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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriki (US 2017/0284057 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moriki discloses a control system of a construction machine, such as a hydraulic excavator (1) which includes a working equipment (15) having a boom (11), an arm (12), and a bucket (8) (Figure 1; paragraph 0039); the control system, which is described to include a controller (100) (see at least Fig. 2, paragraphs 0044-0045), is configured to determines a target surface based on a design surface information stored in the design surface information storage unit (110) (Fig. 3, paragraphs 0047-0056), wherein the design surface closest to the work equipment is acquired as the target surface (see at least Figure 7A, paragraphs 0009, 0010, and 0074-0078); the equipment (15) is controlled to move horizontally along the design surface S1 as the target surface when the distance between the work equipment (15) and the design surface S1 is determined to be shorter than the distance between the work equipment (15) and the other surface (see at least paragraphs 0077, and 0078); a display unit (800) that is configured to display at least the position of work equipment
(15), the target surface PS, and the estimated target surface ES (see at least Fig. 9,
paragraphs 0089-0091). Thus, Moriki suggests "controlling a tilt axis of the tilt bucket"
when the bucket (8) is controlled to move horizontally along the design surface S1, and a physical display device for the purpose of displaying the position of the work equipment (15), the target surface PS, and the estimated target surface ES.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of the construction machine as directed by Moriki to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of operating the work machine with highly accurately monitoring the work status in view of the design surface closest to the work equipment displayed and controlled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir.1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,775 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
The reference claim 6 and the examined application claim 10 include the following common features: both methods apply to a construction machine equipped with working equipment that includes an arm and a tilt bucket; Both methods involve determining a specific control object surface (from a first and second adjacent design surface) and controlling the tilt axis/rotation of the tilt bucket based on that surface; Both methods include a specific control logic that maintains the previously determined control object surface during a specific operation, even if the shortest distance to the tilt bucket switches from the first design surface to the second design surface.
The only difference is that the currently examined claim 10 adds a feature: "causing a display device to use different display modes to display the determined control object surface and a surface other than the control object surface,” and specifies using input data for surface selection, this is functionally equivalent to the "operating data" described in the reference claim 6 for selecting the control surface. A display showing which surface is being targeted is a conventional user interface element in machine control systems, likely to be considered an obvious addition to a technical method. In claim 10, the “input data” merely allows the operator to select a preferred surface. Therefore, this a common, non-inventive variation in the field.
For at least the reason set forth herein, these make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 10 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 6 because the currently examined claim 10 would have been obvious over the reference claim 6 of the patent.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 8-13 would have been obvious over the reference claim 6 of the cited patent No. ‘775B2.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US- 9976285-B2, US-20090326768-A1, US-20090158625-A1, US-8914199-B2, and WO-2018171856-A1.
None of the prior art has been found discloses or even suggests all the limitations recited in claim 10.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P. Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights