DETAILED ACTION
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited apparatus must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In this instant case, applicant recited essence apparatus regarding, forwarder, loading tongs, forestry crane, bale tongs, harvester, round baler
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
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 evaluation unit, a controller and a model in claims 1 and 9.
In this instant case, applicant recited evaluation unit, a controller and a model are deemed to be generic placeholder as without non – specific structure nonce term modified by functional language recited what it does rather than what it is under functional limitation without specific structure.
Please also see MPEP 2181. B. for computer implemented means plus function where the specification must disclose specific algorithm rather than general purpose. In this instant case, applicant recited evaluation unit deemed to be recited general purpose computer and further claimed “a model” without specific algorithm or structure when claiming a model without revealing.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AI3A 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 - 17 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.
It is noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon the dependency, in this instant case, claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 16.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “an evaluation unit…communicatively connected to…a controller…communicatively connected to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; however, upon further review, skilled in the art merely located the recited claim module within applicant’s written description in Para 0017 reciting generic computer apparatus without the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “the evaluation unit…hydraulic valve…the controller and is controlled…upon the control signal” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which exactly is controlled upon the control signal as whether the evaluation unit, the hydraulic unit or the controlled to be controlled upon the control signal that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “a model…correlates to…data for a behavior to be achieved” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
however, upon further review, skilled in the art merely located the recited claim module within applicant’s written description in Para 0040 merely recites a model stored in the computer storage medium and used to define tool to be closed or tool follow the movement of user without set forth for what exactly the model structure is yet merely states what it performs under means plus function without revealing the structure as the result is inconclusive.
Please also see MPEP 2181 III and IV. merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform
the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraimer et al (US Pat Pub No. 2013/0197720) in view of Anstey et al (US Pat Pub No. 2015/0257340).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Kraimer et al shows a system for controlling a hydraulic apparatus by a user comprising (See at least Para 0067 for hydraulics actuation device controlled by user remote control device on figure 1),
a sensor unit arranged on a user's body (See at least Para 0136 for remote control device 70 as glove garment 250 shown on figured with microphone sensor along with transmitter 1302 on Para 0164),
an evaluation unit communicatively connected to the sensor unit (See at least Para 0071 and 0074 for controller 103 in response to the travel request from the remote control device 70),
the evaluation unit comprising a processor (See at least Para 0132 for controller 103 process received signal for evaluating vehicle condition) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See at least Para 0152 for memory),
processes sensor data provided by the sensor unit (See at least Para 0132 for controller 103 process received signal for evaluating vehicle condition; also on Para 0137 for vocal command convert to truck 10 control command processed under controller 103, Para 0103; Para 0072 signal analyze),
generates a control signal based upon the processed sensor data (See at least Para 0075 for controller 103 communicate with truck system via CAN bus 110 for vehicle control on Para 0080 with respect to brake controller 116),
a controller communicatively connected to the evaluation unit (See at least Para 0082 with respect to brake controller 116 connect to controller 103 via CAN bus 110); Kraimer et al discussed a hydraulic actuator that is controlled based upon the control signal (See at least Para 0067 for hydraulic actuation device to be controlled in response to command via CAN bus 110);
Anstey et al further shows a hydraulic valve is communicatively connected to the controller (See at least Para 0020 for hydraulic valve to be controlled electronically via electronic control unit communicatively utilizing input signal on Para 0019) and controlled based upon the control signal (See at least Para 0020 for hydraulic valve to be controlled electronically via electronic control unit communicatively utilizing input signal on Para 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide hydraulic valve of Anstey, for the hydraulic actuation device of Kraimer et al, as to provide known prior art hydraulic valve incorporating the hydraulic apparatus actuation of Kraimer et al, in order to yield predictable result as desired by the hydraulic apparatus of Kraimer et al.
Regarding claim 2, Kramier et al shows a machine (See at least Para 0067 for truck 10 with hydraulic actuation device);
Anstey et al further shows the hydraulic valve is connected to a joint of a machine (See at least Para 0029 for hydraulic valve controls gate lift cylinder as joint of the machine);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide hydraulic valve of Anstey, for the machine operation desired by Kraimer et al, as to provide known prior art hydraulic valve incorporating the hydraulic apparatus actuation of Kraimer et al, in order to yield predictable result as desired by the hydraulic apparatus of Kraimer et al.
Regarding claim 4, Anstey et al further shows the machine is round baler (See at least Para 0016 for round baler).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide enhance time and efficiency utilizing of wireless remote control for material handling on Kramier, Para 0004 - 0006, in order to enhance material handling in agricultural material for gate actuator control as discussed by Para 0007 of Anstey, for enhancing the actuator operation as applying known known technique upon material handling vehicle toward the agriculture machine of Anstey in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Kraimer et al shows the sensor unit is configured as a glove (See at least Para 0136 for remote control device 70 as glove garment 250 shown on figured with microphone sensor along with transmitter 1302 on Para 0164).
Regarding Claim 6, Kraimer et al further shows a pressure sensor (See at least Para 0119 for input component with button pressed/sensed as pressure sensor and further provide corresponding command).
Regarding Claim 8, Kraimer et al shows a vehicle (See at least Para 0055 for material handling vehicle).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraimer modified and in view of Nilsson (WO 2023/066928).
Regarding Claim 3, Nilsson et al further shows the machine comprises one of the following forestry machines: forwarder, loading tongs or forestry crane (See at Para 0019 for log forwarder).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide enhance time and efficiency utilizing of wireless remote control for material handling on Kramier, Para 0004 - 0006, in order to enhance material handling in forestry material as also desired and discussed by Para 0004 - 0006 of Nilsson, for enhance the forestry operation as applying known known technique upon material handling vehicle toward the forestry machine of Nilsson in order to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 – 12 and 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth et al (US Pat Pub No. 2013/0197720) in view of Anstey et al (US Pat Pub No. 2015/0257340).
Regarding Claim 9, Seth shows a method for control of an apparatus by a user comprising (See at least Para 0007 for wearable gesture control interface device used to control a controllable device):
obtaining sensor data from a sensor unit located on a user's body (See at least Para 0007 for sensor configured to detect orientation and flexion of the user),
providing a model correlates the sensor data with pressures for a behavior to be achieved by the apparatus (See at least Para 0033 for gesture library as the model correlate to user gesture sensed by sensor; also on Para 0009 for sensor including flexible electrically conductive plate with resistance varies based on flexion behavior achieved by bending; Para 0096 for gesture detection algorithm and sensor data; also on Para 0040 and 0041 for bend sensor implanted upon finger and thumb),
generating an electrical control signal based on the model (See at least Para 0074 for generate gesture command),
controlling the apparatus based on the electrical control signal (See at least Para 0074 for gesture command controls vehicle action); Seth does not further specify the apparatus as hydraulic valve.
Anstey et al further specify apparatus as a hydraulic valve (See at least Para 0020 for hydraulic valve to be controlled electronically via electronic control unit communicatively utilizing input signal on Para 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide hydraulic apparatus of Anstey, for the remote driving device of Seth et al, in order to provide operable target desired by the control glove of Seth, as discussed on Para 0002 for Seth as to provide known prior art element of hydraulic apparatus utilizing the known glove operation method of Set et al, in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding Claim 10, Seth et al shows the electrical control signal is used to control a motor (See at least Para 0043 for push button switch wire driven by ben sensor voltage wiring layer).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Seth et al shows the sensor unit comprises a pressure sensor (See at least Para 0033 for gesture library as the model correlate to user gesture sensed by sensor; also on Para 0009 for sensor including flexible electrically conductive plate with resistance varies based on flexion behavior achieved by bending; Para 0096 for gesture detection algorithm and sensor data; also on Para 0040 and 0041 for bend sensor implanted upon finger and thumb)
Regarding Claim 15, Seth et al shows the sensor unit is configured as part of a glove (See at least Para 0053 for bend sensor implemented upon the gesture glove).
Regarding Claim 17, Seth et al the evaluation unit receives a model which correlates the sensor data with pressures for a behavior to be achieved by an apparatus (See at least Para 0033 for gesture library as the model correlate to user gesture sensed by sensor; also on Para 0009 for sensor including flexible electrically conductive plate with resistance varies based on flexion behavior achieved by bending; Para 0096 for gesture detection algorithm and sensor data; also on Para 0040 and 0041 for bend sensor implanted upon finger and thumb), and the control signal is based on the model ((See at least Para 0074 for generate gesture command),); Seth et al does not further specify the apparatus as hydraulic valve.
Anstey et al further specify apparatus as a hydraulic valve (See at least Para 0020 for hydraulic valve to be controlled electronically via electronic control unit communicatively utilizing input signal on Para 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide hydraulic apparatus of Anstey, for the remote driving device of Seth et al, in order to provide operable target desired by the control glove of Seth, as discussed on Para 0002 for Seth as to provide known prior art element of hydraulic apparatus utilizing the known glove operation method of Set et al, in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Anstey et al further shows the hydraulic valve is connected to a joint of a machine (See at least Para 0029 for hydraulic valve controls gate lift cylinder as joint of the machine);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide hydraulic valve of Anstey, for the machine operation desired by Kraimer et al, as to provide known prior art hydraulic valve incorporating the remote control machine apparatus actuation of Seth et al, in order to yield predictable remote apparatus control result as desired by of Kraimer.
Regarding claim 14, Anstey et al further shows the machine is round baler (See at least Para 0016 for round baler).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide enhance time and efficiency utilizing of wireless remote control for valve apparatus operation by operator on Para 0020 of Anstey in order to enhancing the actuator operation as applying known known technique upon material handling vehicle toward the agriculture machine of Anstey in order to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth modified further in view of Nilsson (WO 2023/066928).
Regarding Claim 13, Nilsson et al further shows the machine comprises one of the following forestry machines: forwarder, loading tongs or forestry crane (See at Para 0019 for log forwarder).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide enhance time and efficiency utilizing of wireless remote control for valve apparatus operation by operator on Para 0020 of Anstey in order to enhance material handling in forestry material as also desired and discussed by Para 0004 - 0006 of Nilsson, for enhance the forestry operation as applying known known technique upon material handling vehicle toward the forestry machine of Nilsson in order to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person,2 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights