hereinafter Ogawa.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Koga discloses:
An excavator comprising: an upper turning body and a lower traveling body (see at least Fig. 1)
and a hardware processor configured to transmit Controller Area Network (CAN) data to a management apparatus (see [0065]: “The display device 40 is connected to the controller 30 via a communication network such as Controller Area Network (CAN), Local Interconnect Network (LIN), and the like. The display device 40 may be connected to the controller 30 via dedicated lines.”)
the CAN data being associated with video data (see at least [0066]: “ The display device 40 includes a conversion processor 40a for generating an image to be displayed on the image display 41. The conversion processor 40a generates a camera image to be displayed on the image display 41 based on the output of the imaging device 80.”)
Koga does not explicitly disclose, but Ogawa teaches:
Wherein the video data is transmitted from a device different from the excavator to the management apparatus (see at least [0011]-[0014]: “The excavator support device 20 may be a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a notebook PC, or the like… The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Koga with the external camera as taught by Ogawa because, as stated within the background section of Ogawa [0002]-[0005]: “Conventionally, there is known an excavator support device that associates image data input through an image input device with information indicating the position of a damaged site input through a damaged site input device and stores it in a storage device (for example, a patent). Reference 1). In this excavator support device, a maintenance worker visually confirms the excavator and operates the image input device to input information indicating the position of the damaged part… However, since there are various parts related to the inspection of the excavator, if a maintenance worker with low skill performs the inspection, the damaged part may be overlooked or it may be difficult to judge whether or not the excavator is the damaged part. Therefore, in view of the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a support device for construction machinery capable of easily identifying a part related to inspection.”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to transmit CAN data to the management apparatus together with a storage start time indicating a date and time of a start of storing CAN data (see at least [0118]: “The transmitted information may include information indicating the date and time when the data acquisition device 30e acquired the environmental information and the operation information, and machine identification information specifying the machine of the shovel PS. The transmitted information may include information specifying the predetermined operation performed by the shovel PS when the data acquisition device 30e acquires the environmental information and operation information.”)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 2, wherein the CAN data includes a machine number for identifying the excavator (See at least [0159]: “The display area 84 displays the date and time when the shovel PS performed the predetermined operation, information specifying the predetermined operation performed by the shovel PS, and machine identification information of the shovel PS.”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 3, wherein the CAN data is associated with the video data in the management apparatus based on the storage start time and the machine number (See at least [0159]: “The display area 84 displays the date and time when the shovel PS performed the predetermined operation, information specifying the predetermined operation performed by the shovel PS, and machine identification information of the shovel PS.”)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 4, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to connect the excavator and the device by wireless communication (see at least [0082]: “The controller 30 may have a wireless communication function and be capable of communicating with the management device 90 via a communication network 93.”)
and set a capturing start time when the video data starts to be captured at the device as the storage start time of the CAN data (see at least [0118]: “The transmitted information may include information indicating the date and time when the data acquisition device 30e acquired the environmental information and the operation information, and machine identification information specifying the machine of the shovel PS. The transmitted information may include information specifying the predetermined operation performed by the shovel PS when the data acquisition device 30e acquires the environmental information and operation information.”)
Regarding claim 6, Koga discloses:
An excavator management system comprising:
the excavator including a hardware processor; an upper turning body; and a lower traveling body (see at least Fig. 1.)
and a management apparatus including a hardware processor configured to control operation of the management apparatus (see at least [0049]: “The management system 300 includes the shovel PS, a management device 90 for communicating with the shovel PS, and a supporting device 200 for supporting in the management of the shovel PS.”)
and the hardware processor of the excavator is configured to transmit CAN data associated with the video data to the management apparatus (see at least [0081]: “The controller 30 stores the detected data from the various state detecting sensors included in the shovel PS in the temporary storage 30a or the like and transmits the stored data to the management device 90. As described above, the data acquired during the predetermined operation is transmitted to the management device 90 as data for various diagnostic purposes, which will be described later.”)
Koga does not explicitly disclose, but Ogawa, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
a support apparatus including a hardware processor configured to control operation of the support apparatus and a camera configured to capture image data (see at least [0011]-[0014]: “The excavator support device 20 may be a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a notebook PC, or the like… The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20.”)
wherein the hardware processor of the support apparatus is configured to transmit video data of the excavator captured by the camera to the management apparatus (see at least [0011]-[0015]: “The image input device 23 is a device for inputting image data and the like of the excavator 50. The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20. Further, the image input device 23 may be, for example, a USB port or the like. In this case, the image data of the excavator 50 taken by the digital camera is input to the excavator support device 20 through the USB port. The processing device 24 collates the image data of the excavator 50 input through the image input device 23 with the image data of the excavator 50 having the same aircraft identification information (aircraft number) acquired in the past, and checks the excavator 50. Identify the parts involved. The image data of the excavator 50 acquired in the past may be stored in, for example, the storage device 25, or may be stored in the storage device 33 of the management device 30.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Koga with the external camera as taught by Ogawa because, as stated within the background section of Ogawa [0002]-[0005]: “Conventionally, there is known an excavator support device that associates image data input through an image input device with information indicating the position of a damaged site input through a damaged site input device and stores it in a storage device (for example, a patent). Reference 1). In this excavator support device, a maintenance worker visually confirms the excavator and operates the image input device to input information indicating the position of the damaged part… However, since there are various parts related to the inspection of the excavator, if a maintenance worker with low skill performs the inspection, the damaged part may be overlooked or it may be difficult to judge whether or not the excavator is the damaged part. Therefore, in view of the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a support device for construction machinery capable of easily identifying a part related to inspection.”
Regarding claim 7, Koga discloses:
A support apparatus configured to collaborate with an excavator including an upper turning body and a lower traveling body (see at least Fig. 1.)
the support apparatus comprising: a hardware processor configured to control operation of the support apparatus (see at least [0088]: “The supporting device 200 may be, for example, a portable computer, for example, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like, which is a multi-function personal information terminal as a portable terminal. The supporting device 200 may, for example, display information indicative of the result of failure diagnosis by the management device 90. The supporting device 200 may also display a detected value acquired by the state detecting sensor of the shovel PS.”)
Koga does not explicitly disclose, but Ogawa, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
and a camera configured to capture image data, wherein hardware processor is configured to transmit, to a management apparatus, video data of the excavator captured by the camera (see at least [0011]-[0014]: “The excavator support device 20 may be a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a notebook PC, or the like… The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20.”)
the video data being to be associated with CAN data transmitted from the excavator to the management apparatus (see at least [0011]-[0015]: “The image input device 23 is a device for inputting image data and the like of the excavator 50. The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20. Further, the image input device 23 may be, for example, a USB port or the like. In this case, the image data of the excavator 50 taken by the digital camera is input to the excavator support device 20 through the USB port. The processing device 24 collates the image data of the excavator 50 input through the image input device 23 with the image data of the excavator 50 having the same aircraft identification information (aircraft number) acquired in the past, and checks the excavator 50. Identify the parts involved. The image data of the excavator 50 acquired in the past may be stored in, for example, the storage device 25, or may be stored in the storage device 33 of the management device 30.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Koga with the external camera as taught by Ogawa because, as stated within the background section of Ogawa [0002]-[0005]: “Conventionally, there is known an excavator support device that associates image data input through an image input device with information indicating the position of a damaged site input through a damaged site input device and stores it in a storage device (for example, a patent). Reference 1). In this excavator support device, a maintenance worker visually confirms the excavator and operates the image input device to input information indicating the position of the damaged part… However, since there are various parts related to the inspection of the excavator, if a maintenance worker with low skill performs the inspection, the damaged part may be overlooked or it may be difficult to judge whether or not the excavator is the damaged part. Therefore, in view of the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a support device for construction machinery capable of easily identifying a part related to inspection.”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 1.
Koga further discloses wherein the excavator further comprises:
a communication terminal configured to control communications with an external device located outside the excavator, the communication terminal including the hardware processor (see at least [0087]: “Further, in the case where the management device 90 is a portable terminal, communication with the shovel PS may be performed directly by near range communication such as Bluetooth (Registered Trademark), infrared communication, or the like without the communication network.”)
and a storage storing a program, wherein the hardware processor is configured to execute the program stored in the storage to transmit the CAN data associated with the video data to the management apparatus (see at least [0035]: “The storage device 47 is a device for storing various information. The storage device 47 is a non-volatile storage medium such as, for example, a semiconductor memory. The storage device 47 stores various information output by the controller 30 or the like including the machine guidance device 50.”)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 8.
Koga further discloses wherein the excavator further comprises:
an additional hardware processor configured to control driving of the excavator, the additional hardware processor being provided separately from the hardware processor of the communication terminal (see at least Fig. 3, items 30, 90, and 200)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 9.
Koga further discloses wherein the hardware processor of the communication terminal is further configured to cause the additional hardware processor to output the CAN data in response to an instruction from the device different from the excavator and store the output CAN data (see at least [0102]: “The controller 30 according to this embodiment includes the temporary storage 30a, a transmitted information storage 30b, a human detector 30c, the diagnostic processor 30d, a data acquisition device (part) 30e, a corresponding part 30f, and an output device (part)30g.”)
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 10.
Koga does not explicitly disclose, but Ogawa teaches wherein the hardware processor of the communication terminal is further configured to transmit an instruction to start outputting the CAN data in response to receiving an instruction to obtain and store the CAN data from the device different from the excavator, and the additional hardware processor is configured to output the CAN data to the hardware processor of the communication terminal in response to receiving the instruction to start outputting the CAN data from the hardware processor of the communication terminal (see at least [0011]-[0015]: “The image input device 23 is a device for inputting image data and the like of the excavator 50. The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20. Further, the image input device 23 may be, for example, a USB port or the like. In this case, the image data of the excavator 50 taken by the digital camera is input to the excavator support device 20 through the USB port. The processing device 24 collates the image data of the excavator 50 input through the image input device 23 with the image data of the excavator 50 having the same aircraft identification information (aircraft number) acquired in the past, and checks the excavator 50. Identify the parts involved. The image data of the excavator 50 acquired in the past may be stored in, for example, the storage device 25, or may be stored in the storage device 33 of the management device 30.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Koga with the external camera as taught by Ogawa because, as stated within the background section of Ogawa [0002]-[0005]: “Conventionally, there is known an excavator support device that associates image data input through an image input device with information indicating the position of a damaged site input through a damaged site input device and stores it in a storage device (for example, a patent). Reference 1). In this excavator support device, a maintenance worker visually confirms the excavator and operates the image input device to input information indicating the position of the damaged part… However, since there are various parts related to the inspection of the excavator, if a maintenance worker with low skill performs the inspection, the damaged part may be overlooked or it may be difficult to judge whether or not the excavator is the damaged part. Therefore, in view of the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a support device for construction machinery capable of easily identifying a part related to inspection.”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches:
The excavator according to claim 10.
Koga further discloses wherein the hardware processor of the communication terminal is further configured to instruct the additional controller to stop outputting the CAN data in response to another instruction from the device different from the excavator (see at least Figures 6 and 7.)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches the excavator according to claim 1.
Koga does not explicitly disclose, but Ogawa teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to start storing the CAN data in association with a machine number of the excavator in response to receiving a notification indicating a start of capturing the video data of the excavator from the device different from the excavator, and transmit, to the management apparatus, the stored CAN data associated with the video data transmitted from the device different from the excavator to the management apparatus (see at least [0011]-[0015]: “The image input device 23 is a device for inputting image data and the like of the excavator 50. The image input device 23 includes, for example, a camera built in the excavator support device 20. By photographing a subject such as the excavator 50 with this camera, image data can be input to the excavator support device 20. Further, the image input device 23 may be, for example, a USB port or the like. In this case, the image data of the excavator 50 taken by the digital camera is input to the excavator support device 20 through the USB port. The processing device 24 collates the image data of the excavator 50 input through the image input device 23 with the image data of the excavator 50 having the same aircraft identification information (aircraft number) acquired in the past, and checks the excavator 50. Identify the parts involved. The image data of the excavator 50 acquired in the past may be stored in, for example, the storage device 25, or may be stored in the storage device 33 of the management device 30.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Koga with the external camera as taught by Ogawa because, as stated within the background section of Ogawa [0002]-[0005]: “Conventionally, there is known an excavator support device that associates image data input through an image input device with information indicating the position of a damaged site input through a damaged site input device and stores it in a storage device (for example, a patent). Reference 1). In this excavator support device, a maintenance worker visually confirms the excavator and operates the image input device to input information indicating the position of the damaged part… However, since there are various parts related to the inspection of the excavator, if a maintenance worker with low skill performs the inspection, the damaged part may be overlooked or it may be difficult to judge whether or not the excavator is the damaged part. Therefore, in view of the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a support device for construction machinery capable of easily identifying a part related to inspection.”
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches the excavator according to claim 13.
Koga further discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to complete storing the CAN data in response to receiving a notification indicating a stop of capturing the video data of the excavator from the device different from the excavator (see at least Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches the excavator management system according to claim 6.
Koga further discloses wherein the hardware processor of the management apparatus is further configured to identify the video data synchronized with the CAN data transmitted from the excavator based on a machine number of the excavator and capturing start time information associated with the CAN data, the capturing start time information indicating a time of a start of capturing the video data, and output the identified video data and the CAN data synchronized with the identified video data together (see at least [0159]: “The display area 84 displays the date and time when the shovel PS performed the predetermined operation, information specifying the predetermined operation performed by the shovel PS, and machine identification information of the shovel PS.”)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Koga and Ogawa teaches the support apparatus according to claim 7.
Koga further discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to transmit a notification indicating a start of capturing the video data of the excavator to the excavator upon receiving an operation to give an instruction to start capturing the video data of the excavator, transmit a notification indicating a stop of capturing the video data of the excavator to the excavator upon receiving an operation to give an instruction to stop capturing the video data of the excavator, and transmit the captured video data of the excavator to the management apparatus upon receiving an operation to given an instruction to upload the captured video data after the stop of capturing the video data (see at least Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/E.R.N./ /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights