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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2024-048928 filed on 03/26/2024.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 recites “a movement control program” which is interpreted as Software per se. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Furthermore, it is well settled law that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Akatsuka (US20240353850) in view of Ogura (US20170177002)
Regarding claim 1, Akatsuka teaches movement control method of controlling movement of a work vehicle by a first operation terminal capable of moving the work vehicle within a predetermined range with respect to the
operation terminal capable of moving the work vehicle out of the predetermined range with respect to the work vehicle, the movement control method comprising (at least [0031] disclosing a terminal 10 within a location range where the operator can visually recognize the vehicle and another terminal 20 that is operated at a far location away from the vehicle where the operator cannot visually recognize the vehicle):
setting either of a first mode in which movement of the ([0038]-[0045] disclosing setting a mode where the terminal 10 control the vehicle and another mode where the terminal 20 controls the vehicle based on parameters); and
setting a movement content by which the first operation terminal is capable of moving the ([0038]-[0045] disclosing the movement content such that the first terminal is moving the vehicle by acceleration or lateral movements and setting the second mode where the movement content is such that the second terminal moves the vehicle laterally or forward backward).
Ogura teaches operation terminal for controlling work vehicle ([0058]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Akatsuka to the work vehicle of Ogura in order to switch to a better remote device when a communication is interrupted thus improving the control of the work vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 1, comprising: acquiring a connection state between the work vehicle and the first operation terminal, and a connection state between the work vehicle and the second operation terminal (Akatsuka at least [0037]-[0050] disclosing the connection state between the two terminals and the vehicle); and
setting each of the movement contents, based on the mode and each of the connection states (Akatsuka [0037]-[0050] disclosing the first terminal as the first mode based on the communication status and thus controlling “moving content” based on the mode which is based on the network status. [0056]-[0059] further teach that one device fully controls if it is selected as the mode of control while the other device is limited to emergency stop, wherein the movement content was selected based on the mode which is based on the connection states).
Regarding claim 3, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 2, comprising temporarily stopping or continuing automatic traveling of the work vehicle, based on the mode and each of the connection states (Akatsuka [0037]-[0047] disclosing the vehicle is stopped when the switching is in processes while switching the mode based on the mode and the communication disruption status).
Regarding claim 4, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 2, comprising:
setting each of the movement contents, based on the mode, each of the connection states (Akatsuka [0037]-[0050] disclosing the first terminal as the first mode based on the communication status and thus controlling “moving content” based on the mode which is based on the network status. [0056]-[0059] further teach that one device fully controls if it is selected as the mode of control while the other device is limited to emergency stop, wherein the movement content was selected based on the mode which is based on the connection states).
Akatsuka as modified by Ogura further teach acquiring a display content of the second operation terminal, in a case where the mode is set to the second mode; and the display content.
Specifically, Ogura acquiring a display content of the second operation terminal, in a case where the mode is set to the second mode ([0065]-[0066], [0091] disclosing the display screen on the terminal device allowing the user to input values for movement of the vehicle).; and
setting movement content based on the display content ([0065]-[0066], [0091] disclosing the display screen on the terminal device allowing the user to input values for movement of the vehicle, i.e., setting movement content based on the display content).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ogura of adjusting movement based on a terminal user input value thus enabling the user to set safe conditions and eliminate errors or emissions as taught by Ogura.
Regarding claim 6, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 1, comprising setting, to a first movement content, the movement content by which the first operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, and not setting the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, in a case where the mode is set to the first mode (Akatsuka [0037]-[0047], [0055]-[0065] disclosing the full operation of the vehicle by the first terminal that is capable of operating the vehicle in the first mode and not another mode where the second terminal is capable of operating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 1, comprising
setting, to a first movement content, the movement content by which the first operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, and setting, to a second movement content being a part of the first movement content, the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, in a case where the mode is set to the second mode (Akatsuka [0037]-[0047], [0055]-[0065] disclosing the mode wherein the first terminal operates the movement in all movement direction, i.e., first movement content, but the other terminal will still be able to stop the vehicle as emergency stop, thus the movement content includes that the second device can stop the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 7, wherein the first movement content includes movement of starting automatic traveling of the work vehicle, and movement of stopping automatic traveling of the work vehicle, and the second movement content includes movement of stopping automatic traveling of the work vehicle, and does not include movement of starting automatic traveling of the work vehicle mode (Akatsuka [0037]-[0047], [0055]-[0065] disclosing the mode wherein the first terminal operates the movement in all movement direction, i.e., first movement content, but the other terminal will still be able to stop the vehicle as emergency stop, thus the movement content includes that the second device can stop the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of combinations are registered in advance in which the mode, the movement content by which the first operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, and the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle are associated with one another, the movement control method comprising accepting a selecting operation by a user from among the plurality of combinations (Akatsuka [0037]-[0047], [0055]-[0065] disclosing the mode wherein the first terminal operates the movement in all movement direction, i.e., first movement content, but the other terminal will still be able to stop the vehicle as emergency stop, thus the movement content includes that the second device can stop the vehicle, wherein the terminals accept the movement control based on any combination, in this mode for instance the first terminal accepts longitudinal and lateral movement and the second terminal accepts the stopping, in another mode the opposite takes place thus a different combination where the first terminal stops the vehicle and the second terminal controls other movements).
Claims 11, 12 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Akatsuka (US20240353850) in view of Ogura (US20170177002) and Kremmer (US20150366124).
Regarding claim 5, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura teaches the movement control method according to claim 4, comprising:
Specifically, Ogura teaches setting, to a first movement content, the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, in a case where the display content is a first screen on which movement setting on the work vehicle is enabled ([0065]-[0066], [0091] disclosing the display screen on the terminal device allowing the user to input values for movement of the vehicle, i.e., setting movement content based on the display content that is enabled).
Kremmer further teaches And not setting the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, or setting, to a movement content being a part of the first movement content, the movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the work vehicle, in a case where the display content is a second screen on which at least a part of movement setting on the work vehicle is restricted ([0016]-[0020] disclosing the change of a display when remote control is not allowed to control the vehicle when the movement setting of the vehicle is restricted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Kremmer of not setting movement content by which the second operation terminal is capable of moving the vehicle when the display is showing a restricted mode yielding predictable results in order to authenticate the connection between a user and a vehicle via a password ensuring safety of the system by intended operation of the device and avoiding unintentional operation of the vehicle after a timeout.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Akatsuka (US20240353850) in view of Ogura (US20170177002) and Billy (US20220254207).
Regarding claim 10, Akatsuka as modified by Ogura does not teach the movement control method according to claim 1, comprising and the first operation terminal and the work vehicle are connected to each other (Akatsuka [0031]-[0044] teaches both modes wherein the devices are connected to the vehicle and receive signals).
Billy teaches setting to the first mode, in a case where the first operation terminal is located within the range, ([0011] disclosing the mode, interpreted as first mode, that allows the remote operation with a terminal device when distance is less than a threshold from vehicle).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Billy of setting a first mode when the first operation terminal and the vehicle are located within a range from each other in order to visually inspect the movement of the vehicle which is similar to the teaching of Akatsuka in a first mode where the device is within a visual field of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20240172577 disclosing different terminals for scheduling work.
US20240101134 disclosing when a distance between vehicle and terminal is greater than a threshold to restrict terminal device.
US20220413489 discloses switching remote control users to a closer remote terminal center.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights