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 space recognition device (claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-11)
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 § 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 1-4, 8, and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220090362 by Yamashita et al. (hereinafter “Yamashita”), further in view of US20210004618 by Qin et al. (hereinafter “Qin”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches A construction machine, comprising: a cab including an operator’s seat; and a space recognition device disposed on a . See for example Fig. 1 showing a construction machine. See also Fig. 2, which includes an operator seat, as well as cameras 40, where a camera reads on a space recognition device because it recognizes a space.
Yamashita does not explicitly teach that the camera should be mounted on a pillar.
However, Qin teaches a construction machine having a camera mounted on a pillar. See for example paragraph [0204], where the camera may be mounted in any suitable place in the cab, including on a pillar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita teaches further comprising: a lower travel body; and an upper slewing body mounted on the lower travel body in a slewable manner, wherein the cab is mounted on the upper slewing body. See paragraphs [0017]-[0020] and Fig. 1, showing and describing an excavator having a lower travel body and upper slewable body with a cab.
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita does not explicitly teach, but Qin teaches wherein the space recognition device is disposed between a height of a seat surface of an operator’s seat provided in the cab and a height of an upper end portion of a headrest of the operator’s seat. See again paragraph [0204], where the camera can be provided in any location (including pillars), and the locations include “a location above or near a dashboard, a location above or near a center console, an A-pillar or nearby location, or a rearview mirror or nearby location,” which generally include multiple locations between a height of a seat surface of an operator’s seat provided in the cab and a height of an upper end portion of a headrest of the operator’s seat.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita does not explicitly teach, but Qin does teach wherein the space recognition device is disposed at a position where the space recognition device does not interfere with a front window provided in the cab at a time of opening and closing the front window. See again paragraph [0204], where the camera can be provided in any location (including pillars), and the locations include “a location above or near a dashboard, a location above or near a center console, an A-pillar or nearby location, or a rearview mirror or nearby location,” which generally include multiple locations where the space recognition device does not interfere with a front window provided in the cab at a time of opening and closing the front window.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita teaches a machine comprising: an image data acquirer configured to acquire a plurality of image data acquired by each of the plurality of space recognition devices; and a state detector configured to detect a state of an operator seated on an operator’s seat provided in the cab by using the plurality of image data. See for example paragraphs [0046] and [0049], where the camera detects an operator’s state (posture, distraction) based on image data.
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita does not explicitly teach, but Qin teaches a machine comprising: an outputter configured to cause a display device to display image data at a time of detecting the state of the operator by the state detector. See for example paragraph [0258], where the system displays a driver image received from the detection cameras.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita teaches An assistance system for a construction machine comprising a construction machine and a management apparatus, see for example Fig. 1 showing a construction machine. See also paragraphs [0045]-[0046] for example, describing a distraction determination device, reading on a management apparatus.
wherein the construction machine includes a lower travel body; an upper slewing body mounted on the lower travel body in a slewable manner; a cab mounted on the upper slewing body; See paragraphs [0017]-[0020] and Fig. 1, showing and describing an excavator having a lower travel body and upper slewable body with a cab.
a space recognition device disposed on a See for example Fig. 2, which shows a cab having cameras 40.
.
Yamashita does not explicitly teach that the device should be disposed on a pillar, but Qin teaches disposing a camera on a pillar. See for example paragraph [0204], where the camera may be mounted in any suitable place in the cab, including on a pillar.
Yamashita also does not explicitly teach, but Qin teaches and an outputter configured to output a plurality of image data captured by the space recognition device to the management apparatus, and the management apparatus includes a storage section configured to store the plurality of image data. See for example paragraph [0258], where the system displays a driver image received from the detection cameras.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected as unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Qin as applied to claims 3 and 4 above, and further in view of JP2020162145A by Tatsumi (hereinafter “Tatsumi”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita does not explicitly teach, but Tatsumi does teach wherein the spatial recognition device is movable. See for example the last paragraph of page 3, or the third paragraph of page 4, where the camera apparatus can be detachably mounted.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita, modified by the pillar mounted camera of Qin, with the movable camera assembly of Tatsumi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the camera to be installed wherever provides the best camera angle for each operator or for each machine.
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita teaches wherein a plurality of space recognition devices is arranged, each of the space recognition devices being the space recognition device, . See for example paragraph [0038] describing a plurality of cameras, each for observing the operator.
Yamashita does not explicitly teach attaching cameras to the pillar.
However, Qin teaches attaching cameras to the pillar. See for example paragraph [0204], where the camera may be mounted in any suitable place in the cab, including on a pillar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita with the pillar mounted camera of Qin with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to monitor the user without blocking the user’s view (see ¶ [0204]).
Neither Yamashita nor Qin explicitly teach, but Tatsumi does teach an attachment member for attaching the plurality of space recognition devices, and the plurality of space recognition devices each include a fixing member that is attachable to and detachable from the attachment member, the fixing member fixing a corresponding space recognition device of the plurality of space recognition devices to the pillar. See page 5 paragraph 7, as well as page 6 paragraph 4, where the camera is detachably mounted in a camera storage box 5208 (which is part of the overall attachment mechanism 52), reading on an attachment member for attaching the plurality of space recognition devices (though other parts of the attachment apparatus could also read on it). See also for example Figure 8 or page 5, paragraphs 4-9, where the attachment / detachment mechanism 52 includes magnet units 5204 and support plate 5202, either of which reads on the plurality of space recognition devices each include a fixing member that is attachable to and detachable from the attachment member, the fixing member fixing a corresponding space recognition device of the plurality of space recognition devices to the pillar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita, modified by the pillar mounted camera of Qin, with the movable camera assembly of Tatsumi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the camera to be installed wherever provides the best camera angle for each operator or for each machine.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita does not explicitly teach, but Tatsumi teaches wherein the fixing member is a magnet. See again Figure 8 or page 5, paragraphs 4-9, where the attachment / detachment mechanism 52 includes magnet units 5204 for affixing the camera.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver monitoring system of Yamashita, modified by the pillar mounted camera of Qin, with the movable camera assembly of Tatsumi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the camera to be installed wherever provides the best camera angle for each operator or for each machine.
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita teaches wherein the state detector is configured to select image data in accordance with the state of the operator to be detected from the plurality of image data, and detect the state of the operator based on the selected image data. See for example paragraphs [0046] and [0049], where the camera detects an operator’s state (posture, distraction) based on image data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20210388579 by Kennedy teaching 3D recognition of debris inside a cab.
US20230209013 by Delaney et al. teaching a magnetic, detachable laptop camera, or using multiple cameras at once.
US12359405 by Eguchi et al. teaching a depth sensor attached to the pillar of an excavator cab.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights