DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 8-11 are cancelled. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 7/2/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/2/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 5), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 5-6), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 6-12), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 12-17), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of EP-2712152-A1 (Ashley) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2017/0107693A1 (Yamada).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a controller” that is configured to not change a setting, or change a setting, in Claim 1,
(b) “an information terminal” that inputs information… in Claim 1,
(c) “an operation lock device” that switches the work machine in Claim 1,
(d) “an information terminal notification device” that reports information, in Claims 4, 6, and 7.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” or “terminal” or “device” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0024 and Figure 3 show that the controller corresponds to data processing circuitry,
(b) specification ¶0011-0012 state that the terminal corresponds to a tablet,
(c) specification ¶0030 states that the operation lock device corresponds to a lever,
(d) specification ¶0060 states that the information terminal notification device is a monitor.
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 § 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, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0107693A1 (Yamada) in view of EP-2712152-A1 (Ashley).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada discloses an information input system for a work machine (see Figures 4, 5) comprising:
a controller that is mounted on the work machine (see Figure 5, [0042], machine controller 49); and
an information terminal (see [0042] monitor controller in touch panel monitor) that inputs information to the controller via communication (see [0042] connected to input of machine controller),
wherein the information input system comprises:
an operation lock device (see [0036] hydraulic lock lever 35 and switch 36) that switches the work machine between an operable state and an inoperable state (see [0036-0037]); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
not change a setting of the work machine in response to information acquired from the information terminal (see Figure 2, [0059] at step S5, monitor input lock state such that monitor is disabled, and [0057] if input was enabled, would change settings), while maintaining a state in which the work machine is operable (see Figure 2, [0047-0048] while lock state “off” as determined at S1), in a case where the work machine is switched to the operable state by the operation lock device (see [0048, 0059] lock switch 36 is off, hydraulic actuators can be operator), and
change the setting of the work machine in response to the information acquired from the information terminal (see Figure 2, [0050] at S2 input operation on touch panel is enabled, [0056-0057] at S4, e.g. performing equipment adjustment using touch panel), in a case where the information terminal is not connected to the dock or in a case where the work machine is switched to the inoperable state by the operation lock device (see Figure 2, [0050] in response to lock switch making machine not operable).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Yamada does not explicitly recite wherein the information input system comprises:
a dock for the information terminal that supplies power to the information terminal when the information terminal is connected, the dock being disposed in an operation room of the work machine,
and not changing the setting:
in a case where the information terminal is connected to the dock.
However, Ashley teaches a technique for control of a vehicle (see [0007]), including:
a dock for the information terminal (see [0026] docking mobile device 20 into receiving location in the vehicle) that supplies power to the information terminal when the information terminal is connected (see [0024, 0026] wired or inductive charging), the dock being disposed in an operation room of the vehicle (see [0026]),
and not allowing input:
in a case where the information terminal is connected to the dock (see [0024] the connection from the mobile device 20 to the in-vehicle system 30 can be configured to disable the normal mobile device user interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information terminal of Yamada to be configured as a dockable mobile device as taught by Ashley, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience while still ensuring safety by preventing distraction (see Ashley [0002-0003, 0007]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada discloses the information input system for a work machine,
wherein the information terminal has an information terminal notification device (see Figure 1, [0048] touch panel 34T of the touch panel monitor, notifying information visually), and
wherein the information terminal notification device reports information on whether the information terminal is disabled (see [0063] lock icon (lock state icon) 51 indicating a monitor input lock state).
Yamada does not explicitly recite the information input system for a work machine according to claim 1,
wherein the information terminal notification device reports information on whether the information terminal is located at a position of the dock.
However, Ashley teaches the technique as above, wherein the disabling of the information terminal occurs when:
the information terminal is located at a position of the dock (see [0024] connection disables mobile device user interface [0026] connection via docking).
Examiner’s note: the combination therefore resulting in the locking icon of Yamada being information that indicates the terminal is located in the dock.
The motivation to combine Yamada and Ashley was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada discloses the information input system for a work machine according to claim 1,
wherein the information terminal has an information terminal notification device (see Figure 1, [0048] touch panel 34T of the touch panel monitor, notifying information visually), and
wherein the information terminal notification device reports information indicating a method of enabling the input of the information from the information terminal to the controller (see Figure 1, [0063] arrow 53 prompts operator to move to unlock), in a case where an input operation is performed on the information terminal in a state where the input of the information from the information terminal to the controller is disabled (see [0067] arrow shown when monitor unlock operation (an input) is performed, as shown in Fig 1H)..
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada discloses the information input system for a work machine,
wherein the information terminal has an information terminal notification device (see Figure 1, [0048] touch panel 34T of the touch panel monitor, notifying information visually), and
wherein the information terminal notification device reports information indicating that a the input of the information from the information terminal to the controller is disabled, in a state where the input of the information from the information terminal to the controller is disabled (see [0063] lock icon 51 indicates monitor input lock state, which is in a state where input is disabled).
Yamada does not explicitly recite the information input system for a work machine according to claim 1,
wherein the information terminal notification device reports information indicating that a position of the information terminal has been changed, in a case where the position of the information terminal has been changed in a state where the input of the information from the information terminal to the controller is disabled.
However, Ashley teaches the technique as above, wherein the disabling of the information terminal occurs when:
a position of the information terminal has been changed, in a case where the position of the information terminal has been changed (see [0024, 0026] mobile device position changed to being docked).
The motivation to combine Yamada and Ashley was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights