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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 25 June 2025. Claims 16-35 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) was/were submitted on 13 August 2025 and 03 November 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application DE10 2024 113 082.2 filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 09 May 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action is required by Applicant at this time.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-29, and 31-35 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16: “detect an operating state and/or an operating mode of the drives and/or actuators” should be “detect an operating state and/or an operating mode of the one or more drives and/or actuators”;
Claims 16 and 31: “a plurality of lessons for the adjustment of the position” should be “a plurality of lessons for an adjustment of the position”;
Claim 16: “depending on an operating state and/or operating mode of the drives and/or actuators” should be “depending on an operating state and/or operating mode of the one or more drives and/or actuators”;
Claims 16 and 31: “a specific instruction data set from the instruction data sets” should be “a selection of a specific instruction data set from the plurality of instruction data sets”;
Claims 16 and 31: “corresponding to the selected instruction data set” should be “corresponding to the selected specific instruction data set is visualized”;
Claims 16 and 31: “for the drives and/or actuators” should be “generated for the one or more drives and/or actuators”;
Claims 17 (pg. 2 and pg. 3), 19 (pg. 4 x 2), 20 (pg. 5 x 2), 22 (pg. 6 x 2), 24 (pg. 7 x 1, pg. 8 x 2), 25 (pg. 9 x 3, pg. 10 x 1), 29, 32 (pg. 14 x 2), 34 (pg. 15 x 2), and 35 (pg. 16 x 1, pg. 17 x 3): “selected from the instruction data sets” should be “selected from the plurality of instruction data sets”;
Claim 20: “worked by actuating the actuators assigned to the lifting devices” should be “worked by actuating the one or more actuators assigned to the left and right lifting devices”;
Claim 20 (pg. 5 x 2): “entered actuators assigned to the lifting devices” should be “entered actuators assigned to the left and right lifting devices”;
Claim 21: “entered for the actuators assigned to the lifting devices” should be “entered for the one or more actuators assigned to the left and right lifting devices”;
Claim 22: “learning mode relates to adjustment of the transverse inclination of the machine frame” should be “learning mode relates to adjustment of a transverse inclination of the machine frame”;
Claim 22: “the road milling machine in the working direction” should be “the self-propelled road construction machine in a working direction”;
Claim 22: “entered the actuators assigned to the lifting devices on the left side in the working direction are actuated such that the machine frame is lowered on the left side, and/or the actuators assigned to the lifting devices on the right side” should be “entered the actuators assigned to [[
Claim 23: “the height-adjustable milling/mixing roller” should be “the
Claim 24: “a command to steer the front wheels or crawler tracks to the left in a working direction” should be “a command to steer [[a working direction”;
Claim 24: “after the command is entered the actuators assigned to the front wheels or crawler tracks” should be “after the command is entered [[
Claims 25, 29, and 35: “the road construction machine” should be “the self-propelled road construction machine”;
Claims 25 and 35: “in the working direction and” should be “in [[a working direction and”;
Claims 25 and 35: “and the set steering mode are detected” should be “and [[a set steering mode are detected”;
Claims 25 (pg. 9 x 3, pg. 10 x 1) and 35: “so that after the command is entered the actuators assigned to the front wheels or crawler tracks” should be “so that after [[a command is entered [[
Claim 26: “no control command signals are generated for the actuators assigned to the front and rear lifting devices” should be “no control command signals are generated for [[
Claim 27: “no control command signals are generated for the at least one actuator assigned” should be “no control command signals are generated for [[
Claim 28: “for steering only the front wheels or crawler tracks, the front and rear wheels or crawler tracks in the same direction” should be “for steering only [[
Claim 29: “the state monitoring device is configured such that the operation of the drive engine” should be “the state monitoring device is configured such that [[the]] an operation of the drive engine”;
Claim 32: “relative to the ground surface detected by the state monitoring device is less” should be “relative to the ground surface detected by [[a state monitoring device is less”;
Claims 33 and 34: “the control command signals” should be “[[]] control command signals”; and
Claim 35 (pg. 17 x 3): “so that after the command is entered the actuators assigned to” should be “so that after [[a command is entered [[.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0083, 0106, and 0108: reference character “23” has been used to designate “at least one hydraulic pump”, “internal combustion engine”, and “state monitoring device”;
Paragraphs 0090, 0105, 0107, 0109, 0110, 0112, and 0114: reference character “40” has been used to designate “images, graphics, animations or alphanumeric characters” and “the lower edge”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 16 and 20 (FIG. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "5" and "6" have both been used to designate a “front wheel” (FIGs. 12A-12D need correction). Specifically, the “front wheels” are identified with reference characters 4 and 5 (see FIGs. 11A-11C and para. 0120: “Fig. 12A shows the case where the steering mode "front wheel steering" is set. If the state monitoring device 32 detects the steering mode "front wheel steering," the controller 27 selects an instruction data set in order to display a corresponding pictogram on the display of the human-machine interface, which pictogram prompts the operator to steer the front wheels 4, 5…”) and the front wheels are identified with reference characters 4 and 6 in FIGs. 12A-12D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 23, 33, and 34 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 23, 33, and 34 recite the limitation "the defined operating range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Specifically, it is unclear whether “the defined operating range” is a range different from the “specific operating range”, recited earlier in the claims. Examiner is interpreting the “defined operating range” as the “specific operating range”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first lesson". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether “the first lesson” is the same as “the lesson of the learning mode” recited earlier in the claim or is a different lesson. Examiner is interpreting “the first lesson” as “the lesson of the learning mode” recited earlier in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 16 and 31 contain allowable subject matter and may be found allowable after the above objections are remedied. Claims 17-30 and claims 32-35 depend on claims 16 and 31 and may similarly be found allowable after the above objections and rejections are remedied.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of claim limitations:
“…wherein the controller provides a learning mode comprising a plurality of lessons for the adjustment of the position of the wheels or crawler tracks and/or the height of the milling/mixing roller by the user, wherein the controller is configured for at least one lesson of the learning mode such that,
depending on an operating state and/or operating mode of the drives and/or actuators detected by the state monitoring device, a selection of a specific instruction data set from the instruction data sets is made, and the instruction corresponding to the selected instruction data set is visualized using the human-machine interface, and
depending on the command input by the user with the human-machine interface after the visualization of the instruction, one or more control command signals corresponding to the command input are generated for the drives and/or actuators for driving and steering the wheels or crawler tracks and/or for adjusting the height of the milling/mixing roller.”
of independent claims 16 and 31 are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record neither discloses nor teaches a system and method for training an operator of construction machinery that specifically delays execution of the operator control input commands to relevant drives and/or actuators for controlling wheels or crawler tracks and the height of a milling/mixing roller, until after training visualizations on a display are complete. Therefore, defining a construction machinery training methodology and system in this way is novel.
The closest prior art is US-20160104391-A1 (“Wieland”), which discloses a method and system for training an operator of a construction machine, which includes an operator training system that generates a training plan (set of instructions) for coaching one or more operations on the construction machine and a monitoring system that monitors whether the operation by the operator conforms to the training plan and may generate an alarm if the position and movement of the construction machine components deviate from expectation based on the training plan (see Wieland, para. 0016-0025, 0040, FIG. 4). While Wieland discloses an in-machine training method and system that coaches one or more operations of a construction machine and provides feedback to the operator being trained, it does not disclose or suggest delaying the execution of the one or more operations of the construction machine until after displaying the training instructions and depending on the command input by the operator.
The closest prior art also includes US-20230031013-A1 (“Faust”), which teaches an agricultural machine or construction machine that has a system and method that stores tutorial content, dynamically detects tutorial selection criteria during operation, selects the tutorial content to recommend to the operator based on the selection criteria and stores information about when a particular tutorial was last presented so as to not repeat the same tutorials too often (see Faust, para. 0028, 0055, 0059-0064, FIG. 6, FIG. 9-10). Faust does not disclose delaying the execution of the one or more operations of the construction machine until after displaying the training instructions and depending on the command input by the operator.
While Wieland and Faust teach a method and system for training an operator of a construction machine, which includes an operator training system that generates a training plan/tutorials for coaching one or more operations on the construction machine, a monitoring system that monitors whether the operation by the operator conforms to the training, generating an alarm if the position and movement of the construction machine components deviate from expectation based on the training plan, and storing information about when training/tutorials were last displayed, neither teaches delaying the execution of the one or more operations of the construction machine until after displaying the training instructions and depending on the command input by the operator, nor would the combination of Wieland and Faust teach this feature.
No other prior art has been found to remedy the deficiencies of Wieland in view of Faust. Therefore claims 16 and 31 may be found allowable over the prior art if the above objections are remedied.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20020022909-A1 (2002-02-21) | “A control machine/operator interface and a method for controlling complex machines or moving vehicles are provided. The method uses a high level of automation and the man-machine interface to achieve an intuitive control method and a substantial reduction in required operator skill level and training. The method also makes the operation of such machine or vehicle virtually the same when the operator is in the machine or vehicle as when the machine or vehicle is controlled from a remote location.”
KR-102089374-B1 (2020-03-16) |”The present invention provides a system and a method for construction machine field education based on the national competency standard (NCS). As a new alternative for supplementing and reinforcing construction machine field education (manipulation training) by utilizing high technologies, the present invention can provide a manipulator with sufficient field education to improve learning effects by adding experiential and field education to the education guide of the NCS in actual equipment education; can supplement insufficient job competency through safe field education; can reduce danger in a safe environment by implementing a virtual environment similar to an actual construction machine manipulating field through computer simulation and manipulating and practicing a virtual object converged with hardware as if it is real…”
USH1845H (2000-03-07) | “The present invention is a method and apparatus for training an operator of an earthworking machine having an implement control system. The method and apparatus includes switching from control by the implement control system to control by the operator, monitoring operator control commands, and comparing the operator control commands to control commands of the implement control system. The method and apparatus also includes communicating the comparison to the operator.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (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 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights