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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (US 2003/0001751) in view of Kato et al. (US 2015/0363143).
Regarding claim 1, Ogura discloses a control method for work machine (abstract) comprising:
indicating that an error (abnormality) related to the work machine is occurring (page 8, [0097-0098]), on
a display unit of a display device that displays a display related to the work machine (page 8, [0097-
0098]).
Ogura discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose displaying an alarm
mark image, displaying the alarm mark image in place of a selection item, wherein the selection item is selectable via a command acceptable by an operation unit of the display unit.
However, Kato discloses displaying an alarm mark image, displaying the alarm mark image in place of a selection item, wherein the selection item is selectable via a command acceptable by an operation unit of the display unit (fig. 1-fig. 2; page 7, [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
first filed to incorporate the features of Kato within the system of Ogura in order to accurately
monitor an area around a work machine thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Ogura discloses wherein the command acceptable by the operation unit is changed to another command acceptable by the operation unit (fig. 1-fig. 4; page 5, [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Ogura discloses wherein the another command causes the display unit to display a
screen showing contents of the error (page 8, [0098]).
Regarding claim 4, Ogura discloses wherein the command causes another screen to be displayed that
differs from a screen showing the contents of the error (page 8, [0098]).
Regarding claim 5, Ogura discloses wherein the selection item is arranged outside of the display unit
and facing the operation unit (page 5, [0069]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of claims 1-5 is sustained.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
LaBarca et al. (US 2017/0323480) discloses visualization radar.
Machida et al. (US 2018/0044893) discloses working machine.
Danguchi (US 2023/0030108) discloses method for controlling. system.
Ikeda et al. (US 6,873,264) discloses method and apparatus difference.
Kimura (US 2015/0170441) discloses construction machine controller.
Mori (US 6,718,057) discloses position error positioning mark.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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,
Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
September 21, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights