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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/898,268, filed September 26, 2024. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/JP2023/012853, filed March 29, 2023, is acknowledged and accepted.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-055445, filed March 30, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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: a “distance measurement means,” a “display means,” and exclusion target determination means” in claim 1, an “object type identification means” in claim 9, and a “monitoring process means” in claim 12..
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. Looking at the Specification, a “distance measurement means,” comprises a laser scanner or camera, as recited in para 0068, a “display means,” comprises a display unit, as recited in para 0018, an “exclusion target determination means” comprises a processor, as recited in para 0037, an “object type identification means” comprises an input unit such as a mouse or the like, as recited in para 0060, and a “monitoring process means” comprises a control device, such as a CPU and memory, as recited in para 0016.
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
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 1-6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0274206, to Kozui et al. (hereinafter Kozui), and in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008163719, to Hitachi Construction Machinery (hereinafter Hitachi), both of which are provided by Applicant in the IDS of September 26, 2024.
As per claim 1, Kozui discloses a periphery-monitoring device for a work machine (e.g. see Fig. 1, and paras 0022 and 0039, wherein a construction machine 1 is provided including sensors 51, 52 and 53 for monitoring peripheral regions R1, R2 and R3 to the construction machine), the periphery-monitoring device displaying a periphery of the work machine…(e.g. see Figs. 2-3, and paras 0033 and 0054, wherein the construction machine includes a display section 61 within the cabin for displaying obstacles in the monitoring peripheral regions R), the periphery-monitoring device comprising: distance measurement means for acquiring distance information to an object on the periphery of the work machine (e.g. see para 0031, wherein the sensors calculates a distance to objects); display means for displaying the object in a first aspect in accordance with the distance information (e.g. see para 0054, wherein the display section displays the obstacles within the observation region (i.e. display the object in a first aspect based upon the distance range); and exclusion target determination means for determining at least a portion of the object having a distance measured by the distance measurement means within a prescribed range, as an exclusion target object, in a predetermined detection mode (e.g. see Fig. 2 and para 0041, wherein the construction machine includes a control section 41 that excludes from the monitoring region a lower traveling body 10 of the construction machine), wherein during work, the display means excludes the object determined as the exclusion target by the exclusion target determination means, in the objects detected by the distance measurement means, and displays the object on the periphery in the first aspect (e.g. see at least Fig. 12, wherein the monitored peripheral regions R1, R2 and R3 exclude the left and right crawlers 13, but still display the crawlers (i.e. in the first aspect).
Kolzui fails to particularly disclose that the work machine is actually displayed in an overhead view. However, Hitachi teaches the display of a detected object in a first aspect, wherein the display comprises an overhead view of the work machine (e.g. see Fig. 17). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Kolzui to include an overhead view of the work machine for the purpose of providing an improved awareness of surrounding conditions.
As per claim 2, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, and Kozui further discloses wherein the work machine has a portion where deformation, disassembly, or assembly is performed (e.g. see Fig. 1 and para 0022, wherein the construction machine comprises a hydraulic excavator having a bucket and crawler, both of which are replaceable components (i.e. disassembly or assembly can be performed)).
As per claim 3, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, and Kozui further discloses wherein in the detection mode, the distance measurement means performs detection while turning together with a turning unit of the work machine (e.g. the Office notes that the sensors 51, 52 and 53 would be continually operating, event during turning as shown in Fig. 1, and described in the Abstract), and the periphery-monitoring device further comprises position identification means for identifying position information of the object, based on a detection result obtained by the distance measurement means and turning angle information of the turning unit (e.g. see Fig. 14, wherein distances to objects, with respect to turn angle, are determined (i.e. identification of a position at different turning angles).
As per claim 4, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 3, and Kozui further discloses wherein the distance measurement means is a distance measuring instrument using a laser scanner (e.g. see para 0031, wherein the sensor uses laser light).
As per claim 5, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 3, and Hitachi further teaches wherein the distance measurement means is attached to a rear end portion bottom surface of a rotating platform of the work machine (e.g. see Fig. 1, wherein the sensor 32 is located on a bottom rear surface of an upper rotating portion). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Kolzui to include a placement of the sensor on a bottom rear portion to provide improved sensing of ground surface proximate the machine.
As per claim 6, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, and Kozui further discloses wherein the display means displays the object determined as the exclusion target by the exclusion target determination means in a second aspect which is different from the first aspect (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 10, wherein the right and left crawlers 13 are shown in a crosshatched configuration (i.e. second aspect)).
As per claim 8, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, and Kozui further discloses further comprising: selection means for selecting an object which is the exclusion target and an object which is not the exclusion target, from among objects having the distance measured by the distance measurement means within the prescribed range, in the detection mode (e.g. see Fig. 2 and para 0041, wherein the construction machine includes a control section 41 (i.e. selection means) that excludes from the monitoring region a lower traveling body 10 of the construction machine (i.e. selecting objects that are and are not excluded)).
As per claim 9, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 8, and Kozui further discloses further comprising: object type identification means for identifying whether or not the object detected by the distance measurement means is a configuration member of the work machine (e.g. see para 0041, wherein the control section excludes the lower traveling body from the monitoring regions), wherein when the work machine starts a traveling operation, even when the object is determined as the exclusion target by the exclusion target determination means, the display means displays an object identified as the object which is not the configuration member of the work machine by the object type identification means (e.g. see para 0033, wherein the display section displays results from the obstacle detection section (i.e. obstacles)).
As per claim 11, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, and Kozui further discloses further comprising: a memory for recording detection information of the object within a detection range detected by the distance measurement means (e.g. the Office notes that the system of Kozui would have to store, at least temporarily, the detection of objects for display and selection).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0274206, to Kozui et al. (hereinafter Kozui), and in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008163719, to Hitachi Construction Machinery (hereinafter Hitachi), provided by Applicant in the IDS of September 26, 2024, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0291614, to Kiyota et al. (hereinafter Kiyota).
As per claim 7, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 6, but fail to teach wherein the display means is a touch panel type display. However, Kiyota teaches an excavator configured for monitoring the surroundings of the excavator which is displayed on a touch display (e.g. see Fig. 5 and para 0050). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Kolzui to include utilizing a touch display for the purpose of reducing cost associated with various buttons and switches.
As per claim 12, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: monitoring process means for performing a periphery monitoring process, wherein, in a case where an alarm range is set within a range where a notification to an operator is presented when a presence of the object is detected, the monitoring process means determines a presence or absence of the object within the alarm range, based on detection information during the work by the distance measurement means, and when the object is present, performs notification processing on the display means. However, Kiyota teaches generating an alarm in a work machine upon detection of an object within a predetermined sensor range (e.g. see Figs. 7, 12A and 16A, and paras 0004 and 0016). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Kolzui to include generating an alarm and display for notifying a user of the work machine of potential injury to surrounding individuals.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0274206, to Kozui et al. (hereinafter Kozui), and in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008163719, to Hitachi Construction Machinery (hereinafter Hitachi), provided by Applicant in the IDS of September 26, 2024, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0223350, to Lewis et al. (hereinafter Lewis)
As per claim 10, Kozui, as modified by Hitachi, teaches the features of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the selection means is a touch panel type input interface provided in a cab of the work machine. However, Lewis teaches a user interface, including a touch screen, which allows an operator of the vehicle (i.e. within a cab or an excavator) to select targets (e.g. see Figs. 3-4, and para 0063). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Kolzui to include utilizing a touch display to select targets for the purpose of reducing cost associated with various buttons and switches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B