DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 17, 2024. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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: an operating part, a communication part and a display part in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 15 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a system. The body of claim 15 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed system. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Does claim 15 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claim 15 recites the limitation of recommending, in a visible way, a target work location in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, the target work location being where the work device changes the shape of the object. The recommending limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a display device” nothing in the claim precludes the recommending step from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “display device” language, the claim encompasses the user to manually recommend, in a visible way, a target work location in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, the target work location being where the work device changes the shape of the object. As such, this limitation is a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Does claim 15 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The claim recites one additional element: a work device that is operated by a user. The work device is recited at a high level of generality. The specification describes the work device as “an attachment AT including a boom 4, an arm 5, and a the [sic] bucket 6, and a cabin 10.” (See Page 4, lns 15 – 18.) These components are used in their conventional capacities. In other words, the claim fails to set forth how this arrangement between the work device and the user transforms and/or improves the functionality of work device or another technology/technical field. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Does claim 15 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claim 15 is ineligible.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 – 3, 5, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133128 A1 to Koch (herein after “Koch publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 15,
the Koch publication discloses a work machine (100) comprising:
a work device (102, 104, 104a-d) configured to change a shape of an object in a work range of the work machine (see FIG. 1 and ¶12, where “[m]achine 100 may include an earthmoving implement 102, such as a bucket, a shovel, a blade, a fork-arrangement, a grasping device, and the like. Implement 102 may be operably connected to machine 100 by way of a linkage system 104 comprising one or more interconnected arm members 104a-d”); and
a display device (116) configured to recommend, in a visible way, a target work location in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, the target work location being where the work device changes the shape of the object (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34, where “controller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished; see ¶35, where “Controller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104”)(Emphasis added).
As to claim 2,
the Koch publication discloses the display device being further configured to display, in a distinguishable way, a location of relatively high recommendability and a location of relatively low recommendability as potential target work locations in the work range of the work machine. (See FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 3,
the Koch publication discloses the display device being further configured to display difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability by using varying colors or varying numerical values. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶38, where “controller 202 may graphically indicate regions to be swept out (excavated) by the sequences 400a-d by displaying appropriately-positioned, shaded, cross-hatched, and/or colored strips on monitor 116.”)
As to claim 5,
the Koch publication discloses the display device being further configured to display a location in the work range of the work machine where recommendability shows a maximal value. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 7,
the Koch publication discloses the high recommendability and the low recommendability are defined in association with job efficiency or safety of the work machine. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 14,
the Koch publication discloses a remote operation assisting device (see FIG. 2 and ¶22, where “[a] transmitter 214a may be located on operator cabin 108 and configured to broadcast a signal. A receiver 214b may be located on implement 102 and configured to receive the broadcasted signal. Based on one or more characteristics of the received signal, system 204 may be able to determine a three-dimensional location of implement 102 relative to transmitter 214a. Subsequently, system 204 may then determine the position of implement 102 in site coordinates by comparing the determined location of implement 102 with respect to transmitter 214a, with the determined machine position discussed above. In another aspect, receiver 214b may be a GPS antenna, and the position of implement 102 in site coordinates may be directly determined independently of the position of machine 100. Alternatively, transmitter 214a may be in a remote location on excavation site 114, and the position of implement 102 in site coordinates may be determined with respect to the remote location”; see also ¶25, where “a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) system 218 having a GPR transmitter 218a and a GPR receiver 218b may be used. GPR system 218 may be located on machine 100, or externally thereto and used independently of machine 100. For example, GPR system 218 may be positioned on top of operator cabin 108, on implement 102, or in a remote location on excavation site 114”)(Emphasis added) comprising:
an operating part configured to allow a user to remotely operate a work machine having a work device for changing a shape of an object in a work range of the work machine (see FIG. 2, ¶22 and ¶25);
a communication part configured to transmit information about an operating state of the operating part to the work machine (see FIG. 2, ¶22 and ¶25); and
a display part (116) configured to recommend, in a visible way, a target work location in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, the target location being where the work device changes the shape of the object (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34, where “controller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished; see ¶35, where “Controller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104”)(Emphasis added).
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 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 4 and 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 4,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to display difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability by using a heat map.
The Koch publication discloses that “controller 202 may receive a current location of machine 100 on excavation site 114. Signals from terrain map 206 may indicate plan lines 308 delineating a 30 feet long by 20 feet wide by 10 feet deep rectangular foundation to be dug at a certain location on site 114. Additionally, the signals from terrain map 206 may indicate that the targeted work surface terrain 304 is relatively flat. Further, signals from pre-existing map 216 may indicate that an underground water pipe 118a, 1 foot in diameter and 6 feet below the work surface 304, extends across a first side of site 114.” (See ¶51.) Such use of terrain map 206 suggests the display device being further configured to display difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability by using a heat map.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Koch publication with a heat map to display difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 9,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to recommend, in the visible way, a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may also provide real-time updates to terrain map 206, including changes made to the terrain at site 114 as excavation takes place. In other words, as implement 102 removes material from a location on site 114, terrain map 206 may be updated, based on the positions of implement 102, to show a reduced elevation thereof accordingly.” (See ¶23.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to recommend, in the visible way, a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to recommend, in the visible way, a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 10,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to recommend, in the visible way, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may show an image or icon of machine 100 traversing a determined path, or otherwise moving from a given position to a recommended position 312a-d, on monitor 116.” (See ¶23.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure of machine 100 traversing a determined path, or otherwise moving from a given position to a recommended position suggests the display device being further configured to recommend, in the visible way, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to recommend, in the visible way, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 11,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished; see ¶35, where “Controller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104.” (See FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 12,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine.
The Koch publication discloses that “[m]achine 100 may further include an operator cabin 108.” (See ¶13.) The Koch publication discloses that the “[o]perator cabin 108 may be an enclosure that houses a machine operator interface. The operator interface may include a seat and one or more operator control devices located in proximity to the seat. An operator may use the operator control devices to control functions of machine 100, such as, for example, to position and orient implement 102, and control driven traction device 110, and/or steerable traction device 112 to remove earthen material from excavation site 114. Operator cabin 108 may or may not be substantially sealed from environmental conditions in which work machine 100 operates. Operator cabin 108 may further include a monitor 116 configured to responsively and actively display a location of machine 100, a location of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104, and/or excavation site 114. Monitor 114 [sic] may be configured to display other information relevant to machine functionality or operation to the operator.” (See ¶14 – ¶15.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0224980 A1 to Krabach et al. (herein after “Krabach et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 6,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to display an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to a predetermined criterion.
The Krabach et al. publication discloses “[a] machine cognition workflow engine and a recommendation subsystem are provided in a computing system. The workflow engine receives a plurality of prompts, extracts a message and a context of each of the plurality of prompts, for each prompt, generates a workflow instance according to a recommended workflow definition that specifies a plurality of calls to one or more components, and for each prompt, executes the generated workflow instance to perform the calls to the one or more components to thereby generate responses for the plurality of prompts. The recommendation subsystem evaluates the responses to generate a score for each response generated by the workflow instances, receives a request from the machine cognition workflow engine for the recommended workflow definition for a current prompt, and outputs the recommended workflow definition to the machine cognition workflow engine based on the scores of responses generated by the workflow instances.” (See Abstract.)(Emphasis added.) “Turning to FIG. 2, a detailed view of the processes performed by the machine cognition workflow engine 24 and the machine cognition workflow evaluation and recommendation subsystem 42 is illustrated. A task prediction module 56 of the workflow engine 24 receives a prompt 30 including the extracted message 32 and the extracted context 34 as input, and generates a predicted task 60, which is received by a workflow definition requester 58 of the workflow engine 24. The task prediction module 56 is configured to generate the predicted task 60 which is to be accomplished by the prompt 30. The workflow definition requester 58 sends the predicted task 60 to a performance database 64 of the workflow recommendation module 50 as a request for a recommended workflow definition 44 for the predicted task 60, and receives a workflow identifier 62 as a response. Based on the workflow identifier 62, the workflow recommendation module 50 determines the recommended workflow definition 44 for the predicted task 60 among a plurality of workflow definitions 70. The performance database 64 may be configured to respond by returning the workflow identifier 62 for the recommended workflow definition 44 or with an indication that no recommendation is able to be made.” (See 25.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to a predetermined criterion.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to display an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to a predetermined criterion, as suggested by the Krabach et al. publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0224980 A1 to Reiners et al. (herein after “Reiners et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 8,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a processing device configured to output a distribution of recommendability in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, by using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object and that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with relatively high expertise based on a predetermined criterion.
The Reiners et al. publication discloses “[a] machine model used by controller 34 to estimate future operating and repair costs of machine 12 may include one or more equations, algorithms, maps, and/or subroutines stored in the memory of controller 34. Each of the equations, algorithms, maps, and/or subroutines may be developed during design, testing, and/or manufacture of machine 12 and be applicable to all machines 12 at worksite 10 or applicable to only particular groups of machines 12 (e.g., applicable to only digging machines, only loading machines, or only hauling machines). It is also contemplated that the model may alternatively be specific to individual machines 12, if desired, and/or periodically updated or uniquely tuned based on real time and/or historic operating conditions. The operating and repair costs estimated by the machine model may then be used by controller 34 to display and/or recommend a particular maintenance option to the user of worksite management system 32 . . . .” (See ¶36.) Such disclosure suggests a processing device configured to output a distribution of recommendability in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, by using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object and that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with relatively high expertise based on a predetermined criterion.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Koch publication with a processing device configured to output a distribution of recommendability in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, by using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object and that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with relatively high expertise based on a predetermined criterion, as suggested by the Reiners et al. publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0238828 A1 to Takahama et al. (herein after “Takahama et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 13,
the Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range of the work machine.
The Takahama et al. publication discloses “[a] captured image acquisition unit acquires an image captured by an imaging device provided at a place of a work machine where a bucket is included in an imaging range. A posture acquisition unit acquires posture information of the bucket. A topography acquisition unit acquires topographical information indicating a three-dimensional shape of a construction target of the work machine. A projected image generation unit generates, based on the posture information of the bucket and the topographical information, a projected image obtained by projecting teeth of the bucket on the construction target. A display control unit outputs a display signal for displaying by superimposing the projected image on a place where at least the bucket appears, in the captured image.” (See Abstract.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an
image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine
by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range
of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range of the work machine, as suggested by the Takahama et al. publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666