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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Notice to Applicant(s)
This application has been examined. Claims 1-6 are pending.
The prior art submitted on June 03, 2025 has been considered.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which have been placed of record in the file.
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) A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, nowwitstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (2025/0003201).
As per claim 1, Hirose et al. disclose a remote operation system for a work machine (see at least figure 1) which includes a lower traveling body (see figure 3, item 410; paragraph 0069); an upper turning body provided on the lower traveling body so as to be able to turn (see figure 3, item 420; paragraph 0069); an imaging device provided on the upper turning body (see figure 3, item 412; paragraph 0070); and a communication device configured to transmit an image captured by the imaging device (see figure 3, item 442; paragraph 0071); a remote communication configured to communicate with the communication device (see figure 1, item 20; paragraph 0050); a display device configured to display the image received by the remote communication device (see figure 2, items 2210, 2211, 2212; paragraph 0064); and a remote operation device configured to operate the work machine by performing a remote operation (see figure 2; items 2110, 2111, 2112; paragraphs 0061, 0063, 0086), wherein the remote operation system display the status of the communication failure as shown in at least paragraphs 0095-0097, 0105.
Hirose et al. do not explicitly disclose that the remote operation device limits the remote operation when the remote operation of the work machine is not displayed on the display device. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to realize that the remote operation will be limited when the communication is failure since this remote operation is based on the received images via the communication. If the image can not displayed in the remote side then the remote operation obviously being limited or even can not performed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to limit the remote operation when the images is not displayed on the display device due to the communication failure.
As per claim 2, it is obvious in the Hirose et al. teaching that when the communication is failure, the image of an area surrounding the work machine is not properly displayed on the display device (see figure 6C; paragraphs 0095-0097).
As per claim 3, Hirose et al. disclose that the limitation condition includes that a state of communication between the communication device and the remote communication device does not satisfy a predetermined condition (see at least figure 6C, paragraphs 0095-0097).
As per claim 4, Hirose et al. disclose that the limiting of the remote operation includes blocking or limiting a signal between the remote operation device and a drive system for operating the work machine (see at least figure 6C, paragraphs 0095-0097).
As per claim 5, Hirose et al. disclose that the limiting of the remote operation includes a limiting communication between the remote communication device and the communication device (see at least figure 6C, paragraphs 0095-0097).
As per claim 6, Hirose et al. further disclose a machine controller connected to the communication device to control the lower traveling body and the upper turning body; and a remote controller connected to the remote communication device and the remote operation device to control the display device, wherein the machine controller or the remote controller limits the remote operation when the limitation condition is satisfied (see at least figures 1, 3; paragraphs 0087).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The following references are cited as being of general interest: Tokieda (2025/0250779), Matsui et al. (2026/0143091) and Matumura (2026/0164129).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
July 21, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights