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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/978,425, with an effective filing date of 12/12/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending with claims 12-17 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Claim Objection sections in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.1 , and subsequently withdraws objections to said sections.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 10 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing relative terminology in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.1 , and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims. However, a new rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to a lack of clarity has been made and is detailed below.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 11 as being anticipated by Takeo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0145587 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Takeo], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Nishi (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/210173 A1) has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, although Takeo discloses in [0031] s.6, that the operation device and remote device can perform the same functions (e.g., interchangeable); [0032] s.1, the excavator is operated by inputs (by a user) on a remote device and s.6, allowing an operator of the external device to remotely control the excavator while checking displayed contents such as an information screen displayed on the remote control display device; and [0073] where the operation device has 3 selectable levers (26A-C) which respectively controls the activity of the excavator including the boom, arm cylinder, bucket, turning, and operation of the lower body (26A arm and the upper turning body, 26B boom (the boom cylinder ) and the bucket, and 26C lower traveling body), which are construed as a plurality of control modes for control related to the activity of an excavator based on Applicant’s disclosure of functions associated with excavator on pp. 30-39, which based on [0031], Applicant argues that Takeo does not explicitly disclose:
the predetermined screen being configured to receive, as a control mode to be applied to the hardware processor, one control mode selected from a plurality of control modes for the control related to the activity of the excavator by the user performing an operation on the predetermined screen using the first input apparatus, the predetermined screen displaying contents according to the selected one control mode, the contents including a first content common to the plurality of control modes and a second content that differs between the plurality of control modes.
However, Nishi teaches in Fig. 8, below, a display device that operates as an image display and an input device for an operator which is construed as being a predetermined screen configured to receive control mode selections related to the activity of an excavator by a user/operator using a first input apparatus. Characters 41i, 41b, 41c, 41e, 41j, 41h, 41j, and 41k are exemplary of first content that is common to the plurality of control modes, as described by Nishi on pg.3 ¶2. Furthermore, Nishi on pg.3 ¶7-8 teaches that the menu display has tabs 41p1 to 41p7 that are arranged at the lowermost portion of the image display section and the icon images for displaying various information are displayed on the tabs 41p1 to 41p7. Further, when one of the plurality of switches 42a1-7 (as described on pg.25 ¶12 of Nishi) is operated, the display control unit changes the menu display area 41p into a work information display area for displaying information on the selected operational work respectively while maintaining the image display area. This is construed as a second content that differs between control modes.
Therefore this argument is moot.
Regarding independent claim 9, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, this claim recites similar features to claim 1 and its rejection should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation one or more control modes renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the differences are between the another control mode, two or more control modes, and the plurality of control modes stated in claim 7 lines 3-5 and whether they refer to the same control modes or different ones.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0145587 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeo, in view of Nishi (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/210173 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takeo discloses:
An excavator, comprising:
a lower travel body ([0008] sentence (s.) 1,an excavator including a lower traveling body and see Fig. 1 below);
an upper slewing body mounted on the lower travel body in a slewable manner ([0008] s.1, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, which is interpreted as an upper slewing body and see Fig. 1 below);
an attachment attached to the upper slewing body ([0024] s.1, a boom, an arm, and a bucket as attachments and see Fig. 1 below);
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
302
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hardware processor configured to perform a control related to an activity of the excavator ([0072] s.4, Accordingly, the control device including the controller can control the pressure control valve and the inverter, and the driven element (actuator) of the excavator can be controlled according to the operation content of the operator or the operation instruction corresponding to the automatic operation function and [0079] s.2, controllers may each be configured around a computer including a processor);
a first input apparatus configured to be operated by from a user ([0032] s.1, remote control includes, for example, a mode in which the excavator is operated by an operation input related to the actuator of the excavator performed by a predetermined external device); and
a display configured to display a predetermined screen ([0032] s.4, the external device may display the image information (captured image) received by a display device (hereinafter, “remote control display device”) provided in the external device, which is construed as a predetermined screen).
Although Takeo discloses in [0031] s.6, that the operation device and remote device can perform the same functions (e.g., interchangeable); [0032] s.1, the excavator is operated by inputs (by a user) on a remote device and s.6, allowing an operator of the external device to remotely control the excavator while checking displayed contents such as an information screen displayed on the remote control display device; and [0073] where the operation device has 3 selectable levers (26A-C) which respectively controls the activity of the excavator including the boom, arm cylinder, bucket, turning, and operation of the lower body (26A arm and the upper turning body, 26B boom (the boom cylinder ) and the bucket, and 26C lower traveling body), which are construed as a plurality of control modes for control related to the activity of an excavator based on Applicant’s disclosure of functions associated with excavator on pp. 30-39, which based on [0031], Takeo does not explicitly disclose:
the predetermined screen being configured to receive, as a control mode to be applied to the hardware processor, one control mode selected from a plurality of control modes for the control related to the activity of the excavator by the user performing an operation on the predetermined screen using the first input apparatus, the predetermined screen displaying contents according to the selected one control mode, the contents including a first content common to the plurality of control modes and a second content that differs between the plurality of control modes.
However, Nishi teaches in Fig. 8, below, a display device that operates as an image display and an input device for an operator which is construed as being a predetermined screen configured to receive control mode selections related to the activity of an excavator by a user/operator using a first input apparatus. Characters 41i, 41b, 41c, 41e, 41j, 41h, 41j, and 41k are exemplary of first content that is common to the plurality of control modes. Nishi on pg.3 ¶2 describe these characters as a driving mode display area 41b, an attachment display area 41c, a fuel consumption display area 41d, an engine control state display area 41e, an engine operating time display area 41f, a cooling A water temperature display area 41g, a fuel remaining amount display area 41h, a rotation speed mode display area 41i, a urea water remaining amount display area 41j, and a working oil temperature display area 41k. Furthermore, Nishi on pg.3 ¶7-8 teaches that the menu display area 41p has tabs 41p1 to 41p7 that are arranged at the lowermost portion of the image display section and the icon images for displaying various information are displayed on the tabs 41p1 to 41p7. Further, Nishi teaches on pg. 25 ¶11-12 that the input device is composed of one or a plurality of button switches for selection of tabs 41p1 to 41p7 by the operator, and includes seven switches 42a1 to 42a7 arranged in the upper stage and seven switches 42b1 to 42b7 arranged in the lower stage. When one of the plurality of switches 42a1-7 (as described on pg.25 ¶12 of Nishi) is operated, the display control unit changes the menu display area 41p into a work information display area for displaying information on the selected operational work respectively while maintaining the image display area 41n. This is construed as a second content that differs between control modes.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and remote controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Takeo, by incorporating the display device teachings of Nishi, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving control capabilities for a remote user.
PNG
media_image2.png
983
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
Claim 9 recites a display apparatus having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the second content is unique to the selected one control mode (Nishi on pg.3 ¶7-8 teaches that the menu display area 41p has tabs 41p1 to 41p7 that are arranged at the lowermost portion of the image display section and the icon images for displaying various information are displayed on the tabs 41p1 to 41p7 and when one of the plurality of switches 42a1-7 (as described on pg.25 ¶12 of Nishi) is operated, the display control unit changes the menu display area 41p into a work information display area for displaying information on the selected operational work respectively while maintaining the image display area 41n, which is construed as the second content comprising content unique to the selected control mode).
Claim 10 recites a display apparatus having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined screen includes a variable area displaying the second content ([0032] s.6, information screen and Nishi pg.3 ¶7-8) and a fixed area operable displaying the first content, the fixed area being by the user using the first input apparatus to select the one control mode from the plurality of control modes (Takeo [0032] regarding remote control operation input for an excavator and [0099] gesture input device such as a touch screen, touch, pad , button, or the like and Nishi Fig. 8, above, a display device that operates as an image display and an input device for an operator which is construed as being a predetermined screen with a fixed section configured to receive control mode selections related to the activity of an excavator by a user/operator using a first input apparatus where characters 41i, 41b, 41c, 41e, 41j, 41h, 41j, and 41k are exemplary of first content that is common to the plurality of control modes).
Regarding claim 4, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second input apparatus provided separately from the first input apparatus and configured to receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of control modes, without the predetermined screen being performed ([0032] s.5, output device which is different than the remote device, construed as a second input device separate from the first input device).
Regarding claim 5, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of tabs are arranged on the predetermined screen, the plurality of tabs including a plurality of first tabs corresponding to two or more of the plurality of control modes, the plurality of first tabs each being configured to be selected to select a corresponding one of the two or more of the plurality of control modes (Nishi pg. 25 ¶11-12 the input device is composed of one or a plurality of button switches for selection of tabs 41p1 to 41p7 by the operator, includes seven switches 42a1 to 42a7 (construed as first tabs) arranged in the upper stage and seven switches 42b1 to 42b7 arranged in the lower stage).
Regarding claim 7, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of tabs further include a second tab for selecting another control mode from one or more control modes other than the two or more of the plurality of control modes among the plurality of control modes (Nishi pg. 25 ¶11-12 the input device is composed of one or a plurality of button switches for selection of tabs 41p1 to 41p7 by the operator, includes seven switches 42a1 to 42a7 arranged in the upper stage and seven switches 42b1 to 42b7 (construed as second tabs) arranged in the lower stage).
Regarding claim 11, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
A remote operation assistance apparatus, comprising:
the display apparatus of claim 9 (see claim 1 regarding display);
the input apparatus (see claim 1 regarding receiving operator inputs);
an operation device for a user to remotely operate the excavator (see claim 1 regarding remote control); and
a communication device configured to transmit operation content of the operation device and operation content of the one predetermined screen to the excavator ([0032] s.7 utilizing a communication device to transmit information to and from the excavator).
Regarding claim 13, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the first content includes a plurality of tabs corresponding to two or more of the plurality of control modes (Nishi pg. 25 ¶11-12 the input device is composed of one or a plurality of button switches for selection of tabs 41p1 to 41p7 by the operator, includes seven switches 42a1 to 42a7 (construed as first tabs) arranged in the upper stage and seven switches 42b1 to 42b7 arranged in the lower stage).
Regarding claim 15, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the second content includes an image representing a state of surroundings of the excavator (see Fig. 8 above which displays an image representing the state of the surroundings of the excavator).
Regarding claim 16, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 4, wherein the first input apparatus is a touch panel ([0099] s.3, operation input device includes, for example, a button, a toggle, a lever, a touch panel, a touch pad, and the like).
However, Nishi is further relied upon to teach the limitation the second input apparatus is a dial on pg.9 ¶1 where the input device includes a touch panel mounted on the display of the display device that displays various information images, knob switches provided at the tips of the lever portions of the lever devices, button switches provided around the display device, Including levers, toggles, rotary dials, etc. A signal corresponding to the operation content for the input device is captured by the controller
Regarding claim 17, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 16, wherein the dial is configured to be rotated to adjust an output of a prime mover of the excavator and pushed downward to select the one of the plurality of control modes (Nishi pg.9 ¶1 use of rotary knobs and/or buttons and input switches for the system).
_________________________________________
Claim 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0145587 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeo, in view of Nishi (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/210173 A1), and Cragun et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0172237 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cragun.
Regarding claim 6, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses in pg. 29 ¶3 of Nishi that design modifications to these specific examples by those skilled in the art are also included in the scope of the reference as long as they have the features of the present invention including its arrangement, conditions, shape, etc. are not limited to those illustrated and can be changed as appropriate.
However, Takeo as modified by Nishi, does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined screen is configured to change the arrangement of the plurality of tabs in response to the user performing another operation on the predetermined screen using the first input apparatus.
However, Cragun in [0058] s.1 teaches Control Order Editor window that displays a preview of the tab order of various controls to allow the application designer or the user to change the tab order.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of remote vehicle controls, user experience (UX), and information displays before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the remote excavator control system of Takeo, as already modified by the display device teachings of Nishi, by incorporating the display and tab teachings of Cragun, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of providing adjustable tabs on a predetermined screen based on user preference.
Regarding claim 14, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 13, wherein the first content further includes a tab for setting an order of arrangement of the plurality of tabs (Cragun in [0058] s.1 teaches Control Order Editor window that displays a preview of the tab order of various controls to allow the application designer or the user to change the tab order).
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0145587 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeo, in view of Nishi (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/210173 A1) and Kurata et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0212714 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kurata.
Regarding claim 8, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses:
The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to, at a time of activation of the excavator, automatically select a control mode ([0035] s. 4, automatic operation function, or the like may include a mode in which the operation content of the driven element (actuator) to be automatically operated is automatically determined according to a predetermined rule, which may necessarily be to perform the control mode that was last selected at the time the excavator was last stopped),
but Takeo, as modified by Nishi, does not explicitly disclose:
applied to the hardware processor at a time of last stopping of the excavator from among the plurality of control modes.
However, Kurata teaches in [0148] s. 2-4 that after the key-on operation of the work vehicle is next performed, the controller starts the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as the initial orientation of the work vehicle. Furthermore, the key-on operation is performed while the orientation at the time of the previous key-off is stored in the non-volatile memory, the controller makes available the operation to initiate the automatic steering control. After the operation to initiate the automatic steering control is performed, the controller starts the automatic steering control using the orientation stored in the non-volatile memory as the initial orientation of the work vehicle. This is construed as the system storing the mode of operation from the previous stoppage to automatically be used as an initial mode of the next operation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of remote vehicle controls and information displays before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the remote excavator control system of Takeo, as already modified by the display device teachings of Nishi, by incorporating the mode storage teachings of Kurata, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving the autonomy of the system.
______________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0145587 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeo, in view of Nishi (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/210173 A1) and Yamane (JP Pat. No. 7033396 B2).
Regarding claim 12, although the functions below are construed as being ubiquitous in the field of heavy machinery and excavating, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, discloses the limitation The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of control modes correspond to a plurality of functions, the plurality of functions including a function of assisting with an operation of loading earth and sand onto a dump truck by the excavator in Nishi pg.27 ¶12 when the load (earth and sand) in the bucket 6 is discharged onto the bed of the dump truck.
However, Takeo, as modified by Nishi, does not explicitly state
a function of supporting an operation of suspending a load from a hook of the excavator and moving the suspended load, and
a function of assisting with an operation of constructing a target shape of a work target of the excavator.
However, Yamane teaches on pg.1 ¶2 that performing construction in areas where it is difficult for people to enter, such as decommissioning work, remotely controllable construction machines (crane, dump truck, excavator car, etc.) are used. Cranes are not only used to suspend items from hooks but are also utilized in the constructing of shapes.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and remote controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Takeo, as already modified by the display device teachings of Nishi, by incorporating the function teachings of Yamane, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of incorporating commonly used excavating functions for remote control.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Yoshida et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 116897237 A) is directed towards a working machine equipped with a display device for displaying various information in a cab; and
Shiratani et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114080481 A) is directed towards a construction machine and an assistance device for assisting the operation of the construction machine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights