DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 7/18/2025. Claims 1-6 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 7/18/2025 and 12/22/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length exceeds the permitted 150 word count. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 as currently presented states “…the restriction process is processing of canceling…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the restriction process is a process of canceling…” or the like, so as to overcome the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandegrift et al. (US-2024/0247462; hereinafter Vandegrift) in view of Lee (US-2020/0201453).
Regarding claim 1, Vandegrift discloses a work machine (see Vandegrift at least Abs) comprising:
a machine body (see Vandegrift at least [0023] “FIG. 1 depicts a representative self-propelled work machine 20 in the form of, for example, a tracked excavator machine but other suitable work machines for working terrain may fall within the scope of the present disclosure unless otherwise stated... A main frame 32 is supported from the undercarriage 22 by a swing bearing 34 such that the main frame 32 is pivotable about a pivot axis 36 relative to the undercarriage 22...”);
mounted equipment mounted to the machine body (see Vandegrift at least [0029] "Also mounted on the main frame 32 is an engine 64 for powering the working machine 20...");
an input device that is translationally operable (see Vandegrift at least [0043] "As illustrated in FIG. 2, a user interface tool 206 such as a joystick 206 may for example be provided in the operator's cab 60 and in association with the control station 62. The Joystick 206 as conventionally known in the art may be configured, at least during manual control modes as further discussed below, to adjust a velocity and direction (e.g., a forward/reverse stroke pattern or sequence) of the work implement 42 during execution by the controller 220 of the motion sequence of the work implement 42 or components thereof. Movements of the joystick 206 may be monitored by a position sensor 208, such as a potentiometer, which generates output signals representing a position of the joystick 206, for example relative to a neutral position, to the controller 220.") …
a controller that is configured to execute setting processing for the mounted equipment in response to a translational operation on the input device … on the input device (see Vandegrift at least Fig 2, [0043] "...Movements of the joystick 206 may be monitored by a position sensor 208, such as a potentiometer, which generates output signals representing a position of the joystick 206, for example relative to a neutral position, to the controller 220..." and [0048] "The controller 220 may further, or in the alternative, be configured to generate control signals for controlling the operation of respective actuators, or signals for indirect control via intermediate control units, associated with a machine steering control system 230, a machine implement control system 232, and/or an engine speed control system 234..."), wherein
the controller is configured to execute … processing of causing the setting processing for the mounted equipment (see Vandegrift at least Fig 2, [0029] "Also mounted on the main frame 32 is an engine 64 for powering the working machine 20..." [0043] "...Movements of the joystick 206 may be monitored by a position sensor 208, such as a potentiometer, which generates output signals representing a position of the joystick 206, for example relative to a neutral position, to the controller 220..." and [0048] "The controller 220 may further, or in the alternative, be configured to generate control signals for controlling the operation of respective actuators, or signals for indirect control via intermediate control units, associated with a machine steering control system 230, a machine implement control system 232, and/or an engine speed control system 234...") ...
However, Vandegrift does not explicitly disclose the following:
…an input device that is translationally operable and rotationally operable…
…a controller that is configured to execute setting processing for the mounted equipment in response to a translational operation on the input device and a rotational operation on the input device…
…the controller is configured to execute restriction processing … the setting processing corresponding to the rotational operation on the input device, to be restricted in a case in which the translational operation on the input device and the rotational operation on the input device are being simultaneously executed or in a case in which a time after any one of the translational operation on the input device and the rotational operation on the input device is finished until another one of the translational operation and the rotational operation is started is shorter than a predetermined determination time.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…an input device that is translationally operable and rotationally operable (see Lee at least [0043] "...The motion sensor 604 may track the angle and direction of rotation of the trackball 612, and may generate the spatial data based on the angle and direction of rotation. The trackball 612 may be a clickable trackball…")…
…a controller that is configured to execute setting processing for the mounted equipment in response to a translational operation on the input device and a rotational operation on the input device (see Lee at least [0043] "...The pointing device 600 may be coupled to a computing device... The pointing device 600 may be similar to the pointing device 100 in that it may also include a switch 602, a motion sensor 604 and a controller 606... The controller 606 may be identical to, or at least substantially similar to, the controller 106. The pointing device 600 may include a trackball 612. The trackball 612 may be the moveable part that the motion sensor 604 tracks. The trackball 612 may be rollable. The motion sensor 604 may track the angle and direction of rotation of the trackball 612, and may generate the spatial data based on the angle and direction of rotation. The trackball 612 may be a clickable trackball. The trackball 612 may also serve as a button, similar to the button 116, in that it may be depressed or may receive an external force, to actuate the switch 602. The switch 602 may generate a control signal when the trackball 612 is depressed...")…
…the controller is configured to execute restriction processing (see Lee at least [0043] "...When the controller 606 detects the change in state of the control signal, the controller 606 may control the transmitter to stop operations for the predetermined time interval…") … the setting processing corresponding to the rotational operation on the input device, to be restricted in a case in which the translational operation on the input device and the rotational operation on the input device are being simultaneously executed (see Lee at least [0043] "...The motion sensor 604 may track the angle and direction of rotation of the trackball 612, and may generate the spatial data based on the angle and direction of rotation. The trackball 612 may be a clickable trackball. The trackball 612 may also serve as a button, similar to the button 116, in that it may be depressed or may receive an external force, to actuate the switch 602. The switch 602 may generate a control signal when the trackball 612 is depressed. When a user of the pointing device 600 clicks the trackball 612, he may inevitably cause the trackball to rotate, even though he does not intend to provide any spatial input to the computing device. This unintentional rotation of the trackball 612 may therefore, be undesirable... When the control signal generated by the switch 602 exhibits a change in state, indicating that the switch is being activated or de-activated, the controller 606 may halt the transmission of the spatial data to the computing device, for a predetermined time interval following the change in state of the control signal. During normal operation, i.e. when the trackball 612 is being rolled without being simultaneously clicked, the transmitter 610 may transmit the spatial data to the computing device. When the controller 606 detects the change in state of the control signal, the controller 606 may control the transmitter to stop operations for the predetermined time interval...") or in a case in which a time after any one of the translational operation on the input device and the rotational operation on the input device is finished until another one of the translational operation and the rotational operation is started is shorter than a predetermined determination time.
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 input device of the work machine as disclosed by Vandegrift with both translational and rotational controls which recognize potential inadvertent actions such as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide multiple control capabilities into one compact interface while closely monitoring user inputs (see Lee at least [0002]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Vandegrift in view of Lee teach the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the restriction processing is processing of invalidating the rotational operation on the input device (see Lee at least [0043] "...When the control signal generated by the switch 602 exhibits a change in state, indicating that the switch is being activated or de-activated, the controller 606 may halt the transmission of the spatial data to the computing device, for a predetermined time interval following the change in state of the control signal... When the controller 606 detects the change in state of the control signal, the controller 606 may control the transmitter to stop operations for the predetermined time interval…").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the input device as disclosed by Vandegrift with controls that recognize potential inadvertent actions such as further taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Vandegrift in view of Lee teach the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the restriction processing is processing of canceling the setting processing (see Lee at least [0043]) for the mounted equipment, the setting processing corresponding to the rotational operation on the input device (see Vandegrift at least Fig 2, [0029] "Also mounted on the main frame 32 is an engine 64 for powering the working machine 20..." [0043] "...Movements of the joystick 206 may be monitored by a position sensor 208, such as a potentiometer, which generates output signals representing a position of the joystick 206, for example relative to a neutral position, to the controller 220..." and [0048] "The controller 220 may further, or in the alternative, be configured to generate control signals for controlling the operation of respective actuators, or signals for indirect control via intermediate control units, associated with a machine steering control system 230, a machine implement control system 232, and/or an engine speed control system 234..."), and
the controller is configured to execute the setting processing corresponding to the rotational operation on the input device and to then execute the restriction processing ((see Vandegrift at least [0029], [0043], and [0049]; disclosing continuous controls corresponding input device) and (see Lee at least [0043]; teaching rotational operation and eventual restriction of controls)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the input device as disclosed by Vandegrift with controls that recognize potential inadvertent actions such as further taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Vandegrift in view of Lee teach the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to skip the execution of the restriction processing and to execute the setting processing for the mounted equipment (see Vandegrift at least [0043] "...Movements of the joystick 206 may be monitored by a position sensor 208, such as a potentiometer, which generates output signals representing a position of the joystick 206, for example relative to a neutral position, to the controller 220..." [0048] "The controller 220 may further, or in the alternative, be configured to generate control signals for controlling the operation of respective actuators, or signals for indirect control via intermediate control units, associated with a machine steering control system 230, a machine implement control system 232, and/or an engine speed control system 234..." and [0058] "In addition to the above-referenced steps, the method 300 may further include steps of detecting a specified work state (step 330), or a transition to or from the specified work state, for example based on detected or predicted movements of the work implement 42 corresponding to the user input via the first interface tool 206, and automatically specifying a target elevation responsive to a predetermined user input or sequence of user inputs via the first user interface tool 206 and/or the second user interface tool 210 (step 332)..."), the setting processing corresponding to the rotational operation on the input device (see Lee at least [0043]; teaching rotational operation and eventual restriction of controls), in a case in which a direction of the translational operation on the input device and a direction of the rotational operation on the input device are a specific combination even when the translational operation and the rotational operation on the input device are simultaneously executed ((see Vandegrift at least [0043], [0048], and [0058]; a sequence of commands indicating an intentional operation) and (see Lee at least [0043]; simultaneous execution of translational movement and rotational movement)) or even when the time after the any one of the translational operation on the input device and the rotational operation on the input device is finished until the other one of the translational operation and the rotational operation is started is shorter than the predetermined determination time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the input device as disclosed by Vandegrift with controls that recognize potential inadvertent actions such as further taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandegrift in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US-2018/0015974; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 5, Vandegrift in view of Lee teach the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the work machine includes
an operation device that is used to operate the machine body (see Vandegrift at least [0044] "Another user interface tool 210 such as a lever, switch, or button 210 (or even a second joystick) may also for example be provided in the operator's cab 60 and in association with the control station 62. User engagement of the second user interface tool 210 may be monitored by a position sensor 212 which generates output signals representing a state of the user interface tool 210 to the controller 220. The user interface tool 210 may for example define a control mode (e.g., manual, automatic) or otherwise disable operation of one or more work machine functions based on user actuation thereof."), and
an operation state switching device that switches an operatable state in which an operation of the machine body through use of the operation device is valid and a non-operatable state in which an operation of the machine body through use of the operation device is invalid (see Vandegrift at least [0044] "Another user interface tool 210 such as a lever, switch, or button 210 (or even a second joystick) may also for example be provided in the operator's cab 60 and in association with the control station 62. User engagement of the second user interface tool 210 may be monitored by a position sensor 212 which generates output signals representing a state of the user interface tool 210 to the controller 220. The user interface tool 210 may for example define a control mode (e.g., manual, automatic) or otherwise disable operation of one or more work machine functions based on user actuation thereof."), and
…
However, neither Vandegrift nor Lee explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the predetermined determination time is set to be longer in the operatable state than in the non-operatable state.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the predetermined determination time is set to be longer in the operatable state than in the non-operatable state (see Yang at least [0006] "…step 2, when the locking state information acquired in step 1 indicates that the lock is in the unlocked state, activating a first sleep mode by the CPU module to instruct the signal receiving/sending module, the clock module, the positioning module and the lock control module to enter a sleep state, enabling the CUP module to enter the sleep state and ignore or shield a vibration detection signal sent from the vibration sensor module, waiting for a next awakening period, and repeating step 1…").
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 operable state of the machine body as disclosed by Vandegrift with a period of time in which commands are ignored such as taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success so as to save power when specific components are inoperable (see Yang at least [0042]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandegrift in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumazawa (US-2005/0034915).
Regarding claim 6, Vandegrift in view of Lee teach the work machine according to claim 1. While Vandegrift discloses a user input component capable of translational movement and the teachings of Lee provide a component which allows for both rotational and translational movement, neither reference explicitly discloses or teaches the following:
the input device is a jog dial.
Kumazawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
the input device is a jog dial (see Kumazawa at least [0096] "FIG. 18 is a side elevation of an upper portion of a grip 11 which is fixed onto the swing lever 110. A rotary operating member 30E which is used to adjust the engine speed is provided near the top of the grip 11. The rotary operating member 30E is a so-called jog dial that can be rotated along each of the directions indicated by the arrows D1, i.e., along the axis X, and can also be pressed along the direction indicated by the arrow D2, i.e., along the direction perpendicular to the axis X. The engine speed setting selected by turning the jog dial 30E along one of the directions indicated by the arrows D1 can then be locked by pressing the jog dial 30E along the direction indicated by the arrow D2. FIG. 19 presents a conceptual diagram of the engine speed lock control.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the input device as disclosed by Vandegrift with a jog dial such as taught by Kumazawa with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide specific controls to engine speed adjustments (see Kumazawa at least [0096]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bays et al. (US-2024/0317057) teaches a vehicle which includes a dial controller capable of receiving both translational and rotational inputs for adjusting settings within the vehicle, such as audio volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights