DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 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, 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: a display unit and an input unit which is configured to…. in claim 1.
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. The specification discloses display unit and input units in following para [0022] and [0023] and herein after will be interpreted as such ( in Para [0022]: The input unit 23i receives information related to automatic operation in accordance with an operation by the operator. Specifically, for example, the input unit 23i may be a touch panel, a mouse, a keyboard, or a device for inputting information based on information of a line of sight of the operator. Furthermore, the input unit 23i may be a device for inputting information based on the location information of a finger of the operator in the space. [0023] The display unit 230 is configured to display information related to automatic operation (display output unit). Specifically, for example, the display unit 230 may be a monitor (display), a device configured to project an image onto an object, or a device that uses AR (Augmented Reality)technology. An image displayed on the display unit 230 (i.e., an image that the control unit 23c causes the display unit 230 to display) is termed a display image G. The display image G includes information related to automatic operation. The display image G includes shape, pattern, color, text, symbol, etc. The display image G includes a GUI (Graphical User Interface). In addition, the information terminal 23 may have a unit (output unit) for performing outputs other than image display. Examples of such a unit include an audio output unit and a vibration output unit.)
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morimoto et al. (US 12336445B2) and herein after will be referred as Morimoto.
Regarding Claim 1, Morimoto teaches an automatic operation information processing device connected to an automatically-operable working machine in a communicable manner (Col.11 Line 31-41: “The automatic traveling-and-working mode is a mode in which the traveling vehicle body 3 of the agricultural machine 1 is caused to travel in automatic operation while the working device 2 is caused to perform an agricultural job (ground work). The automatic operation of the agricultural machine 1 indicates that the travel speed of the traveling vehicle body 3 is changed automatically and the traveling vehicle body 3 is steered automatically. The automatic steering-and-working mode is a mode in which the traveling vehicle body 3 is steered automatically while the working device 2 is caused to perform an agricultural job (ground work). When the agricultural machine 1 is in the automatic steering-and-working mode, the operator of the agricultural machine 1 operates the accelerator member or the brake member of the manual operator 62 (FIG. 1), so that the travel speed of the traveling vehicle body 3 is changed in response to the operation of the accelerator member or the brake member. That is, in the automatic steering-and-working mode, the travel speed of the traveling vehicle body 3 is changed based on manual operation.”), comprising:
a display unit which is configured to display a display image including information related to automatic operation; and an input unit which is configured to receive information related to the automatic operation in response to an operation by an operator (Col.11 Line 59-Col.12 Line 10: Upon selection of the “automatic operation” key B2 a by the user on the home screen D1 illustrated in FIG. 3 , the controller 51 causes the display operation interface 52 to display a “select job” screen D3 as illustrated in FIG. 4 . The “select job” screen D3 displays a message indicative of instructions for input operations. The “select job” screen D3 also displays job keys B31 to B35, an up-pointing arrow key B41, a down-pointing arrow key B42, a “next” key B9, and a “back” key B8. The job keys B31 to B35 indicate agricultural jobs that can be performed by the agricultural machine 1 and working device(s) 2 linked to the agricultural machine 1. In FIG. 4 , five job keys B31, B32, B33, B34, and B35 are displayed. If the number of the agricultural jobs that can be performed by the agricultural machine 1 and the working device(s) 2 is six or more, the controller 51 causes job key(s) indicating another type(s) of job(s) to be displayed on the “select job” screen D3 upon selection of the up-pointing arrow key B41 or the down-pointing arrow key B42 by the user.”).
Similarly Claim 20 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 1.
Morimoto also teaches wherein; the display image includes a task selection section which is displayed for each of types of tasks automatically performed by the working machine and which displays the types of the tasks in a manner selectable by the input unit (Col.12 Line 3-10).
Regarding Claim 4, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 2.
Morimoto also teaches the display image includes a function selection section which is displayed for each of functions corresponding to the type of the task selected in the task selection section and which displays the functions in a manner selectable by the input unit (Col.12 Line 11-27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Braunstein (US 9019436) and herein after will be referred as Braunstein.
Regarding Claim 3, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 2.
Morimoto does not expressly teach wherein, image display in the task selection section changes for each of the types of the tasks, in accordance with the number of connected working machines corresponding to each of the types of the tasks.
Braunstein teaches image display in the task selection section changes for each of the types of the tasks, in accordance with the number of connected working machines corresponding to each of the types of the tasks (Col.8 Line 37-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto to incorporate the teachings of Braunstein to include image display in the task selection section changes for each of the types of the tasks, in accordance with the number of connected working machines corresponding to each of the types of the tasks. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Glover et al. (US2014/0240506A1) and herein after will be referred as Glover.
Regarding Claim 5, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to any one of claims 1.
Morimoto does not expressly teach the display image includes: a machine selection section which is displayed for each working machine so that each working machine is selectable by the input unit; and a main display area which displays information regarding the working machine selected by the machine selection section and is an area different from the machine selection section among display areas on the display unit.
Glover teaches the display image includes: a machine selection section which is displayed for each working machine so that each working machine is selectable by the input unit; and a main display area which displays information regarding the working machine selected by the machine selection section and is an area different from the machine selection section among display areas on the display unit (Para [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto to incorporate the teachings of Glover to include the display image includes: a machine selection section which is displayed for each working machine so that each working machine is selectable by the input unit; and a main display area which displays information regarding the working machine selected by the machine selection section and is an area different from the machine selection section among display areas on the display unit. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Regarding Claim 18, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to Claim 1.
Glover teaches wherein, the display image is switchable between a first screen and a second screen, and information regarding the automatic operation displayed in the second screen includes only part of information regarding the automatic operation displayed in the first screen (Para [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to Claim 1.
Glover teaches the second screen includes a state display section that displays states regarding the automatic operation, and the states displayed by the state display section include: a state in which the working machine is automatically performing a task; the working machine is on standby; and the working machine is stopped in emergency (Para [0027]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Glover and in further view of Braunstein.
Regarding Claim 6, Morimoto in view of Glover teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 5.
Braunstein teaches an image of the machine selection section changes depending on a state of the working machine (Col.8 Line 44-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto and Glover to incorporate the teachings of Braunstein to include an image of the machine selection section changes depending on a state of the working machine. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Regarding Claim 7, Morimoto in view of Glover and in further view of Braunstein teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 6.
Glover also teaches the image of the machine selection section changes depending on at least one of a state in which the automatic operation is in progress, a state in which the automatic operation has been properly finished, or a state in which the working machine is stopped in emergency (Para [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, Morimoto in view of Glover and in further view of Braunstein teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 6.
Braunstein teaches the image of the machine selection section changes between a case where the machine selection section corresponding to a working machine whose state has changed is selected and a case where the machine selection section whose state has changed is not selected, after the state of the working machine is changed (Col. 8 Line 54-61).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Moriya et al. (US 5274557) and herein after will be referred as Moriya.
Regarding Claim 9, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according 1.
Morimoto does not expressly teach the automatic operation is performed based on instruction data that is set by an operation of the working machine by the operator, and the display image includes an operation speed setting section which is displayed to allow one of plural stages of operation speeds including an operation speed of the working machine in the instruction data to be selectable by the input unit as an operation speed in the automatic operation.
Moriya teaches the automatic operation is performed based on instruction data that is set by an operation of the working machine by the operator (Col.5 Line 15-20), and the display image includes an operation speed setting section which is displayed to allow one of plural stages of operation speeds including an operation speed of the working machine in the instruction data to be selectable by the input unit as an operation speed in the automatic operation (Col.5 Line 39-Col.6 Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto to incorporate the teachings of Moriya to include the automatic operation is performed based on instruction data that is set by an operation of the working machine by the operator, and the display image includes an operation speed setting section which is displayed to allow one of plural stages of operation speeds including an operation speed of the working machine in the instruction data to be selectable by the input unit as an operation speed in the automatic operation. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Regarding Claim 13, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 1.
Morimoto does not expressly teach one cycle of the automatic operation includes plural work phases, and the display image includes a work phase display section that displays information indicating in which one of the work phases a task performed by the working machine is.
Moriya teaches one cycle of the automatic operation includes plural work phases, and the display image includes a work phase display section that displays information indicating in which one of the work phases a task performed by the working machine is (Col. 5 Line 39-Col.6 Line3).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of O’Neill et al. (US 9720419) and herein after will be referred as O’Neill.
Regarding Claim 14, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 1.
Morimoto does not expressly teach the display image includes an all machine stop selection section by which all connected working machines are stopped in emergency.
O’Neill teaches the display image includes an all machine stop selection section by which all connected working machines are stopped in emergency (Col.6 Line 62-Col.7 Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto to incorporate the teachings of O’Neill to include the display image includes an all machine stop selection section by which all connected working machines are stopped in emergency. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Regarding Claim 15, Morimoto in view of O’Neill teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 14.
Morimoto does not expressly teach the all machine stop selection section stops the all connected working machines in emergency, through only a single operation.
O’Neill teaches the all machine stop selection section stops the all connected working machines in emergency, through only a single operation (Col.6 Line 62-Col.7 Line 10).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Shintani et al. (US10900201) and herein after will be referred as Shintani.
Regarding Claim 17, Morimoto teaches the automatic operation information processing device according to claim 1.
Morimoto does not expressly teach the display image includes a machine state display section that displays a state of the working machine, and an image of the machine state display section is synchronized with image display of a state display device which is mounted on an actual working machine and is used to display the state of the working machine.
Shintani teaches the display image includes a machine state display section that displays a state of the working machine (#29P Fig.3), and an image of the machine state display section is synchronized with image display of a state display device which is mounted on an actual working machine and is used to display the state of the working machine (Col.3 Line 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morimoto to incorporate the teachings of Shintani to include the display image includes a machine state display section that displays a state of the working machine, and an image of the machine state display section is synchronized with image display of a state display device which is mounted on an actual working machine and is used to display the state of the working machine. Doing so would optimize the automatic operation of the machinery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakaguchi et al. (US20180206389A1) teaches a work vehicle includes a touch-panel display, at least one first physical button, and the circuitry. The touch-panel display is to display at least one first touch button, at least one first function, and work information. The at least one function is displayed in the at least one first touch button to which the at least one first function is assigned. The work information includes a state of work which the work vehicle performs. The at least one first physical button is provided outside the touch-panel display. The at least one first function is assigned to the at least one first physical button. The circuitry is configured to change the at least one first function assigned to the at least one first touch button and the at least one first physical button in accordance with the work information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights