DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-8 filed on 12/12/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1 and 8 are independent form.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
5-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites an excavator, comprising: a lower traveling body; an upper slewing body that is slewably mounted on the lower traveling body; a photographing device that is attached to the upper slewing body; a display device configured to display photographed image data that is obtained by the photographing device; and a control device configured to, in response to receiving an operation to designate an object included in the photographed image data, perform, on information indicating the object, a setting to suppress detection of the object.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to an excavator. The claim 1 therefore is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are direct to capturing an image, displaying it, and performing a common practice long carried out by field practitioners. For example, “perform[ing], on information indicating the object, a setting to suppress detection of the object” in the context of this claim, encompasses organizing human activity, therefore the limitation falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of “photographed image data that is obtained by the photographing device” and “display[ing] photographed image data” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even although claim 1 recites an excavator, there is no inventive concept in the claimed invention. It is because the claim uses generic an excavator to accomplish the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the excavator, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore is ineligible.
5-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-7, they are viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5-3. Regarding independent claim 8, the claims recite system which is analogous to apparatus claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. Furthermore, the claim is a method that does not recite any additional elements, and according to step 2A-2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Because the claim fails under (2A), the claim is further evaluated under (2B). The claim herein does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 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.
7-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “a control device configured to, in response to receiving an operation to designate an object included in the photographed image data, perform, on information indicating the object, a setting to suppress detection of the object.” However, the expression “perform[ing] [,] a setting to suppress detection of the object” is not clear, as it is not clear in which technical aspect among the process of “detection of the object” the control device performs a suppression setting. The term “detection of the object” recited in the claim may include a large number of technical steps, such as moving the excavator awards to the object, photographing an image of the object, detecting the object, identifying the object, and the like. In each of them the control device can perform “to suppress detection of the object”. The claim is too broad to understand the metes and bound of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and thus is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
7-2. Regarding independent claim 8, the claim faces the same issue set forth in the rejection of independent claim 1, and thus, is rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
7-3. The remaining claims are dependent from claims 2-7, respectively, therefore, are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
7-4. Although the claims are indefinite, the examiner is interpreting and examining the claims by the examiner’s best understandings for the purpose of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al (WO2020218453, hereinafter “Tsuji”). A machine translated English version (WO2020218453-Eng) of document WO2020218453 is provided by the examiner with this office action, where the cited paragraph numbers used by the examiner are identical with that used in the original document.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses an excavator (see the excavator 100 in fig.1), comprising: a lower traveling body (wherein the excavator comprises a lower traveling body 1; see 1 in fig.1); an upper slewing body that is slewably mounted on the lower traveling body (wherein the excavator comprises an upper slewing body 2; see 2 in fig.1); a photographing device that is attached to the upper slewing body (wherein the excavator comprises cameras 40X; see the cameras 40X in fig.1 and page 13, lines 20-25); a display device configured to display photographed image data that is obtained by the photographing device (wherein the excavator comprises the displaying unit 301; see the display unit 301 in fig.3 and pg. 12, lines 15-24; see pg.19, lines 26-31, wherein the monitoring target is recognized from the captured image using the registered data); and a control device configured to (wherein the excavator comprises the controller 30 including the safety function control unit 305; see the controller 30 and the safety function control unit 305 in fig.3, and ibid.), in response to receiving an operation to designate an object included in the photographed image data, perform, on information indicating the object, a setting to suppress detection of the object (see pg.24, lines 23-29, wherein the safety function control unit 305 of the controller 30 determines “that the operation [i.e., the setting] of the operation restriction function is canceled when the monitoring target detected by the detection unit 304 is no longer detected”). As such, each and every element recited by claim 1 is disclosed or suggested by Tsuji. Claim 1 therefore is rejected as obvious over Tsuji.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 1, wherein the setting to suppress the detection of the object is performed in accordance with the operation that is received for a period during which the excavator is in operation (see pg.24, lines 23-29, wherein the safety function control unit 305 of the controller 30 determines “that the operation of the operation restriction function is canceled when the monitoring target detected by the detection unit 304 is no longer detected after the operation of the operation restriction function is started”).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 1, wherein the display device is configured to display, on the photographed image data, display information indicating the object detected, and the control device is configured to, in response to receiving the operation to designate the object indicated by the display information, perform, on the information indicating the object, the setting to suppress the detection of the object (ibid.).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 3, wherein the display device is configured to, in response to detecting the object indicated by the information on which the setting for suppression of the detection of the object is performed, suppress display of the display information indicating the object (see pg.24, lines 23-29, wherein the safety function control unit 305 of the controller 30 determines “that the operation of the operation restriction function is canceled when the monitoring target detected by the detection unit 304 is no longer detected after the operation of the operation restriction function is started”).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 4, wherein the control device is configured to perform, on image data including the object, the setting to suppress the detection of the object, and suppress the display of the display information indicating the object in a case in which a partial region of the photographed image data obtained by the photographing device is similar, by a predetermined threshold or more, to the image data on which the setting is performed (see pg.24, lines 23-29, wherein the safety function control unit 305 of the controller 30 determines “that the operation of the operation restriction function is canceled when the monitoring target detected by the detection unit 304 is no longer detected after the operation of the operation restriction function is started”).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 4, further comprising: a space recognition device that is attached to the upper slewing body (see space recognition sensors 45X including 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R in fig.3 and pg.14, lines 11-15: “The surrounding information acquisition device 45 (an example of the second sensor) is attached to the upper part of the upper swing body 3 and acquires information on the surrounding conditions of the excavator 100. The surrounding information acquisition device 45 includes sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, 45R. Hereinafter, the sensors 45BL, 45BR, 14 45L, and 45R may be comprehensively referred to as "sensor 45X".”), wherein the display device is configured to display, on the photographed image data, the display information indicating the object detected by the space recognition device (see the displaying device 303/50 in fig.3)), and the control device is configured to perform, on detection data indicating a result of detection of the object detected by the space recognition device (see controller 30 in fig.3), the setting to suppress the detection of the object, and suppress the display of the display information indicating the object, in a case in which a detection result obtained by the space recognition device is similar, by a predetermined threshold or more, to the detection data on which the setting is performed (see pg.24, lines 23-29, wherein the safety function control unit 305 of the controller 30 determines “that the operation of the operation restriction function is canceled when the monitoring target detected by the detection unit 304 is no longer detected after the operation of the operation restriction function is started”).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji discloses the excavator according to claim 1, further comprising: a touch panel configured to receive an operation indicating positional coordinates in the photographed image data displayed on the display device, wherein the control device is configured to receive, via the touch panel, the operation to designate the object included in the photographed image data (see pg.15, lines 20-28, wherein the display device 50 which may be a touch panel type is an image showing the surroundings of the excavator 100 (own machine) under the control of the controller 30 (display processing unit 301).).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights