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:
Claims 1-6 and 8;
Display control device (540); Fig 4 which is processor 910 as shown;
Acquisition unit; (reception unit 911, Fig 4)
Rotation determination unit; (913)
Display control unit; (915)
The examiner notes the specification states the units may be integrated into hardware or software units and may be implemented as a processor.
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.
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatake et al., US 20200063397 in view of DING et al., US 20210062473
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
431
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed display…Is met by display device 50 (Fig 1 & 5; para 23-24, 30, 62-63, 71-72, 80-101, 107-117, 126-151, 161, 165-174)
The claims display control device is met by control device 60 (Fig 6)
The claimed acquisition unit is met by image acquisition unit 61 (Fig 6). Regarding the blocked, Hatake discloses (para 168-170) that the if an operation includes using a single side of the vehicle/machine then the other side image (not being used) is “not displayed” (blocked)
The claimed display control unit is met by display control unit 62 (Fig 6)
The examiner notes Hatake does not explicitly recite the conventional features of:
Rotation determining unit..
Hatake does disclose the machine includes a travel body 2, swing body 3 (para 33-36).
The examiner incorporates DING et al., US 20210062473 which discloses calculation/determination of the body orientation, which uses an inclination measurement device which measures the acceleration and angular velocity of the swing body including the posture (roll angle, pitch and yaw angle) (para 45, 48).
The motivation to modify Hatake with DING would provide the advantages as noted above, notably to determine the orientation (rotation) of the body/machine to the user was aware of the position in addition to the respective display corresponding to the position/operation and display the captures images with respect to such operation/position, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2;
The claimed display…is met where Hatake discloses a display (200) which includes 3 center monitors and a left (52) display and right display (53) (the peripherhals).
As noted in claim 1, Hatake discloses displaying only one side (not displaying the other side, left or right) based upon the position of the body/orientation and operation (such as single side loading).
In considering claim 3,
The claimed work machine…includes a front camera 31, side camera 323 (includes camera 32 and 33), upper side camera 34 and lower side camera 35 (Fig 3, 6)
The claimed acquisition unit…is met where acquisition 61 (Fig 6) of display control device 60 receives camera images via communication system 400.
In considering claim 4.
The claimed cameras…is met by front camera 31, left side camera 32 (left), right side camera (33) (Fig 3);
The claimed display..is met by front display (51S); left side display (52s) and right side display (53s).
As disclosed by the combination, when not rotating, all displays are shown camera images, however when loading/working from one side (left or right) the other non-working side (right or left respectively) would not be shown as taught by DING (see claim 1).
In considering claim 5
The claimed upside camera is met by camera 34 (Fig 3) is display on top center monitor (54s)
Regarding not displays the upside camera image on display 54s when rotating, the examiner notes given the combination, where DING was evidenced to not display images from a non-working/loading portion of the vehicle, this would be an obvious modification to not show an front upper image when for example the operator/machine were working on the left center/bottom portion which should be displayed, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 6,
Refer to claim 5.
Regarding the additional limitations of work equipment..Hitake disclose the working equipment includes a boom 6 (para 37-38) and bucket 8, boom cylinder 10, arm cylinder 11, driving arm 7 etc..
In considering claim 7,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 8,
Refer to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
The examiner notes the following references also disclose remote operation of a machine with similar display/camera setup:
US 12043982 (Fig 2);
US 12,123,175 (Fig 2);
US 12,127,038 (Fig 3);
US 20250376829 (Fig 5);
US 20230102056 captures images in the rotating direction of the vehicle to create a panoramic set of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
