DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2020/0399857) in view of Danko (US Pub. No. 2004/0267404).
As per Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an assistance device (30, 40, 42) (Fig. 2; ¶31-37, 54) comprising:
a hardware (as per “the controller 30 is mainly formed by a microcomputer including a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a non-volatile auxiliary storage device …” in ¶55) processor (301, 302) (Fig. 2; ¶64) configured to
receive (as per setting relative reactivities via 301, 302) an input (via 42) from a user (as per “operation performed by a user” in ¶64) through an input device (42) (Fig. 2; ¶54, 64); and
display, on a display (40), a first operation screen (400) (Fig. 4A; ¶116-124) for
determining, in response to the input (via 42) from the input device (42), specifications (as per 404A, 404B) related to a combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) in which a plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) of a work machine (100) are executed in predetermined order (as per “a combined operation in which two hydraulic actuators are operated simultaneously” in ¶63), the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) being different in type (as per “arrow icons 402 and 403, resembling the arm in operation and the boom in operation, respectively arranged adjacent to portions corresponding to the arms 5 and the boom 4 of the excavator image 401” in ¶116) from each other (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124); and
generating a motion (as per “during the combined operation by the operating device 26, the controller 30 controls the regulators … so that a flow rate distribution of the hydraulic oil supplied to the two hydraulic actuators is adjusted to the present contents” in ¶63 and “the controller 30 sets relative reactivities of the two hydraulic actuators … with respect to an operation input to the operating device 26 during the combined operation, according to the operation performed by a user, … with respect to the operation input device 42” in ¶64) of a work part (6) of the work machine (100) by the combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) according to the determined specifications (as per 404A, 404B) (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶39, 51-53, 63-64, 116-124).
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the motion involves a trajectory.
Danko discloses a powered shovel having a boom (105) and shovel (112), the shovel (112) under the control of a human supervisor (144) via a control box (140) and a kinematics generator (138a) of a computer (138) (Figs. 4-5; ¶78-80, 82-88). The control box (140) includes manually operable control members (142) which can be moved by the human supervisor (144) to control the boom (105) and shovel (112) (Figs. 4-5; ¶78-80, 85-87). The kinematics generator (138a) includes a touch screen by which the supervisor (144) may change the response of the control system to one or more inputs received by the control box (140) to modify a programmed response or choose a desired response from multiple possible preprogrammed responses (Figs. 4-5; ¶78-80, 85-89). The human supervisor (144) uses the computer (138) to input or select a predetermined shovel trajectory, the trajectory defining a series of motion coordinates for the shovel (112) (Figs. 4-5; ¶90-95). In one embodiment, a range of available trajectory families and their parameters is graphically displayed to the supervisor for selection and implementation (Fig. 8; ¶121-122). In this way, the human supervisor (144) guides the machine (100) in accordance with a preferred trajectory for a given task (¶29, 142). Like Yamamoto, Danko is concerned with machine control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the motion involves a trajectory” in that the system of Yamamoto would be further adapted to produce a trajectory for user selection as per Danko.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the first operation screen (400) allows the user (as per “the user may select”, “the user can increase … and reduce” in ¶119; as per “the user can directly set the levels” in ¶120, as per “the user can operate” in ¶124) to perform an operation of determining the specifications (as per 404A, 404B) through the input device (42) (Fig. 4A; ¶116-124).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) are movements executed by the work machine (100) using a work attachment (4, 6) in predetermined work (as per “Multi Function Setting” in Figs. 3, 4A-C) (Figs. 1, 3, 4A-C; ¶21-23, 105-106, 114-115, 125, 134).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Yamamoto further discloses
wherein the predetermined work (as per “Multi Function Setting” in Figs. 3, 4A-C) is {land leveling work}, digging work (Fig. 4C; ¶134-143), or {slope construction work},
{wherein when the predetermined work is the land leveling work, the plurality of movements include at least two of a horizontal-pulling movement, a rolling-compaction movement, a broom-turning movement, a digging movement, and an earth removal movement} (limitations directed to alternative embodiment),
wherein when the predetermined work (as per “Multi Function Setting” in Figs. 3, 4A-C) is the digging work (Fig. 4C; ¶134-143), the plurality of movements (as per 422, 423) include at least two of the digging movement (423), {a boom raising-slewing movement}, {a boom lowering-slewing movement}, the earth removal movement (422) (Fig. 4C; ¶134-143), and {the broom-turning movement}, and
{wherein when the predetermined work is the slope construction work, the plurality of movements include an earth cutting movement and the rolling-compaction movement} (limitations directed to alternative embodiment).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the trajectory of the work part is a trajectory of a predetermined part set in an end attachment at a distal end of a work attachment of the work machine.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the trajectory of the work part is a trajectory of a predetermined part set in an end attachment at a distal end of a work attachment of the work machine” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory as per Danko.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the specifications (as per 404A, 404B) include a distribution (as per levels of bar graphs 424A, 424B) of a combination (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) in the combined movement (as per settings for 404A, 404B confirmed via 405) (Fig. 4A; ¶116-124).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, a second operation screen for operating the work machine such that the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, in response to the input from the input device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, a second operation screen for operating the work machine such that the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, in response to the input from the input device” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory as per Danko.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein, on the second operation screen, the user can perform an operation for instructing the work machine to operate such that the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, using the input device.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein, on the second operation screen, the user can perform an operation for instructing the work machine to operate such that the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, using the input device” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory as per Danko.
As per Claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a work machine (100) (Figs. 1-2; ¶24-22, 31-36) comprising:
a hardware (as per “the controller 30 is mainly formed by a microcomputer including a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a non-volatile auxiliary storage device …” in ¶55) processor (301, 302) (Fig. 2; ¶64) configured to
receive (as per setting relative reactivities via 301, 302) an input (via 42) from a user (as per “operation performed by a user” in ¶64) through an input device (42) (Fig. 2; ¶54, 64), and
display, on a display (40), a first operation screen (400) (Fig. 4A; ¶116-124) for
determining, in response to the input (via 42) from the input device (42), specifications (as per 404A, 404B) related to a combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) in which a plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) of the work machine (100) are executed in predetermined order (as per “a combined operation in which two hydraulic actuators are operated simultaneously” in ¶63), the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) being different in type (as per “arrow icons 402 and 403, resembling the arm in operation and the boom in operation, respectively arranged adjacent to portions corresponding to the arms 5 and the boom 4 of the excavator image 401” in ¶116) from each other (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124), and
generating a motion (as per “during the combined operation by the operating device 26, the controller 30 controls the regulators … so that a flow rate distribution of the hydraulic oil supplied to the two hydraulic actuators is adjusted to the present contents” in ¶63 and “the controller 30 sets relative reactivities of the two hydraulic actuators … with respect to an operation input to the operating device 26 during the combined operation, according to the operation performed by a user, … with respect to the operation input device 42” in ¶64) of a work part (6) of the work machine (100) by the combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) according to the determined specifications (as per 404A, 404B) (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶39, 51-53, 63-64, 116-124).
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the movement involves a trajectory.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the motion involves a trajectory” in that the system of Yamamoto would be further adapted to produce a trajectory for user selection as per Danko.
As per Claim 14, Yamamoto discloses an assistance system (30, 40, 42) (Fig. 2; ¶31-37, 54) comprising:
a work machine (100) (Figs. 1-2; ¶24-22, 31-36); and
an assistance device (30, 40, 42) configured to communicate (via lines to 11, 13L, 13R ) with the work machine (100) (Fig. 1; ¶35-38),
wherein the assistance device (30, 40, 42) includes
a hardware (as per “the controller 30 is mainly formed by a microcomputer including a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a non-volatile auxiliary storage device …” in ¶55) processor (301, 302) (Fig. 2; ¶64), configured to
receive (as per setting relative reactivities via 301, 302) an input (via 42) from a user (as per “operation performed by a user” in ¶64) through an input device (42) (Fig. 2; ¶54, 64), and
display, on a display (40), a first operation screen (400) (Fig. 4A; ¶116-124) for
determining, in response to the input (via 42) from the input device (42), specifications (as per 404A, 404B) related to a combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) in which a plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) of the work machine (100) are executed in predetermined order (as per “a combined operation in which two hydraulic actuators are operated simultaneously” in ¶63), the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) being different in type (as per “arrow icons 402 and 403, resembling the arm in operation and the boom in operation, respectively arranged adjacent to portions corresponding to the arms 5 and the boom 4 of the excavator image 401” in ¶116) from each other (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124), and
generating a motion (as per “during the combined operation by the operating device 26, the controller 30 controls the regulators … so that a flow rate distribution of the hydraulic oil supplied to the two hydraulic actuators is adjusted to the present contents” in ¶63 and “the controller 30 sets relative reactivities of the two hydraulic actuators … with respect to an operation input to the operating device 26 during the combined operation, according to the operation performed by a user, … with respect to the operation input device 42” in ¶64) of a work part (6) of the work machine (100) by the combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) according to the determined specifications (as per 404A, 404B) (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶39, 51-53, 63-64, 116-124).
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the motion involves a trajectory.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto and Danko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory. Applying the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the motion involves a trajectory” in that the system of Yamamoto would be further adapted to produce a trajectory for user selection as per Danko.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the specifications (as per 404A, 404B) include a composition ratio (as per level indication for each graph 404A, 404B) of each of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) in the combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) in which the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) of the work machine (100) are executed in the predetermined order (as per “a combined operation in which two hydraulic actuators are operated simultaneously” in ¶63) (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124).
As per Claim 16, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the first operation screen (400) includes a plurality of images (404A, 404B) provided one for each of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) to adjust the composition ratio (as per level indication for each graph 404A, 404B) of each of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) in the combined movement (as per “Arm in & Boom up” in Fig. 3) and a plurality of work machine images (as per location of arrows 402, 403 proximate image 401 of machine 100) provided one for each of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) and schematically representing each of the plurality of movements (as per 402, 403) (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2020/0399857) in view of Danko (US Pub. No. 2004/0267404), further in view of Nomura (US Pub. No. 2014/0100712).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Yamamoto and Danko teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display device, an image representing a shape of a work target around the work machine and the trajectory generated through the first operation screen such that the trajectory is superimposed on the image representing the shape of the work target around the work machine.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
Nomura discloses an excavator (100) that includes a bucket (8) and a display unit (42) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶48, 53, 63-67). The display unit (42) is governed by a display control device (39) having a processing unit (44) and outputs an icon (75) of the excavator (100), a design surface line (74), and a target surface line (79) (Figs. 4, 6; ¶63-67, 77-82). The display unit (42) also displays a trajectory (TLi) of the blade edges (P3) of the bucket (8) as well as information about the vicinity of the target surface (70) on the screen (42P) of the display unit (42) (Fig. 10, 16; ¶92-93, 124-125). In this way, the display system can intelligibly provide information related to a construction work result to the operator (¶5, 93). Like Yamamoto, Nomura is concerned with machine control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory; and intelligibly providing information related to the construction work result to the operator. Applying the teachings of Danko and Nomura to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display device, an image representing a shape of a work target around the work machine and the trajectory generated through the first operation screen such that the trajectory is superimposed on the image representing the shape of the work target around the work machine” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory as per Danko and further adapted to display the work surface and trajectory as per Nomura.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the image representing the shape of the work target is a captured image around the work machine, a processed image of the captured image, or an image of three dimensional data of the work target around the work machine.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko. Danko further discloses wherein the machine (100) is equipped with cameras providing one or more views of the tool and the work area for display on the computer and integrated with the control programs (¶89).
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Nomura.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory; and intelligibly providing information related to the construction work result to the operator. Applying the teachings of Danko and Nomura to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the image representing the shape of the work target is a captured image around the work machine, a processed image of the captured image, or {an image of three dimensional data of the work target around the work machine}” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory as well as data from cameras as per Danko and further adapted to display the work surface and trajectory as per Nomura.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, a moving image of a simulation of the work machine in which the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, the moving image being superimposed on the image representing the shape of the work target.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko. Danko further discloses wherein suitable trajectories are electronically supplied from simulations of similar machines (¶125, 127, 136).
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Nomura.
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory; and intelligibly providing information related to the construction work result to the operator. Applying the teachings of Danko and Nomura to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, a moving image of a simulation of the work machine in which the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen, the moving image being superimposed on the image representing the shape of the work target” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory from simulated trajectories as per Danko and further adapted to display the work surface and trajectory as per Nomura.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, an image representing a shape of the work target predicted after the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Danko.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Nomura. Nomura further discloses wherein the design surface line (74) is derived from design geography related to the shape and position of a three-dimensional design geography describing a target shape of the ground which is an object to be worked (¶67).
Therefore, from these teachings of Yamamoto, Danko, and Nomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Danko to the system of Yamamoto since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for selection of a preferred trajectory; and intelligibly providing information related to the construction work result to the operator. Applying the teachings of Danko and Nomura to the system of Yamamoto would result in a system that operates “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, an image representing a shape of the work target predicted after the work part moves along the trajectory generated through the first operation screen” in that the system of Yamamoto would be adapted to receive user selection of a specified trajectory from simulated trajectories as per Danko and further adapted to display the work surface, predicted shape of the worked surface, and trajectory as per Nomura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 1 of Remarks). These rejections are not maintained in view of the amendments.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 2 of Remarks):
Yamamoto illustrates setting the relative reactivities of two hydraulic actuators during the combined operation of operating the two hydraulic actuators simultaneously. Nothing in Yamamoto teaches or suggests “determining … specifications related to a combined movement in which a plurality of movements of a work machine are executed in predetermined order”. Hence, the above-noted feature of claim 1, namely, “a hardware processor … configured to … display, on a display, a first operation screen for determining, in response to the input from the input device, specifications related to a combined movement in which a plurality of movements of a work machine are executed in predetermined order, the plurality of movements being different in type from each other, and generating a trajectory of a work part of the work machine by the combined movement according to the determined specifications”, is a distinction over Yamamoto.
Comparing the teachings of the cited references to the claim language at issue, the cited references teach or suggest “determining, in response to the input from the input device, specifications related to a combined movement in which a plurality of movements of a work machine are executed in a predetermined order” in that the controller (30) of Yamamoto receives via operation input device (42) user selection of one of the bar graphs (404A, 404B) to increase or reduce the level of the selected bar graph (404, 404B) and sets the relative reactivities of the arm cylinder (8) and boom cylinder (7) for controlling the cylinders (8, 7) simultaneously in accordance with the user selection (Figs. 2, 4A; ¶63, 116-124). As such, Yamamoto discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument involves an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 2 of Remarks):
Danko does not cure the deficiency of Yamamoto because Danko is silent with respect to the above-noted feature of claim 1. Hence, the above-noted feature of claim 1 is also a distinction over Danko.
However, as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Yamamoto involve an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Danko are moot.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 3 of Remarks):
In view of the distinction of claim 1 noted above, at least one claimed element is not present in the asserted combination of references. Hence, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness vis-à-vis claim 1. Claims 2, 6, 11 and 12 depend from claim 1, and so at least similarly distinguish over the asserted combination of references. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Thus, for the same reason as stated with respect to claim 1, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness vis-à-vis claims 13 and 14.
However, as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 involve an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are moot.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 7-10 under 35 USC 103 Applicant argues (page 3 of Remarks):
Claims 7-10 depend from independent claim 1. The basis for how the combination of Yamamoto and Danko is deficient vis-à-vis claim 1 is discussed above. Nomura does not cure the deficiency of the combination of Yamamoto and Danko because Nomura is silent with respect to the above-noted feature of claim 1. Hence, the above-noted feature of claim 1 is also a distinction over Nomura.
Among other things, a prima facie case of obviousness must establish that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element of the claimed invention. In view of the distinction of claim 1 noted above, at least one claimed element is not present in the asserted combination of references. Hence, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness vis-à-vis claim 1. Claims 7-10 depend from claim 1, and so at least similarly distinguish over the asserted combination of references.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the rejection of claims 7-10 is overcome. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
However, as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 involve an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 7-10 are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamada (US Patent No. 5,446,981) discloses a method of selecting automatic operation mode of working machine. Sawada (US Pub. No. 2002/0011013) discloses a hydraulic excavating mobile machine.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights