DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 (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.
2. Claims 1-7 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 04/07/2026 and 07/20/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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:
“control device” in claim 1
“work operation device” in claim 1
“target motion acquisition unit” in claim 1 and 6
“actual motion detection unit” in claim 1
“control unit” in claim 1 and 7
“display unit” in claims 4 and 5
“storage unit” in claim 6
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 following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control device” – microcomputer [0014]
“work device” – boom, arm, bucket [0107]
“work operation device” – valve [0105]
“target motion acquisition unit” – no structure found
“actual motion detection unit” – sensors [0071]
“control unit” – microcomputer [0014]
“display unit” – crystal display [0032]
“storage unit” – ROM [0032]
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites “target motion acquisition unit”. The “target motion acquisition unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be described, in sufficient detail, what the structure, material, or acts of the input device (that is carried by the operator, and that apparently includes in the specification a second operation unit) is, or by what algorithm(s) or steps/procedure the modules are functioning. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of any or all input device(s) may be covered/encompassed by the claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitations “target motion acquisition unit” in which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “target motion acquisition unit” is recited in the claim as acquiring information regarding a target motion of the work device. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
14. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated over Sano (US 20240011241).
Regarding Claim 1, Sano discloses A control device (Sano, see at least [0035] controller 30) for a work machine (Sano, see at least [0029] and Fig. 1 in which shows an excavator) that controls the work machine including a work device (Sano, see Fig. 1, which shows attachment such as boom, arm, bucket, etc.) and a work drive device (Sano, see [0061] machine control device 50) capable of moving the work device so that the work device performs a predetermined work operation according to an input command, the control device comprising: (Sano, see at least [0061] “the machine control device 50 may automatically operate the boom 4, the arm 5, the bucket 6, or any combination thereof so that the target construction surface coincides with the position of the tip of the bucket 6 when the operator manually performs an excavating operation.”)
a work operation device to which a designation operation is input, (Sano, see at least [0071] The operation device 26 is configured so that the operator can operate the actuator. The hydraulic actuator operation device is configured to feed, through the pilot line, the hydraulic oil discharged by the pilot pump 15 to the pilot port of the corresponding control valve in the control valve unit) the designation operation being an operation for a worker to designate a motion of the work device; (Sano, see at least [0071] the operation device 26 includes a hydraulic actuator operation device configured so that the operator can operate the hydraulic actuator.)
a target motion acquisition unit (Sano, see at least [0060] the machine control device 50) that acquires information regarding a target motion that is a target of a motion of the work device; (Sano, see at least [0060] “the machine control device 50 communicates work information to the operator, such as the distance between the target construction surface and a working portion of the attachment.”)
an actual motion detection unit (Sano, see at least [0047] positioning measuring device) capable of detecting an actual motion that is an actual motion of the work device; (Sano, see at least [0047] wherein the position measurement device P1 detects the position and the direction of the upper swiveling body 3)
and a control unit (Sano, see at least [0047] automatic control part 54) that controls the work device by setting an input amount of the command input to the work drive device by changing each of a designation operation amount that is an operation amount corresponding to the designation operation (Sano, see at least [0143] wherein the automatic control part 54 operates the actuator to automatically assist the manual operation being performed by the operator. EX: when the operator manually performs the arm closing operation, the automatic control part 54 may automatically extend and retract the boom cylinder, the arm cylinder, the bucket cylinder or any combination.)
and a support operation amount that is an operation amount of a support operation for moving the work device along the target motion according to an operation support rate that is a rate of supporting an operation of the worker, the control unit setting the operation support rate so that a difference between the target motion and the actual motion decreases from a detection result of the actual motion. (Sano, see at least [0146] wherein the actuator of the attachment can be automatically operated as to reduce the difference between the target construction surface and the actual operation from the detection result of the actual operation, in which automatically assists the manual slope-finishing operation performed by the operator using the excavator.)
Regarding Claim 7, Sano discloses The control device for the work machine according claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the work machine is a hydraulic excavator, the hydraulic excavator further includes a machine body, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which discloses an excavator. The upper swiveling body 3 is mounted via a swiveling mechanism to a lower traveling body of the excavator.)
the work device includes a boom connected to the machine body so as to be capable of being raised and lowered with respect to the machine body, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which discloses an excavator and an upper swiveling body 3 is mounted via a swiveling mechanism to a lower traveling body of the excavator. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swiveling body. Boom 4 can be raised and lowered. A boom angle sensor is attached to the om and can detect the rotation angle of the boom with respect to the upper swiveling body.)
an arm connected to the boom so as to be rotatable in a vertical direction with respect to the boom, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which discloses an arm 5 attached to a boom 4. The arm angle sensor is used to detect the rotation angle of the arm with respect to the boom)
and a bucket connected to a distal end portion of the arm, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which discloses a bucket 6 attached to the end of the arm 5.)
the work drive device includes a boom driver that raises and lowers the boom, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which the boom 4 can be raised and lowered)
and an arm driver that rotates the arm with respect to the boom, (Sano, see at least [0029-0031] and Fig. 1 in which discloses an arm 5 attached to a boom 4. The arm angle sensor is used to detect the rotation angle of the arm with respect to the boom)
and the control unit is configured to control at least the boom driver in the work drive device based on the operation support rate. (Sano, see at least [0146] wherein the actuator of the attachment can be automatically operated to assist the manual slope-finishing operation performed by the operator using the excavator.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 non-obviousness.
16. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20240011241) in view of Higuma (JP2012254796A).
Regarding claim 2, Sano in view of Higuma discloses generating a control command for rotating movement of an attachment of an excavator. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for computing the setting of the input amount for controlling the work device.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for performing servo control by feedback based on the deviation calculated by the passive control calculation unit. The servo control may be configured by appropriately combining the proportional component, the integral component, and the differential component without any particular limitation, as shown by Higuma [0084]. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, Sano in view of Higuma discloses generating a control command and an operation amount for rotating movement of an attachment of an excavator. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for defining the designation operation amount and support operation amount by allocating proportional gain, integral gain and differential gain based on PID control law.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for performing servo control by feedback based on the deviation calculated by the passive control calculation unit. The servo control may be configured by appropriately combining the proportional component, the integral component, and the differential component without any particular limitation, as shown by Higuma[0084]. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
17. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20240011241) in view of Nishikawa (US 20230366174).
Regarding Claim 4, Sano discloses The control device for the work machine according claim 1, (see rejection above)
Sano does not explicitly disclose further comprising a display unit capable of displaying the operation support rate set by the control unit.
However, Nishikawa discloses further comprising a display unit capable of displaying the operation support rate set by the control unit. (NISHIKAWA, see at least [0060] wherein the display device can display various kinds of machine body information. The operator can check operation conditions of the hydraulic excavator by viewing the displayed information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Sano with the teachings of NISHIKAWA to include the capability of a utilizing a display to showcase various kinds of machine body information, wherein the data displayed can consist of various types of data. The type of data displayed would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a work machine.
Regarding Claim 5, Sano discloses The control device for the work machine according to claim 4, (see rejection above)
Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein the display unit is capable of displaying a transition of the operation support rate set by the control unit each time the designation operation is input to the work operation device.
However, Nishikawa discloses wherein the display unit is capable of displaying a transition of the operation support rate set by the control unit each time the designation operation is input to the work operation device. (NISHIKAWA, see at least [0075] wherein the display device can display various kinds of machine body information. The operator can check operation conditions of the hydraulic excavator by viewing the displayed information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Sano with the teachings of NISHIKAWA to include the capability of a utilizing a display to showcase various kinds of machine body information, wherein the data displayed can consist of various types of data. The type of data displayed would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a work machine.
18. Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20240011241) in view of KOMATSU (US 20230366174).
Regarding Claim 6, Sano discloses The control device for the work machine according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Sano does not explicitly disclose further comprising a storage unit that stores related information that is information in which personal identification information of a worker who operates the work operation device, information on the actual motion corresponding to a specific worker who is a worker having the personal identification information, and the operation support rate set for the specific worker are associated with each other, wherein the target motion acquisition unit acquires, as information regarding the target motion, information of the actual motion of the specific worker with the operation support rate lower than a predetermined threshold in the related information.
However, KOMATSU discloses further comprising a storage unit that stores related information that is information in which personal identification information of a worker who operates the work operation device, information on the actual motion corresponding to a specific worker who is a worker having the personal identification information, and the operation support rate set for the specific worker are associated with each other, wherein the target motion acquisition unit acquires, as information regarding the target motion, information of the actual motion of the specific worker with the operation support rate lower than a predetermined threshold in the related information. (KOMATSU, see at least [0041] wherein information collected consists of attribute information, work-related information and worker motion information and stores this information in the first information holding unit (storage unit).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Sano with the teachings of KOMATSU to include the capability of a utilizing a storage device to store various types of information, wherein the stored data includes information related to the worker and the motion of the worker. The type of data stored would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a work machine and identifying information regarding a relationship between an operation support rate and a operator of the machine vehicle.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230257966– A hydraulic excavator specifies acceleration data being operation data in an acceleration period of a manipulation target and deceleration data being operation data in a deceleration period of the manipulation target among operation data, calculates, on the basis of the acceleration data and acceleration evaluation data, an acceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of an operator in the acceleration period, calculates, on the basis of the deceleration data and deceleration evaluation data, a deceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of the operator in the deceleration period, determines, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator, and outputs support information associated with the manipulation type.
US 20240018743 – A controller for an excavating machine, comprising a tool, an arm, a set of sensors and a chassis. The sensors being configured to provide data regarding a pose of the tool. The controller comprising an input interface and a computing unit. The input interface is configured to receive operator steering commands. The computing unit is configured to read a design model, comprising two interconnected polygons defining a breakline and to reference the pose of the tool to the design model. The controller is configured for performing a semi-automatic breakline-transition. The semi-automatic breakline-transition function including identifying a breakline-transition move based on the operator steering commands and the pose of the tool with respect to the breakline and generating operator steering command adjustment commands, based on the pose of the tool and the operator steering commands, in order to align the tool to the breakline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights