DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1 and 4 have been amended via preliminary amendment filed 5/1/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/1/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 current topography data reception unit that receives current topography data…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶¶ [0056], [0057], which includes a computer, memory, and computer program);
“a display control unit that causes a display device to display…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶¶ [0056], [0057], which includes a computer, memory, and computer program);
“an obstacle data reception unit that receives obstacle data…” (claim 4; example of supporting structure found in ¶¶ [0056], [0057], which includes a computer, memory, and computer program);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (3) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “unit” in (1)-(3) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(3) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit” in (1)-(3) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020/217972 to Takaoka.
Regarding claim 1, Takaoka discloses:
A display system of a work site, comprising a processor (¶ [0006] processor) configured to function as:
a current topography data reception unit that receives current topography data of a work site where a bulldozer performs slot dozing (¶ [0031] describing acquiring current terrain data of the work site; ¶ [0032] describing the work site as an excavation site); and
a display control unit that causes a display device to display the current topography data (¶ [0037] describing displaying an image of the work site based on the terrain data),
wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display a first symbol indicating a position of a cliff that exists in an excavation lane of the slot dozing together with the current topography data (¶¶ [0038], [0051] describing displaying a symbol indicating a cliff that exists in an excavation lane onto the work site image).
Regarding claim 2, Takaoka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the display control unit displays the first symbol at a center of the excavation lane (Figure 12 depicting the cliff 46 at a center of each excavation lane in the display image; see also Figure 20 depicting the symbol of the cliff being displayed at the center of the excavation lanes; ¶ [0051] describing same).
Claim 6 contains all the elements of claim 1 (i.e., claim 6 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka.
Regarding claim 3, Takaoka discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Takaoka further discloses:
wherein the display control unit displays the first symbol at a position of a cliff closest to an excavation start point of the slot dozing among a plurality of cliffs that exists in the excavation lane (¶ [0038] describing displaying the symbol of the cliff closest to an excavation start point in the excavation lane).
Takaoka does not expressly disclose that there are a plurality of cliffs. However, Takaoka does teach that there is a prohibited area 46 position in the work site that affects all excavation lanes. Takaoka furthers teaches that the area 46 could represent a cliff area, which could be more than one cliff (¶ [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takaoka’s invention to incorporate the prohibited area in the work site to include a plurality of cliffs based on Takaoka’s teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the work vehicle from entering a prohibited work area that may include cliffs (Takaoka at ¶¶ [0038]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0154425 to Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 4, Takaoka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Takaoka does not expressly disclose an obstacle data reception unit that receives obstacle data indicating an obstacle that exists at the work site, wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display a second symbol indicating a position of the obstacle.
Yamamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches an obstacle data reception unit that receives obstacle data indicating an obstacle that exists at the work site, wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display a second symbol indicating a position of the obstacle (¶¶ [0013], [0014] describing detecting an obstacle and displaying a symbol on the display to the user indicating a position of the obstacle; ¶ [0068] describing displaying the position of the obstacle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takaoka’s invention to incorporate detecting and displaying positions of obstacles in the display unit, as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining whether an obstacle has entered the operational space and to automatically stop the operations when the obstacle is detected within a certain distance from the machine (Yamamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0073] – [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takaoka and Yamamoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4. Yamamoto et al. further discloses:
wherein the obstacle data reception unit receives the obstacle data from each of a plurality of obstacle sensors (¶¶ [0045], [0046] describing the plurality of sensors used to detect obstacles),
the obstacle data indicates a position of a part of an obstacle (¶ [0068] describing displaying the position of the obstacle), and
in a case where a relative distance of a plurality of pieces of the obstacle data is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the display control unit displays the second symbol at a barycentric position of the plurality of pieces of the obstacle data (Figure 4; ¶ [0070], [0071] describing detecting a plurality of objects and displaying the symbols in the middle of the all the objects, or a barycentric position, when the objects are detected with a predetermined distance from the work vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takaoka’s invention to incorporate detecting and displaying positions of obstacles in the display unit, as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining whether an obstacle has entered the operational space and to automatically stop the operations when the obstacle is detected within a certain distance from the machine (Yamamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0073] – [0076]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0071015 to Wu teaches displaying a position of a cliff in an excavation work site on a display unit (¶¶ [0116] – [0131]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/8/26
Prosecution Insights