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 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 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 first operation element that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform angle movement” in claim 1, “a second operation element that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform tilt movement” in claim 1, “a third operation element that…accepts an operation of switching a vehicle speed” in claim 11, and “a traveling unit” in claim 11.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki (WO 2021/176953 [US 2023/0084302]).
As concerns claim 1, Okazaki shows an operation system for a work machine (1) provided with a soil removal device (20) including a blade (24), comprising: an operation lever (324) that accepts a lifting operation for causing the blade to perform lifting movement (paragraph 0029); a first operation element (327b) that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform angle movement of rotationally swinging the blade around a first axis along a vertical direction (paragraph 0082); and a second operation element (327c) that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform tilt movement of rotationally swinging the blade around a second axis along a horizontal direction (paragraph 0082), wherein the first operation element and the second operation element are provided individually (Fig. 8).
As concerns claim 6, Okazaki shows an automatic control unit that automatically controls the blade (paragraph 0058), wherein automatic control of the blade is stopped when one of the first operation element and the second operation element is operated during automatic control of the blade (paragraph 0081).
As concerns claim 7, Okazaki shows wherein the first operation element and the second operation element are disposed adjacent to each other (Fig. 8).
As concerns claim 8, Okazaki shows wherein the first operation element and the second operation element are disposed on a grip portion (3240) of the operation lever (Fig. 8).
As concerns claim 9, Okazaki shows wherein the first operation element and the second operation element are disposed side by side in a longitudinal direction of the grip portion (Fig. 8).
As concerns claim 10, Okazaki shows wherein an operation surface of the grip portion on which the first operation element and the second operation element are provided is inclined toward a driver’s seat in a left-right direction of a machine body (Fig. 3 & 8).
As concerns claim 11, Okazaki shows a third operation element (326) that is disposed on the grip portion (Fig. 4C), and is suitable to accept an operation of switching a vehicle speed of a traveling unit of the work machine. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As concerns claim 14, Okazaki shows a work machine (1) comprising: the operation system according to claim 1 (Fig. 3 & 8); and a machine body (2, 3) including the soil removal device (20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki alone.
As concerns claim 12, Okazaki discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each of the first operation element and the second operation element is a slide switch operable in both of operation directions with respect to a neutral position as a reference. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have utilized a slide switch for each of the first operation element and the second operation element, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to using a pair of switches for each of the first operation element and the second operation element. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with a pair of switches for each of the first operation element and the second operation element because the blade would still have been capable of being rotationally swung around a vertical axis to perform angle movement and rotationally swung around a horizontal axis to perform tilt movement, respectively. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a slide switch for each of the first operation element and the second operation element in place of a pair of switches, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of various types of switches for their use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a slide switch for each of the first operation element and the second operation element which is operable in both of operation directions with respect to a neutral position as a reference would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Okazaki to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 13, Okazaki shows wherein the operation direction is a direction along a left-right direction of a machine body (Fig. 3 & 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious an operation system for a work machine provided with a soil removal device including a blade, comprising: an operation lever that accepts a lifting operation for causing the blade to perform lifting movement; a first operation element that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform angle movement of rotationally swinging the blade around a first axis along a vertical direction; and a second operation element that accepts an operation for causing the blade to perform tilt movement of rotationally swinging the blade around a second axis along a horizontal direction, wherein the first operation element and the second operation element are provided individually, and wherein the angle movement and the tilt movement are prohibited at a simultaneous operation time of the first operation element and the second operation element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights