DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 09/27/2024 and 06/23/2025 have been received and considered.
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an assisting device” (claims 1-7, 10)
“a management device” (claims 1, 4-5, 10)
“a communication control part” (claims 1, 4)
“a storage part” (claim 1)
“a display control part” (claims 2-3, 6-7)
“a display device” (claims 1, 6)
“a display command part” (claim 5)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (page 15, line 24-page 16, line 1: “The communication device T1 is structured to control communication with external devices located outside the excavator 100. According to the present embodiment, the communication device T1 controls communication with external devices via a satellite communication network, a mobile telephone communication network, the Internet, and so forth. The external devices may include, for example, a management device 200 such as a server installed in an external facility, or an assisting device 300 such as a smartphone that a worker near the excavator 100 carries with him/her.”; page 13, lines 15-17: “The storage device 47 is structured to store various pieces of information. The storage device 47 is, for example, a non-volatile storage medium such as a semiconductor memory.”; page 18, lines 27-32: “For example, the controller 30 can display an indicator on the display device 40 provided in the cabin 10 to inform the operator of the excavator 100 of an anomaly in the air cleaner 17 and prompt the operator to take an appropriate action (replace or clean the outer element, for example).”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a system, method, and medium for managing excavator information. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An excavator management system comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed;
an assisting device for the excavator;
and a management device for the excavator,
wherein the assisting device includes a communication control part configured to transmit machine identification information of the excavator and part identification information of a part of the excavator in association with each other, to the management device, the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part, and
wherein the management device includes a storage part configured to store the machine identification information and the part identification information in association with each other.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the “the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part” limitation includes a human operator mentally determining the machine identification information and part identification information by observing the first and second images. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An excavator management system comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed;
an assisting device for the excavator;
and a management device for the excavator,
wherein the assisting device includes a communication control part configured to transmit machine identification information of the excavator and part identification information of a part of the excavator in association with each other, to the management device, the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part, and
wherein the management device includes a storage part configured to store the machine identification information and the part identification information in association with each other.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “wherein the assisting device includes a communication control part configured to transmit machine identification information of the excavator and part identification information of a part of the excavator in association with each other, to the management device,” this limitation recites mere data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding the “wherein the management device includes a storage part configured to store the machine identification information and the part identification information in association with each other” limitation, this limitation recites data storage that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The independent claims also recite the additional elements of an excavator, an assisting device, and a management device which are machinery merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Bramberger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0054601 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-7, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite displaying information and displaying an input screen that is merely insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1, Bramberger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0054601 A1, and Koga, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0326726 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4-5, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite mere data transmission and display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Bramberger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0054601 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8-9, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by defining the locations and format of the first and second predetermined images. The first and second images are used in the abstract idea of observing information and in the data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Bramberger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0054601 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1, in view of Bramberger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0054601 A1 (hereinafter Bramberger).
Regarding claim 1, Koshi discloses an excavator management system (see at least Koshi Fig. 6) comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed (see at least Koshi [0126]: “The monitor 213 has a display function of displaying a remaining amount of the fuel, failure information of the hydraulic excavator 1 and the like”);
an assisting device for the excavator (see at least Koshi [0127]: “Further, the communication controller 200 serves as a transmitter for transmitting the information acquired from the readers 15 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 through the communication network 120.”; [0050]: “Among these, the communication network 120 is used for data communication in a form of wireless communication. A mobile phone network and a satellite communication network are usable.”);
and a management device for the excavator (see at least Koshi [0138]: “As shown in FIG. 6, the management center 110 includes the management server 111 that integrally manages various information including parts information acquired by each of the working vehicles.”),
wherein the assisting device includes a communication control part configured to transmit machine identification information of the excavator and part identification information of a part of the excavator in association with each other, to the management device (see at least Koshi [0135]: “When the communication controller 200 transmits the data read by the identification devices 30 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 via the communication network 120, the communication controller 200 simultaneously transmits date-time data, vehicle type information indicating the type of the working vehicle on which the communication controller 200 is provided, and vehicle unique information (e.g. ID) unique to the working vehicle.”; [0139]: “The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”),
and wherein the management device includes a storage part configured to store the machine identification information and the part identification information in association with each other (see at least Koshi [0139]: “The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”).
Koshi fails to expressly disclose the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part. However, Bramberger teaches
the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part (see at least Bramberger [0034]: “The image evaluation unit can then identify the component shown in the image provided by the camera using one of the above-mentioned criteria such as a bar code, QR code or similar.”; [0054]: “As FIG. 2 or FIG. 4 shows, the augmented reality system 9 can include at least one camera 10, which observes a respective construction machine 2, 3 and provides an actual image of the mounting environment of a component or the whole construction machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Koshi with Bramberger with reasonable expectation of success. Bramberger is directed towards the related field of maintaining and repairing a construction machine. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Koshi with Bramberger to improve efficiency and reliability for maintenance and repair of different construction machines (see at least Bramberger [0007]: “The present invention is therefore based on the task of enabling fast and reliable maintenance and repair of different components of different construction machines on site at a construction site, not requiring specially trained service technicians with experience in the respective machine type, and at the same time preventing the disclosing of sensitive know-how aspects.”).
Regarding claim 2, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
wherein the assisting device further includes a display control part configured to display, on a display device, a screen for reading the part identification information, after the machine identification information is read (see at least Bramberger [0035]: “Here, the image evaluation system identifies the individual components in the camera image, e.g. by means of the aforementioned bar or OR code, and the connection points to which the identified component was connected. If the identified connection points or fasteners deviate from the DESIRED state according to the assembly drawing, as it can be obtained from the CAD system or also by a preceding teach-in procedure, an error message can be output and the corresponding error location can be marked on the camera image shown on the display.”; [0018]: “Such repair information may, for example, include instructions regarding the mounting and/or dismounting steps to be taken for mounting and/or dismounting a replacement part, for example in the form of written and/or picture instructions. In particular, such repair and/or maintenance information may also include a picture and/or drawing presentation of the component to be repaired or maintained and the component and mounting environment of the said component, in order to provide the local maintenance mechanic with a clear visualisation of the repair or maintenance.”; Bramberger [0009] discloses after the machine identification is read because the component information is determined based on the type of construction machine and manufacturer).
Regarding claim 3, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the assisting device further includes a display control part configured to hold the part identification information temporarily when the part identification information is read before the machine identification information is read (see at least Koshi [0198]: “When it is judged in the judgment process in Step S9 that the pieces of the parts information are not the same (Step S9, NO), the update unit 1117 updates the stored parts information for the corresponding part with the parts information judged to be not the same (Step S10).”; [0167]: “At this time, the update unit 1117 also updates the received strength stored in association with each of the pieces of the parts information. Thus, the latest parts information is held (stored) in the management server 111 in association with the received strength.”; Koshi discloses temporarily holding part identification information because the stored part information can be updated when it is determined that the stored information does not match new information),
and display a list of temporarily-saved part identification information when the machine identification information is read (see at least Koshi [0097]: “The received strength measured by the measurement unit 153 is held in association with the parts information included in the measured electric waves by the later-described information holder 156. The information in which the received strength measured by the measurement unit 153 is associated with the parts information included in the electric waves is included in the information transmitted by the later-described information transmitter 159 (see FIG. 10).”; [0139]: “The management server 111 can mutually communicate with a display 112 including monitor and the like, a communication device 113 capable of wireless communication or wired communication, and the like. The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”; Koshi Fig. 10 shows a list of part information).
Regarding claim 4, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 3 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
wherein, when the communication control part of the assisting device registers a selection of at least one piece of part identification information from the list of the temporarily-saved part identification information (see at least Bramberger [0012]: “The machine data station, that stores a variety of different component data, can select a data set from the stored pool on the basis of the request received from the data supply station, so that the data supply station receives only the component data which is actually required.”),
the communication control part of the assisting device transmits the selected part identification information and the machine identification information in association with each other to the management device (see at least Bramberger [0078]: “Thereby, it can be provided that the said 3D printing data is provided to the data supply station 6 by way of a communication link from a machine data station 21 that is at a separate location from the maintenance and data supply stations, wherein, in addition to said 3D printing data, a plurality of component data for further components of the construction machine 2, 3 or of another construction machine are kept ready in a storage device at the said machine data station 21, wherein a given component data set for the component 19 to be repaired is selected by the data supply station 7 and/or the machine data station 21 from the plurality of component data that have been stored on the basis of a data set request sent by the maintenance station and is provided to the maintenance station.”).
Regarding claim 5, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
wherein the management device includes a display command part configured to extract maintenance information associated with the machine identification information transmitted from the assisting device (see at least Bramberger [0079]: “Further, it may be provided for maintaining and/or repairing a construction machine 2, 3 at the jobsite of the construction machine, using a mobile maintenance station 7 that is placed at the jobsite of the construction machine, comprising a 3D printer 29 for printing replacement parts 19 for the construction machine 2, 3 on the basis of the component data and/or a mobile display device 8 for displaying repair information on the construction machine 2, 3 on the basis of the component data, that an image of the component 19 to be repaired and of the mounting environment of the component to be repaired is shown on a display by means of an augmented reality device 9, and a mounting position of the component 19 to be repaired in the mounting environment is overlaid onto the displayed image on the display, wherein augmented reality data for overlaying the component information and/or position in the mounting environment is transmitted to the maintenance station 7 by way of a communication link from the data supply station 6 in response to a request from the maintenance station, wherein the mounting position of the component 19 to be repaired in the mounting environment is overlaid onto the displayed image on the display, depending on the augmented reality and/or component data transmitted from the data supply station 6 to the maintenance station 7.”),
and display the maintenance information on the assisting device (see at least Bramberger [0053]: “As shown in FIG. 2, the maintenance station 7 may include a display device 8 for displaying repair information on the respective construction machine, wherein the said display device 8 being mobile and can be worn on the body of an individual worker.”).
Regarding claim 6, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the assisting device further includes a display control part configured to display, when one of the machine identification information of the excavator or the part identification information of the part is read, a message to indicate that the other one of the machine identification information or the part identification information has not been read yet, on a display device (see at least Koshi [0177]: “The notification unit 1120 outputs the error information when, for instance, the error judgment unit 1113 judges that the error information is present. Thus, the administrator and the like can be notified of the contents of the error (e.g. malfunction of the reader 15 and failure in acquiring the parts information by the reader 15).”).
Regarding claim 8, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
wherein the first predetermined image is an image affixed to a body of the excavator or an image formed on a surface of the body of the excavator (see at least Bramberger [0059]: “An image evaluation device 12 and/or a scanning device or another reading device may be provided which can evaluate a marking on component 2, for example in the form of a bar or QR code.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a surface of the body includes a component),
and wherein the second predetermined image is an image affixed to the part or a packaging material of the part, or an image formed on a surface of the part (see at least Bramberger [0035]: “Here, the image evaluation system identifies the individual components in the camera image, e.g. by means of the aforementioned bar or OR code, and the connection points to which the identified component was connected.”).
Regarding claim 9, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
wherein the first predetermined image and the second predetermined image are two-dimensional codes (see at least Bramberger [0034]: “The image evaluation unit can then identify the component shown in the image provided by the camera using one of the above-mentioned criteria such as a bar code, QR code or similar.”).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The combination of Koshi and Bramberger also teaches the method performed by the excavator management system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the method according to claim 10 as explained above. Bramberger further teaches
a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 10 (see at least Bramberger [0065]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the data supply station 6 of the system service provider can be connected with the said local control unit 4 to a central computer or server 20 of the system service provider, either via a permanently installed data line or via the Internet, if necessary with the interposition of a further firewall.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshi in view of Bramberger, and further in view of Koga, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0326726 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Koshi in view of Bramberger teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi in view of Bramberger fail to expressly disclose an input screen for allowing input of the machine identification information or the part identification information that the assisting device failed to read. However, Koga teaches
wherein the assisting device further includes a display control part configured to display, when the assisting device fails to read at least one of the machine identification information of the excavator or the part identification information of the part, an input screen for allowing input of the at least one of the machine identification information or the part identification information that the assisting device failed to read (see at least Koga [0078]: “Next, the post-step S4 of FIG. 7 will be described. If the failure search and repair are completed, the serviceman operates the support device 50 to display a failure classification input screen (FIG. 11E) on the display device 55. On the failure classification input screen, a failure classification input area 575, a failure countermeasure input area 576, other countermeasures button 577, and a replaced or repaired component name input area 578 are displayed. The serviceman inputs a failure classification found as a result of an actual failure search and an actual failure countermeasure to the support device 50. A typical failure classification or failure countermeasure prepared in advance can be selected and input from a pull-down menu. In a case where the corresponding failure classification or failure countermeasure is not displayed in the pull-down menu, the serviceman can input an arbitrary sentence by tapping the other countermeasures button 577.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Koshi in view of Bramberger with the input taught by Koga with reasonable expectation of success. Koga is directed towards the related field of an excavator managing device and maintenance support of an excavator. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Koshi in view of Bramberger with Koga to improve excavator repair operations (see at least Koga [0032]: “It is desirable to provide an excavator managing device capable of easily applying past repair experience to future repair operations. Further, it is desirable to provide a support device which communicates with the excavator managing device.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akita et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0138525 A1, directed towards a work machine and parts management system.
Antony et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0092557 A1, directed towards a vehicle image-based repair plan.
Komine et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325288 A1, directed towards a work machine component monitoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662