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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2016-211190 A) in view of Kirchmair (US 2023/0036971 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses an excavator (see at least Figure 1, item 1 | page 2, line 6, note hydraulic excavator 1), comprising:
a lower travel body (see at least Figure 1, item 2 | page 2, lines 7-8, note crawler type lower traveling body 2);
an upper slewing body mounted on the lower travel body in a slewable manner (see at least Figure 1, item 3 | page 2, line 8, note upper revolving body 3);
a sensor configured to detect an inclination of a machine body with respect to a horizontal plane (see at least Figure 1, item 24 | page 2, line 18, note angle detector 24 | page 3, lines 4-5, note the angle detector 24 outputs the inclination angle from the horizontal);
a display device installed inside a cabin provided in the upper slewing body (see at least Figures 2 and 4, item 22 | page 2, line 18, note monitor 22); and
a control device configured to cause the display device to display an icon image as information regarding the inclination of the machine body when an operation mode is switched to a crane mode (see at least Figures 4 and 6, items 25, 22, 29, 30, 30A and 30B | page 3, lines 24-36, note the display unit 28 of the monitor 22 in the crane mode displays the left and right tilt angles and the front and rear tilt angles via two separate inclination regions 29 and 30 | page 2, lines 34-35, note the mode change switch 23 allows the operator to select between a shovel mode and a crane mode).
However, Ito does not specifically disclose display an icon image resembling a shape of the machine body.
It is known to display attitude in different ways. For example, Kirchmair teaches a system that displays an icon image resembling a shape of a machine body as information regarding the inclination of the machine body (see at least Figure 3, item PS4 | [0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kirchmair into Ito. This provides a known alternative attitude display graphic that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Ito’s attitude display while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the control device causes the display device to display information indicating a rated load in the crane mode and information indicating an actual load, together with the information regarding the inclination of the machine body (see at least Figure 4 of Ito | page 3, lines 37-39 of Ito, note the actual load, rated load, height and radius that can be suspended).
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the control device sets the information regarding the inclination of the machine body displayed on the display device to non-display when the operation mode is switched from the crane mode to another mode (see at least Figure 5, steps S104 of Ito | page 4, lines 33-36 of Ito, note if the crane mode is selected the process proceeds to step S105, otherwise it proceeds to step S109 | page 5, lines 15-22 of Ito, note in step S108, the bubble levels 29/30 are displayed).
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the information regarding the inclination of the machine body includes the icon image resembling the shape of the machine body and a numerical value indicating the inclination of the machine body (see at least Figure 4, items 29, 30, 30A and 30B of Ito | Figure 3, item PS4 of Kirchmair).
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein when the operation mode is switched to the crane mode, the control device switches information displayed in a specific display area of the display device from information displayed before the operation mode is switched to the crane mode to the information regarding the inclination of the machine body (see at least Figure 5, steps S104 of Ito | page 4, lines 33-36 of Ito, note if the crane mode is selected the process proceeds to step S105, otherwise it proceeds to step S109 where a determination is made whether the excavator is turned off before ending (off) or going back to step S101 (on) | page 5, lines 15-22 of Ito, note in step S108, the bubble levels 29/30 are displayed in the specific area of the display only in the crane mode, whereas no information is displayed in the shovel mode).
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the specific display area is an area in which information that does not change due to the operation of moving the machine body of the excavator is displayed (see at least Figure 4, item 22 of Ito, note fuel and temperature gauges).
Regarding claim 11, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the control device causes the icon image resembling the shape of the machine body and an image indicating a roll angle of the machine body or a pitch angle of the machine body to be displayed in association with each other, as the information regarding the inclination of the machine body (see at least Figure 4, items 29, 30, 30A, 30B of Ito | Figure 3, item PS4 of Kirchmair).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2016-211190 A) in view of Kirchmair (US 2023/0036971 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hendricks (US 2020/0239244 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ito in view of Kirchmair teach wherein the sensor is an angle sensor, and the control device causes the icon image resembling the shape of the machine body to be displayed with an inclination based on a value that is output from the sensor (see at least page 3, lines 4-10 of Ito).
However, Ito in view of Kirchmair do not specifically teach an inertial measurement unit.
It is known to measure inclination in different ways. For example, Hendricks teaches a system with an inertial measurement unit (see at least [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hendricks into Ito in view of Kirchmair. This provides a known alternative sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Ito in view of Kirchmair’s sensor while providing predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 6, Ito (JP 2016-211190 A), Kirchmair (US 2023/0036971 A1), Hendricks (US 2020/0239244 A1) and Xi (CN 110446816 A) do not disclose and/or fairly suggest wherein when an operation of changing content of information displayed in the specific display area before the operation mode is switched to the crane mode is received during an operation in the crane mode, the control device switches the display in the specific display area from the information regarding the inclination of the machine body to the information displayed before the operation mode is switched to the crane mode.
Claims 7 and 8 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights