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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tago et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0123942 A1) [hereinafter “Tago”].
Regarding claim 1, Tago discloses an information system that determines, according to a linkage state between an operation device (excavator 1, including operation devices 71, 72, 73) and an operation target of the operation device, whether or not storage of information acquired by at least one of the operation device and the operation target designated devices is necessary (see [0046]-[0048] and [0062]-[0074]; when an object is present within a range that could be hit by the work machine and the operation devices are in use, video data is recorded and stored).
Regarding claim 3, Tago further discloses the linkage state includes an operable state in which the operation device can operate the operation target and an inoperable state in which the operation device cannot operate the operation target, and whether or not storage of the information is necessary is determine according to whether the operation device and the operation target are in the operable state or the inoperable state (see [0065]-[0074], specifically the fourth condition in [0070] where recording is done only when the object is within a range where it can be contacted by the excavator).
Regarding claim 4, Tago further discloses according to a linkage state between the operation device and one operation target candidate determined as the operation target among a plurality of operation target candidates that may be an operation target of the operation device, whether or not storage of information acquired by the one operation target candidate as the designated device is necessary is determined (see [0065]-[0074], [0081]-[0083], and [0102]).
Regarding claim 5, Tago further discloses a communication device (communication device 160) that transmits, to an external server (management server 53), information determined to need to be stored (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Tago further discloses information transmitted from the communication device to the external server is deleted from the designated device (see [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 7, Tago further discloses information determined not to need to be stored is deleted from the designated device (see [0065]-[0074], information is only stored when the trigger conditions are met).
Regarding claim 8, Tago further discloses the operation target includes an imaging device that acquires a camera image as the information (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Tago further discloses the operation device receives the camera image as the information from the operation target (see [0043]-[0045] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Tago further discloses the designated device includes a display device that displays the information (see [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Tago discloses an operation device comprising: a display device that displays image data received from an operation target (see [0043]-[0045]); and a processing device that determines, as a storage target, the image data displayed in a case where the operation target is being operated (see [0062]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Tago discloses an operation device comprising: a display device that selects and displays image data received from a current operation target that is one operation target candidate among a plurality of operation target candidates that may be operation targets of an operation device (see [0043]-[0045], [0065]-[0074], [0081]-[0083], and [0102]); and a processing device that determines, as a storage target, the image data displayed on the display device when the operation target is operated by the operation device (see [0043]-[0045], [0065]-[0074], [0081]-[0084], and [0102]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tago in view of Yamada et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2026/0243063 A1) [hereinafter “Yamada”].
Regarding claim 2, Tago does not each that the operation target is a work machine and the operation device is a remote operation device for remotely operating the work machine.
Yamada teaches a system where an excavator 1 is controlled remotely via a remote control device 2 that communicate with each other over a network 3 (see [0024]).
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 the invention of Tago to determine whether or not to storage image data based on a linkage state between an excavator and a remote control device, in view of Yamada, as storing image data when the remote control device is not connected to the excavator would be a waste of storage capacity, as Tago teaches the storage of full video data unnecessarily would strain the recording capacity of the system (see [0118]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Togo et al. (US 2020/0181886 A1) generally teaches:
A vehicle-side control unit determines whether a long distance communication mechanism is available or not, when determining that the long distance communication mechanism is available, controls a first vehicle-side communication unit to transmit operation data via the long distance communication mechanism, and when determining that the long distance communication means is not available, causes a vehicle-side storage unit to store the operation data, and further determines whether a transmission start command is received from a tablet or not, and when determining that the transmission start command is received, controls a second vehicle-side communication unit to transmit the operation data stored in the vehicle-side storage unit via a short distance communication mechanism.
Shibamori et al. (US 2004/0034511 A1) generally teaches:
To provide an information transmitting device for a construction machine such that operation data of the construction machine can be supplied only as much as needed by its user or the like without unnecessary data, the information transmitting device is provided with an information control device 4, a base station 9 arranged at a remote place, a transmission means such as a communication satellite 6, and a selected data outputting means for selecting and predetermined operation data from operation data collected in an operation data collecting unit 4a of the information control device 4 and transmitting them. The information control device includes an operation data collecting unit 4a and a communication control unit 4b which includes transmitting and receiving parts. The selected data outputting means is constructed including an operation data selecting device 9e (external operating device 12) and as units arranged in the information control device 4, an identifier designating unit 4c for designating an identifier TN or the like for the specification of selected operation data, an identifier memory unit 4d, and a transmission data preparing unit 4e for reading operation data, which correspond to an identifier designated by the identifier designating unit 4c, from the operation data collecting unit 4a and preparing the operation data as transmission data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
