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 . Claims 1-12 filed on 10/31/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-197872, filed on 11/22/2023.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/31/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 10/31/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed towards “A work machine control program”, which is directed towards software per se. In order to overcome the current rejection, the office recommends amending the claims to recite, “A work machine control program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which one or more processors execute the work machine control method according to claim 1.” This amendment provides sufficient structure and clear execution by a processor to overcome the current rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “image acquisition 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyota et al. (US PGPUB 20190360177).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11; Kiyota teaches; A work machine control method comprising: (Kiyota; at least paragraph [0004]; disclose a monitoring system for capturing and displaying images for a work machine)
acquiring a captured image of a monitoring area around a work machine; (Kiyota; at least paragraphs [0072]-[0074]; disclose a plurality of image capturing units for capturing images surrounding a work machine)
displaying a display screen including the captured image on, a display device; and (Kiyota; at least Figs. 18A-19B; discloses two types of display screens for displaying captured images from the image capturing units)
in the case where a detection processor for detecting a detection target in the monitoring area is enabled, displaying a valid object, which moves in at least one of a circumferential direction and a radial direction of a virtual circle centered on a reference point set for the captured image, in a superimposed manner on the captured image on the display screen. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 31-32 and 34A-36; paragraphs [0388]-[0394] disclose a vehicle detecting part (i.e. detection processor) for detecting approaching vehicles, wherein the work machine is centered as a reference point in the display and a detected vehicle is superimposed within the screen in circumferential/radial directions to provide awareness to an operator of a vehicles proximity to the work machine as well as if it is in close enough range to potentially impact movement of the shovel of the work machine).
Regarding Claim 2; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1 further comprising: displaying a machine body object at the reference point on the display screen. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 31-32 and 34A-36).
Regarding Claim 3; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein a display mode of the valid object is changed according to a detection result by the detection processor. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 34A-34B).
Regarding Claim 4; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the valid object has transparency. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 24A-26B).
Regarding Claim 5; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the captured image is an overhead image. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 26A-26B and 34A-34B).
Regarding Claim 6; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the valid object is long along a radius of the virtual circle and moves in the circumferential direction of the virtual circle. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 34A-36).
Regarding Claim 7; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 6, wherein the captured image has a shape in which an excluded range from a first end to a second end, which is a circumferential part of the virtual circle, is cut out, and the valid object skips the excluded range and moves from the first end to the second end. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 34A-39).
Regarding Claim 8; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the valid object moves in the radial direction of the virtual circle from the reference point side toward an outer circumferential side of the virtual circle. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 34A-39).
Regarding Claim 9; Kiyota teaches; The work machine control method according to claim 8, wherein when moving to an outermost end of a movable range, the valid object moves to an innermost end of the movable range. (Kiyota; at least Figs. 34A-39).
Regarding Claim 10; Kiyota teaches; A work machine control program for causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method according to claim 1. (Kiyota; at least paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 12; Kiyota teaches; A work machine comprising: the work machine control system according to claim 11; and a machine body on which the display device is mounted. (Kiyota; at least Fig. 1; paragraphs [0066] and [0072]-[0074]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aizawa et al. (US PGPUB 20200399863): disclose an information processing system that captures images surrounding a work machine and further processes the images to detect a current status of the work area.
Machida et al. (US PGPUB 20170305018): disclose surrounding monitoring device for a work machine that includes a plurality of cameras in order to provide a birds eye view of the a work space that the work machine is currently operating in.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights