DETAILED ACTION
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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 6-20 have been canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“an orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire a current orientation…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure can be found in ¶¶ [0024], [0045], which includes a processor, memory, and programs);
“a screen generating unit configured to generate a guide screen…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶¶ [0024], [0045], which includes a processor, memory, and programs);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (2) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “unit” in (1)-(2) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(2) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit” in (1)-(2) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021200157 to Kamado et al. in view of JP2000179008 to Hashimoto et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kamado et al. discloses:
A display system for a work machine including a revolving body configured to be able to revolve around a revolving center, and a work implement attached to the revolving body (See Figure 6 display), the display system comprising:
an orientation acquisition unit configured to acquire a current orientation of the work implement of the work machine (p. 9, ll. 30-34 describing the processing unit determining the position and posture, or orientation, of the work machine); and
a screen generating unit configured to generate a guide screen for the work machine based on the current orientation of the work implement of the work machine (p. 10, ll. 34-39 describing the controller causing the display unit to display a guide screen based on the current orientation of the implement of the work machine; see also Figure 6 depicting said display),
the guide screen including
a work-orientation display indicating the current orientation of the work implement (Figure 6),
an orientation circular display having a circular shape or an arc shape centered on the revolving center of the work machine (Figure 6 depicting circular figure 50C),
a first orientation display disposed along the orientation circular display (Figure 6, Ref. No. 51), and
a second orientation display disposed along the orientation circular display (Figure 6, Ref. No. 52).
Kamado et al. does not expressly disclose an orientation of an end point of returning revolution relative to the work machine, and an orientation of an end point of loading revolution relative to the work machine, indicating the orientation of the end point of returning revolution relative to the work machine, or indicating the orientation of the end point of loading revolution relative to the work machine.
Hashimoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches an orientation of an end point of returning revolution relative to the work machine, and an orientation of an end point of loading revolution relative to the work machine, indicating the orientation of the end point of returning revolution relative to the work machine, or indicating the orientation of the end point of loading revolution relative to the work machine (Figure 6 depicting the excavation position, the dumping position, and a standby position centered around the shovel body; p. 8, ll. 20-24 describing excavation position, the dumping position, and the standby position; p. 9, ll. 1-5 describing that the excavation position, the dumping position, and the standby position are all displayed to the driver on the display).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamado et al.’s invention to incorporate indicating an end point of returning revolution from dumping and indicating an end point of loading revolution from performing the excavation, as taught by Hasimoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining the turning direction of the machine to the standby position so that when an abnormal situation or the like occurs, an appropriate turning direction is determined and the automatic driving shovel is operated such that it can be swiveled, ensuring work safety corresponding to the situation at the work site, and preventing damage to surrounding equipment and devices (p. 9, ll. 7-14).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kamado et al. and Hashimoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Hashimoto et al. further discloses:
wherein the guide screen includes a passing orientation display disposed along the orientation circular display and indicating an orientation of a passing position between the end point of returning revolution and the end point of loading revolution relative to the work machine (p. 8, ll. 20-24 describing the standby position between the loading and dumping positions; see also Figure 6 depicting the standby position along a circular display).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamado et al.’s invention to incorporate including a passing position, or standby position, as taught by Hasimoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining the turning direction of the machine to the standby position so that when an abnormal situation or the like occurs, an appropriate turning direction is determined and the automatic driving shovel is operated such that it can be swiveled, ensuring work safety corresponding to the situation at the work site, and preventing damage to surrounding equipment and devices (p. 9, ll. 7-14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kamado et al. and Hashimoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kamado et al. further discloses:
wherein, on the guide screen, the work-orientation display is displayed in a fixed manner, and the first orientation display and the second orientation display are displayed in such a manner as to rotate around the revolving center in accordance with revolution of the revolving body (p. 12, ll. 29-34 describing the work-orientation display being fixed and the first orientation display 51 and the second orientation display 52 rotating about the circular display as the machine moves).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kamado et al. and Hashimoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kamado et al. further discloses:
wherein the guide screen includes an orientation coordinate display disposed along the orientation circular display and indicating an orientation coordinate centered on the revolving center (Figure 6 depicting the orientation coordinate display a north, east, south, and west along the circular display).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kamado et al. and Hashimoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4. Hashimoto et al. further discloses:
wherein, on the guide screen, the work-orientation display is displayed in a fixed manner, and the first orientation display, the second orientation display, and the orientation coordinate display are displayed in such a manner as to rotate around the revolving center in accordance with revolution of the revolving body (p. 12, ll. 29-34 describing the work-orientation display being fixed and the first orientation display 51 and the second orientation display 52 rotating about the circular display as the machine moves; see also Figure 6 depicting the coordinates rotating around the circumference of the circular display).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0218749 to Hiromatsu et al. teaches displaying various aspects surrounding a working machine (Figure 9 and the description thereof);
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0078302 to Yamada et al. teaches a top-down display view a working machine that rotates from a loading position to a dumping position (Figures 9 and 19 and descriptions thereof);
U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0298595 to Machida et al. teaches displaying a bird’s eye view of a working machine and displaying a circular perimeter around the machine (Figure 9 and description thereof).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights