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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, and 12 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 3, 4, and 10 have been canceled since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0318263 to Yuet et al. in view of Korean Patent Application Publication KR2019-0025297 to Suh.
As per claim 1, Yuet discloses a work machine system (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 10) comprising:
a machine main body to which a work implement is attached (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 16);
a travel unit that causes the machine main body to travel (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 16);
an inclination sensor that senses a degree of inclination of the machine main body (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 26);
a parking brake that brakes the travel unit (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 18; brake 28);
an operation device that receives a first operation of activating the parking brake (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 30);
a controller that controls the output device (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 36), wherein
Yuet discloses performing actions to in response to an “operator has unintentionally neglected to set parking brake” (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 65), based on inputs, such as the brake and the ground inclination (Yuet; At least 36 and 64), but does not explicitly disclose using an operator presence sensor. However, the above feature(s) are taught by Suh.
an operator presence sensor that senses presence of an operator (Suh; At least paragraph(s) 17);
the controller causes, when the operation device does not receive the first operation, [a response], on conditions that the presence of the operator is not sensed and the machine main body is inclined (Suh; At least paragraph(s) 43), and
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Suh into the invention of Yuet with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using the presence of the operator in determining whether the brake has been forgotten to be applied would provide a more accurate representation that the brake was actually forgotten. If they operator is still sitting in the seat, scenarios exist that the operator intentionally didn’t apply the brake, but if the operator left without applying the brake, there is a much greater chance that the brake was just forgotten.
Yuet, in view of Suh, discloses a controller that receives machine information, determines that the operator has unintentionally neglected to set parking brake, and responds to the situation. Yuet does not explicitly disclose an output device to issue an alarm; and when the presence of the operator is sensed, when the inclination of the machine main body is no longer sensed, or when the operation device receives the first operation, after causing the output device to issue the alarm, the controller causes the issuing of the alarm to be stopped.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Armstrong (Armstrong; At least paragraph(s) 82; “restore the device to its previous condition after an emergency application of said braking system, for use by said driver once said driver has been alerted to the emergency application of said braking system and has applied a parking brake to said vehicle” so the situation is ended after the operator activates the operation device to activate the parking brake). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Armstrong into the invention of Yuet with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Stopping the alarm once the operator has applyed the brake would allow the work machine to be usable again. Further, the alarm has performed it duty and is no longer needed.
As per claim 2, Yuet discloses wherein the controller controls the output device to issue the alarm, on a condition that the machine main body is not traveling (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 64 and 65; the controller performs the control when the vehicle is stopped, but predicted to move, i.e., in neutral and on an incline, in view of Armstrong above for alarm).
As per claim 5, Yuet discloses further comprising an operator's cab (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 16 and 38; a manually controlled earth-moving machine would have a cab),
Yuet does not explicitly disclose wherein the output device issues the alarm to an outside of the operator's cab.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Armstrong (Armstrong; At least paragraph(s) 79). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Armstrong into the invention of Yuet with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Making the alarm sufficiently loud ensures that the driver heard the alarm. It would also provide a warning to anyone in the vicinity of the danger.
As per claim 6, Yuet discloses wherein the controller further causes, when the operation device does not receive the first operation, the parking brake to be activated (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 36).
As per claim 7, Yuet discloses wherein the operation device further receives a second operation of releasing the parking brake, and the work machine system causes the parking brake to be released when the operation device receives the second operation after control to activate the parking brake is performed (Yuet; At least claim 20).
As per claim 8, Yuet does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller when the presence of the operator is sensed or when the inclination of the machine main body is no longer sensed after causing the output device to issue the alarm, causes the issuing of the alarm to be stopped and causes the parking brake to be automatically released.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Armstrong (Armstrong; At least paragraph(s) 75 and 95). Armstrong teaches stopping the alarm when the brakes are applied by the driver and a reset button is pressed or drive/reverse is initiated. These criteria would occur when the driver is sitting in the driver seat. The term “when” is interpreted as “at the same time”. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Armstrong into the invention of Yuet with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Stopping the alarm in the presence of the driver allows the vehicle to resume normal operations.
As per claim 9, Yuet discloses and on a condition that the operation device receives a second operation of releasing the parking brake, causes the parking brake to be released (Yuet; At least claim 20).
Yuet does not explicitly disclose further comprising an output device, wherein the controller when the presence of the operator is sensed or when the inclination of the machine main body is no longer sensed after causing the output device to issue the alarm, causes the issuing of the alarm to be stopped,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Armstrong (Armstrong; At least paragraph(s) 75 and 95). Armstrong teaches stopping the alarm when the brakes are applied by the driver and a reset button is pressed or drive/reverse is initiated. These criteria would occur when the driver is sitting in the driver seat. The term “when” is interpreted as “at the same time”. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Armstrong into the invention of Yuet with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Stopping the alarm in the presence of the driver allows the vehicle to resume normal operations.
As per claim 11, Yuet discloses comprising a work machine including the machine main body, the work implement, the travel unit, the inclination sensor, and the parking brake, wherein the operator presence sensor and the operation device are provided in a remote control cab from which the work machine is remotely steered (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 38, in view of Suh as discussed above).
As per claim 12, Yuet discloses the method associated with the system of claim 1 (Yuet; At least paragraph(s) 9). Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 06/26/2026, with respect the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the prior art do not teach the limitations, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, the prior art teach the limitations, as written. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the prior art do not teach when the operation device does not receive the first operation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The operation device is interpreted as a device that receives an operation (from the driver) and activates the parking brake, such as a pedal. Since the prior art are directed to securing the machine in the situation that the driver has left the machine, then the operation device would not receive operation. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the prior art does not teach that the alarm is stopped when the presence is sensed, the inclination is no longer sensed, or the operation device receives the operation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Armstrong teaches that the alarm is stopped when the standard brake control is activated (Armstrong; At least paragraph(s) 95 and 217), and a reset button is pressed or drive/reverse is initiated. This situation would occur when the driver is sitting in the driver seat, so it is clear that the prior art teaches a situation where the presence of the operator is sensed and the operation device receives the operation at the same time as the alarm is stopped.
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights