DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-8, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
The recitation, “wherein the identification information determination section determines that the external input/output information includes the identification information when the external output information output to outside includes the identification information and the external input information received from outside includes an acquisition response for the identification information, and determines that the identification information is not included in the external input/output information when the identification information is not included in the external output information or when the acquisition response for the identification information is not included in the external input information, in the external input/output information of the external control interface” is ambiguous.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (JP-2008-025234A) in view of Tahir (WO-2021-032985A1).
As Per Claim 1, Komine et al. (Komine) discloses, a working machine (via work machine 2, Fig.1) comprising: an external control interface that receives control command for remotely or automatically controlling the working machine from outside and outputs working machine information necessary for generating the control command outside,( via server 11a of management system 11, Fig.1), a control device (via control device 1, Fig.1) that controls the working machine in accordance with the control command ([0021-0022]); a working machine information holding device that holds the working machine information; (via a component identification information storage device 1D), [0024]); and a monitoring device that monitors external input/output information of the external control interface, ( via control device 1, [0021]); wherein the monitoring device ( vai control device 1) includes: an identification information determination section that determines whether or not identification information for identifying a specification of the working machine is included in the external input/output information; ( via a component identification information acquisition unit 1B, and a collation unit 1C)[0024]) also see [0021-0032], Figs. 1-3).
However, Komine does not explicitly teach, an operational restriction command section that generates an operational restriction command that restricts an operation of the working machine until the identification information determination section determines that the identification information is included in the external input/output information, wherein the control device restricts the operation of the working machine in accordance with the operational restriction command generated by the operational restriction command section.
In an analogous art, Tahir teaches, controller , method and data processing apparatus, wherein, an operational restriction command section that generates an operational restriction command that restricts an operation of the working machine until the identification information determination section determines that the identification information is included in the external input/output information, wherein the control device restricts the operation of the working machine in accordance with the operational restriction command generated by the operational restriction command section (via a controller 161 of device 16 comprising a command generation module 169, operable to generate a control command for controlling the device 16 based on the operational mode..(Abstract) and wherein the command generation module is operable to generate a control command which restricts the device from performing an operation when the user is not authenticated as having the authority to operate the device, see Claim 7, Page 2, 1st para, Page 3, 5th para and Page 5, 2nd, 3rd and 4th para, Fig.3).
Furthermore , Tahir does not teach, generating an operational restriction command that restricts an operation of the working machine until the identification information determination section determines that the identification information is included in the external input/output information.
Therefore, like generating a control command restricting the device from performing an operation when the user is not authenticated as having the authority to operate the device in Tahir, it would be obvious to generating control command to restrict operation of the work machine when the user is not authenticated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komine and Tahir before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Komine to include the teachings (controller and command generation module 169 ) of Tahir and configure with the system of Komine in order to generate operational command restricting work machine operation until identification has been authenticated. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to restrict the operation of the machine if it determines failure of authentication (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of machine operation).
As per Claim 2, Komine as modified by Tahir teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Komine in view of Tahir teaches, wherein the identification information determination section determines whether or not the identification information is included in the external input information received from the outside in the external input/output information of the external control interface, wherein the monitoring device comprises an identification information verification section that determines whether or not the identification information matches the working machine information held in the working machine information holding device when the identification information is determined to be included in the external input information, and (Komine: [0021-0032], Figs. 1-3); wherein the operational restriction command section generates and outputs the operational restriction command to the control device until the identification information verification section determines that the identification information included in the external input information matches the working machine information held in the working machine information holding device. (Tahir: via a controller 161 of device 16 comprising a command generation module 169, operable to generate a control command for controlling the device 16 based on the operational mode..(Abstract) and wherein the command generation module is operable to generate a control command which restricts the device from performing an operation when the user is not authenticated as having the authority to operate the device, see Claim 7, Page 2, 1st para, Page 3, 5th para and Page 5, 2nd, 3rd and 4th para, Fig.3).
As per Claim 3, Komine as modified by Tahir teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Komine in view of Tahir teaches, wherein the identification information determination section determines whether or not the identification information is included in the external input information received from the outside in the external input/output information of the external control interface, wherein the monitoring device comprises an identification information verification section that determines whether or not the identification information matches the working machine information held in the working machine information holding device when the identification information is determined to be included in the external input information, and (Komine : [0021-0032], Figs.1-3), wherein the operational restriction command section changes a command content of the operational restriction command in accordance with the determination result of the identification information verification section, and outputs the operational restriction command to the control device (Tahir : via a controller 161 of device 16 comprising a command generation module 169, operable to generate a control command for controlling the device 16 based on the operational mode..(Abstract) and wherein the command generation module is operable to generate a control command which restricts the device from performing an operation when the user is not authenticated as having the authority to operate the device, see Claim 7, Page 2, 1st para, Page 3, 5th para and Page 5, 2nd, 3rd and 4th para, Fig.3).
6. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (JP-2008-025234A) in view of Tahir (WO-2021-032985A1) in view of Fujiwara et al. ( JP-2014-186631A).
As per Claim 7, Komine as modified by Tahir teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Komine in view of Tahir does not explicitly teach, wherein the identification information includes at least one of a type, a shape, a weight, a property, a mounted function, an unique number, or information on an update history of a mechanical specification of the working machine or a part constituting the working machine.
In an analaogosu art, Fujiwara et al. ( Fujiwara) discloses, a diagnosis processing system, terminal equipment and server, wherein, a work machine (excavator) 1A, being configured to a server 200, wherein, the identification information includes at least one of a type, a shape, a weight, a property, a mounted function, an unique number, or information on an update history of a mechanical specification of the working machine or a part constituting the working machine (via the server 200 includes a management information storage unit 214 storing management information of each excavator, a model number and a machine number as an ID, identifying an excavator 1A. The model is information for specifying the type of the excavator 1A, and a unique number is assigned to each model. See Page 3, 3rd para, Page 20, 6th para, Figs, 1,6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komine and Tahir and Fujiwara before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Komine to include the teachings ( the management server storage 214 of management server 200) of Fujiwara and configure with the system of Komine in order to management server identifying excavator by unique number in order to facilitate operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to identify the work machine to facilitate the excavator’s operation (i.e., an added feature to enhance excavator’s operation).
As per Claim 8, Komine as modified by Tahir teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Komine in view of Tahir teaches, wherein the operational restriction command commands at least one of an operation prohibition of the working implement, the swing body, or the traveling body, or an operating speed restriction thereof.( Tahir : via a controller 161 of device 16 comprising a command generation module 169, operable to generate a control command for controlling the device 16 based on the operational mode..(Abstract) and wherein the command generation module is operable to generate a control command which restricts the device from performing an operation when the user is not authenticated as having the authority to operate the device, see Claim 7, Page 2, 1st para, Page 3, 5th para and Page 5, 2nd, 3rd and 4th para, Fig.3).
However, Komine in view of Tahir does not explicitly teach, the work machine comprising: a working implement, a swing body, or a traveling body.
In an analogous art, Fujiwara et al. (Fujiwara) discloses, a diagnosis processing system, terminal equipment and server, wherein, a work machine (excavator) 1A, being configured to a server 200, wherein , the work machine comprising: a working implement, a swing body, or a traveling body, (Fujiwara: Page 3, 4th-5th para, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komine and Tahir and Fujiwara before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Komine and substitute the work machine of Komine with the excavator of Fujiwara. Motivation to combine the two is, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; See MPEP § 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4, 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable when 112 (b) rejection of claim 6 is overcome and when claims 4-6 are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 C
Prosecution Insights