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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US PG Pub 2018/0286233 A1., (hereafter Suzuki) in view of Boa et al., US PG Pub 2018/0088323 A1., (hereafter Bao).
Regarding claims 1 & 9-10 where it is disclosed by Suzuki to have a driving assistance device that presents images of the environment around a device and allows additional images to be displayed overlayed the original images as shown in at least figures 4A-C. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “…: a visibility determination unit configured to determine visibility of a work area where the work machine is located [at least figure 1 and paragraphs 21-25]; a display determination unit [at least paragraphs 21, 23, 25-26 & 31-32] configured to determine, based on the visibility of the work area [at least figure 3 box “s103” where the system determines “Is the visibility good?” where this is the visibility of the environment of the vehicle], one or more support displays to be superimposed on a video of the work area captured by the work machine [at least figures 3 box s104 thru s106” where the system superimposes additional information on top of the image as shown in at least figures 4A-C and 5-6]; and a presentation unit configured to present, to the user, the video of the work area on which the one or more support displays are superimposed [see at least figures 1, 4A-C and 5-6].”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Suzuki to have their system also include the feature of, “A remote operation device for enabling a user to remotely operate a work machine, the remote operation device comprising:…”
Bao is directed to a selectably opaque display that can display information on a remote operation device as shown in at least figures 1-2 and 19-20 where they show glasses worn by a user including a display which can display images that are of the surroundings of a vehicle as described in at least paragraphs 5-9 & 47 “remote device 104”. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “A remote operation device for enabling a user to remotely operate a work machine, the remote operation device comprising:…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 2 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Bao in at least paragraphs 116-120 and figure 11 to have their system have an opacity controller 202 that controls display of the information on the display, which is read as being a “display determination unit”. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “the display determination unit selects one visibility rank of a plurality of visibility ranks [at least paragraphs 116-120 where based on the risk/rank the objects opacity is determined when it is displayed to the user on the screen], each of a plurality of support displays that can be superimposed on the video of the work area is associated with one or more of the plurality of visibility ranks [at least paragraphs 116-120 and figure 12], and the display determination unit selects the support display associated with the selected visibility rank [at least figure 12 where the important information is displayed on the screen as described in paragraphs 116-120].”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 3 where all the limitations of claim 2 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is disclosed by Boa to further have, “the plurality of support displays that can be superimposed on the video of the work area include a first display virtually indicating a real sign and a second display for calling attention of the user, and the display determination unit selects the first display and does not select the second display in one of the plurality of visibility ranks.” Where this is disclosed by Bao in at least paragraphs 116-120 and shown in at least figure 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 4 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Suzuki in at least figures 4A-C to have their system being able to bring attention to traffic signals as shown, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “a plurality of support displays that can be superimposed on the video of the work area include at least one or more of: a display of a planned travel route of the work machine; a display related to a moving speed of the work machine; a display of an area of dust generation; a display for calling attention to an accident; a display for calling attention to appearance of an animal; a display for calling attention to passing another oncoming work machine; a display of a virtual traffic signal; and a display of a virtual sign.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 5 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Suzuki in at least figures 4A-C to have their system being able to bring attention to traffic signals as shown, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “a plurality of support displays that can be superimposed on the video of the work area include a display of a virtual traffic signal, and the virtual traffic signal controls traffic of a plurality of work machines including the work machine [at least paragraphs 21-22, of Suzuki].”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Suzuki in at least figures 4A-C to have their system being able to bring attention to traffic signals as shown, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “a plurality of support displays that can be superimposed on the video of the work area include a display of a virtual sign, and the display of the virtual sign has an appearance of a sign used in a country selected by the user [at least paragraphs 21-22, of Suzuki].”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 7 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Suzuki in at least figures 4A-C & paragraphs 21-22 to have their system being able to bring attention to traffic signals as shown, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “the visibility determination unit determines the visibility for each of a plurality of nodes set in the work area where the work machine is located.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 8 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Suzuki and Bao as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Suzuki in at least figures 4A-C & paragraphs 6, 38 & 42 to have their system being able to show information about the vehicle as it is being controlled, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “the work machine is a work machine that can travel.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Suzuki by the teachings of Bao where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of using screen to help the user see what is around a vehicle. Where one would have been motivated to modify Suzuki by Bao with a reasonable expectation of success by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the use of a portable device to allow the user to see what is around the vehicle even if they are not in the vehicle and need to move it, see paragraph 2 of Bao.
Regarding claim 9 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for system claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
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.
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: “visibility determination unit”, “display determination unit”, “presentation unit” in claims 1-10.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5 where applicant claims, “…the virtual traffic signal controls traffic of a plurality of work machines including the work machine.” What is carrying out this step? How does the system use a “virtual traffic signal” to control other devices? How does the other machines know what the “virtual traffic signal” is? This limitation was examined as best understood for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights