DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 24 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-18, and 20-25 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US Pub. No. 2010/0138094) in view of Mitchell (US Pub. No. 2018/0170369), further in view of Ishimoto (US Pub. No. 2013/0088593).
As per Claim 1, Stark discloses a shovel (102) (Fig. 1; ¶13-14) comprising:
a hardware processor (208) (Fig. 2; ¶19, 28) configured to record log information (as per 316, 320) in a first storage (216) (Figs. 2-3; ¶27-29, 31, 33, 36-40), the log information (as per 316, 320) including at least one of:
{information on conditions surrounding the shovel at each of a time before, a time of, and a time after an occurrence of a predetermined event where at least one of safety and security of the shovel is relatively reduced}; or
information (as per 214a-h) on conditions of the shovel (102) at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after (as per YES at 310, 312, 314) the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) [where at least one of safety (as per “near miss”) and {security} of the shovel (102) is relatively reduced] (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32, 36-39, 42, 44-45),
one or more types of predetermined events (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) are recorded in a second storage (218) (Fig. 2; ¶17, 28-29, 31-32, 40-41), and
the hardware processor (208) is configured to display, on a display (as per “integrated display unit” in ¶30).
Stark does not expressly disclose:
wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed; performing an operation to lower a boom; the shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; activation of a security function of the shovel; or acceptance of a predetermined operation input from a user that imparts a decrease in the at least one of safety and security of the shovel;
the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined event has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events; and
wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events.
Mitchell discloses a work vehicle (100) that includes sensors (402, 404, 406, 408) that communicate with a controller (410) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶21, 30-31). The sensors (402, 404, 406, 408) include one or more cameras for capturing images around the machine (100) (¶30) and the controller (410) operates to define a safe zone around the machine (100) in view of information from the cameras (¶33). In operation, the controller (410) performs operations including: receiving (as per 502) information from the sensors (402, 404, 406, 408); defining (as per 506) a safe zone around the machine (100); comparing (as per 510) information from the sensors (402, 404, 406, 408) with information defining the safe zone; and limiting (as per 516) drive control of the machine (100) in response to a determination that the machine (100) is approaching the safe zone (as per YES at 512) (Fig. 5; ¶41). In this way, the controller (410) increases the safety of the operator inside the machine and all those in proximity to the machine (100) (¶43). Like Stark, Mitchell is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Ishimoto discloses monitoring device for a work machine (1) that includes an operator’s cab (1f), the operator’s cab (1f) including a display device (50) (Figs. 1, 3, 5; ¶42-44, 55-52-56). The area around the work machine (1) is monitored with respect to a warning range (113) and alarm ranges (112a, 112b) for workers moving near the work machine (1) (Fig. 7; ¶77-82). The screen of the display device (50) includes a title display portion (117) through which the user can manipulate details for setting the warning range (113) and alarm ranges (112a, 112b) (Figs. 7, 9-12; ¶77-82, 87-91). In this way, the monitoring area is adjusted to suit user preferences (¶118-121). Like Stark, Ishimoto is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: {a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed; performing an operation to lower a boom; the shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; activation of a security function of the shovel}; or acceptance of a predetermined operation input from a user that imparts a decrease in the at least one of safety {and security} of the shovel” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations as per Mitchell;
“the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined event has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations as per Mitchell; and
“wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein
the safety is {safety defined by a relationship between the shovel and a person outside a cabin of the shovel}, safety defined by a relationship between the shovel and an obstacle (¶25) around the shovel (102) (Fig. 3; ¶31-32, 36-40, 44-45), or {safety defined by stability of the shovel resulting from a pose of the shovel, a motion of the shovel}, or {a shape of a ground around the shovel}, and
{the security is security against a theft of the shovel or security against an external access to the shovel through a communication} (alternative embodiment according to the Claim 1).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein
the information on the conditions surrounding the shovel (102) includes at least one of: image information (as per 116) of an area (100) surrounding the shovel (102) (Figs. 1-2; ¶17, 23, 27); {information on a reflected signal from an object in the area surrounding the shovel; and information on a sound in the area surrounding the shovel}, and
the information on the conditions of the shovel (102) includes at least one of: position information (as per “Sensing devices 214a-h may be configured to gather machine operational parameters over time … each sample may include coordinates defining a position of the machine 102 with respect to a worksite 100” in ¶27) of the shovel (102); {information on an operation state of the shovel; information on a pose state of the shovel; information on a motion state of the shovel; information on a condition of a hydraulic drive system of the shovel; information on a condition of an electric drive system of the shovel; and information on indoor conditions of a cabin of the shovel}.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein
the predetermined event further includes at least one of: {determination of a theft of the shovel by a theft determining function of the shovel; activation of a safety function of the shovel}; or detection of a predetermined object (as per 310) in an area surrounding the shovel (102) by an object detecting function of the shovel (102) (Fig. 3; ¶36-39), and
wherein the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) includes that the predetermined object (as per 310) is detected by the object detecting function and the detected predetermined object (as per 310) is closer to the shovel than a predetermined reference (as per “collision or near miss” in 314) (Fig. 3; ¶36-39).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses:
different types of information obtaining devices (214a-h) configured to obtain information on an object in the area (100) surrounding the shovel (102) (Figs. 1-2; ¶16, 23-26),
wherein the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) further includes at least one of: {determination of a theft of the shovel by a theft determining function of the shovel; activation of a safety function of the shovel}; or detection of a predetermined object (as per 310) in an area surrounding the shovel (102) by an object detecting function of the shovel (102) (Fig. 3; ¶36-39), and
for each of the information obtaining devices (214a-h), whether the detection of the predetermined object (as per 310) based on an output thereof corresponds to the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) or a condition under which the detection of the predetermined object (as per 310) based on an output thereof corresponds to the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) is different (as per “one or more object sensors 214b” and “radar, lidar” in ¶25) (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-26, 36-37).
As per Claim 14, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein
at least one of the information (as per 214b) on the conditions surrounding the shovel (102) or the information (as per “machine operational parameters” in ¶27) on the conditions of the shovel (102) is accumulated during a period from a start to a stop (as per “when machine 102 is powered on and running” in ¶33) of the shovel (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32-42), and
the hardware processor (208) is configured to record, of the accumulated information, information at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) in the first storage (216) as the log information (as per 316, 320), the first storage (216) being nonvolatile (as per “memory buffer 216 may be located in permanent memory” in ¶29) (Figs. 2-3; ¶27-29, 31, 33, 36-40).
As per Claim 15, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Stark further discloses:
a third storage (as per “multiple instances of the contents of memory buffer” in ¶29) configured to accumulate the at least one of the information (as per 214b) on the conditions surrounding the shovel (102) or the information (as per “machine operational parameters” in ¶27) on the conditions of the shovel (102) during the period from the start to the stop (as per “when machine 102 is powered on and running” in ¶33) of the shovel (102) (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32-42),
wherein the hardware processor (208) is configured to record, of the information accumulated in the third storage (as per “multiple instances of the contents of memory buffer” in ¶29), information at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) in the first storage (216) as the log information (as per 316, 320), the first storage (216) being nonvolatile (as per “memory buffer 216 may be located in permanent memory” in ¶29) (Figs. 2-3; ¶27-29, 31, 33, 36-40).
As per Claim 16, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Stark further discloses wherein
the first storage (216) is configured to accumulate the at least one of the information (as per 214b) on the conditions surrounding the shovel (102) or the information (as per “machine operational parameters” in ¶27) on the conditions of the shovel (102) during the period from the start to the stop (as per “when machine 102 is powered on and running” in ¶33) of the shovel (102) (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32-42), and
the hardware processor (208) is configured to record, of the information accumulated in the first storage (216), the information at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) in the first storage (216) as the log information, by changing the information at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) to an unerasable state (as per “memory buffer 216 may be located in permanent memory” in ¶29) (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32-42).
As per Claim 17, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein the hardware processor (208) is configured to transmit the log information recorded in the first storage (216) to a predetermined external apparatus (as per “downloaded from controller 208” in ¶41).
As per Claim 18, Stark discloses an information processing apparatus (102, 208) (Figs. 1-2; ¶13-14, 19), comprising:
a hardware processor (208) configured to cause a shovel (102) to record (as per “store or save the contents” in ¶41) in a first storage (216), or transmit to a predetermined external apparatus (as per “The log file or files … may be later downloaded from controller 208” in ¶41), log information (as per 316, 320) (Figs. 2-3; ¶27-29, 31, 33, 36-41) including at least one of:
{information on conditions surrounding the shovel at each of a time before, a time of, and a time after an occurrence of a predetermined event where at least one of safety and security of the shovel is relatively reduced}; or
Information (as per 214a-h) on conditions of the shovel (102) at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after (as per YES at 310, 312, 314) the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) [where at least one of safety (as per “near miss”) and {security} of the shovel (102) is relatively reduced] (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32, 36-39, 42, 44-45),
one or more types of predetermined events (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) are recorded in a second storage (218) (Fig. 2; ¶17, 28-29, 31-32, 40-41), and
the hardware processor (208) is configured to display, on a display (as per “integrated display unit” in ¶30).
Stark does not expressly disclose:
wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed; performing an operation to lower a boom; the shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; activation of a security function of the shovel; or acceptance of a predetermined operation input from a user that imparts a decrease in the at least one of safety and security of the shovel,
the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined event has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events,
wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: {a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed; performing an operation to lower a boom; the shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; activation of a security function of the shovel}; or acceptance of a predetermined operation input from a user that imparts a decrease in the at least one of safety {and security} of the shovel” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations as per Mitchell;
“the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined event has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations as per Mitchell; and
“wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is configured to display the recorded one or more types of predetermined events on the display.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates: “wherein the hardware processor is configured to display the recorded one or more types of predetermined events on the display” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 21, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, when the recorded one or more types of predetermined events are changed on the screen, record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, when the recorded one or more types of predetermined events are changed on the screen, record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 22, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. Stark does not expressly disclose wherein the predetermined operation input from the user requests recording of the log information in the first storage.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates: “wherein the predetermined operation input from the user requests recording of the log information in the first storage” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 23, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Stark does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, when the recorded one or more types of predetermined events are changed on the screen, record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates: “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, when the recorded one or more types of predetermined events are changed on the screen, record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 24, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 23. Stark does not expressly disclose wherein the predetermined operation input from the user requests recording of the log information in the first storage.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates: “wherein the predetermined operation input from the user requests recording of the log information in the first storage” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
As per Claim 25, Stark discloses a shovel (102) (Fig. 1; ¶13-14) comprising:
a hardware processor (208) (Fig. 2; ¶19, 28) configured to record log information (as per 316, 320) in a first storage (216) (Figs. 2-3; ¶27-29, 31, 33, 36-40), the log information (as per 316, 320) including at least one of:
{information on conditions surrounding the shovel at each of a time before, a time of, and a time after an occurrence of a predetermined event where at least one of safety and security of the shovel is relatively reduced}; or
information (as per 214a-h) on conditions of the shovel (102) at each of the time before, the time of, and the time after (as per YES at 310, 312, 314) the occurrence of the predetermined event (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) [where at least one of safety (as per “near miss”) and {security} of the shovel (12) is relatively reduced] (Figs. 2-3; ¶23-27, 32, 36-39, 42, 44-45),
one or more types of predetermined events (as per “triggering event” in ¶31-32, 40) are recorded in a second storage (218) (Fig. 2; ¶17, 28-29, 31-32, 40-41), and
the hardware processor (108) is configured to
display, on a display (as per “integrated display unit” in ¶30).
Stark does not expressly disclose:
wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed; performing an operation to lower a boom; the shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; or activation of a security function of the shovel,
the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events;
wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and changing the recorded one or more types of predetermined events; and
record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events and record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto. Mitchell further discloses an embodiment in which the fourth sensor system (408) senses real-time position of the hydraulically controlled tool (120) via rotary position sensors operatively associated with the lift arm (116) to determine an angle and thereby the position of the tool (120) with respect to the body of the machine (101) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶31) and in which arm geometry via the fourth sensor system (408) is implemented to avoid or reduce collision impact (¶40).
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; and adapting the system to suit user preferences. Applying the teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the predetermined event includes at least one of: {a release of a gate lock; starting an operation for swinging in a state where no operation for swinging is performed; starting an operation for traveling in a state where no operation for traveling is performed;} performing an operation to lower a boom; t{he shovel being in an unstable condition or the shovel showing a sign of an unstable condition; or activation of a security function of the shovel}” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations in accordance with the angle of the lift arm as per Mitchell;
“the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the predetermined has occurred, according to the recorded one or more types of predetermined events” in that the controller of Stark would be adapted to make safety zone determinations as per Mitchell;
“wherein the display includes a screen for setting an event as the predetermined event and changing the recorded one or more types of predetermined events” in that the display and data logging as per Stark would be adapted to receive, store, and operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto; and
“record the event set as the predetermined event on the screen in the second storage as the one or more types of predetermined events and record the recorded one or more types of predetermined events changed on the screen in the second storage” in that the data logging as per Stark would be adapted to operate in accordance with user selection of warning zones as per Ishimoto.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US Pub. No. 2010/0138094) in view of Mitchell (US Pub. No. 2018/0170369), further in view of Ishimoto (US Pub. No. 2013/0088593), further in Reiners (US Pub. No. 2012/0271504), further in view of Adachi (US Pub. No. 2016/0017574).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Stark further discloses wherein the information obtaining devices (214a-h) include a first information obtaining device (214b) and a second information obtaining device (214a) (Fig. 2; ¶23-27).
Stark does not expressly disclose:
the second information obtaining device having a range within which information is obtainable, the range being smaller than and at least overlapping a range within which information is obtainable by the first information obtaining device in a direction toward or away from the shovel, and
the predetermined event includes the detection of the predetermined object based on an output of an information obtaining device whose reliability with respect to the detection of the predetermined object is relatively high among the information obtaining devices.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Reiners discloses a construction machine (12) that includes object detection sensors (26) (Fig. 1; ¶11-14, 20). The object detection sensors (26) include a short range sensor (26a) and a long range sensor (26a) located in a travel direction at a front end of the machine (12) (Fig. 1; ¶21). As such, Reiners discloses a second information obtaining device (26a) having a range within which information is obtainable, the range being smaller than and at least overlapping a range within which information is obtainable by a first information obtaining device (26b) in a direction toward or away from the machine (12). In this way, the system operates determine an object within a particular zone (¶21). Like Stark, Reiners is concerned with monitoring systems for construction equipment.
Adachi discloses a construction device (100) having a sensor group (10) that includes sensors (11, 14, 15) of various types (Figs. 1, 4-5; ¶34-35, 42, 51-54). A control device (510) detects abnormality data if the sensor output data of a specified type (X) exceeds a predetermined threshold value (as per S430) at least once (Figs. 6, 15; ¶55-57, 109, 119). For sensor output data of a type other than the specified type (X), the control device (510) does not judge that abnormality data is detected until the sensor output data of the type other than the specified type (X) exceeds the predetermined threshold value three consecutive times (¶109). According to Adachi, this procedure is performed because the reliability of sensor output data depends on the type of sensor (¶109). In this way, the system detects abnormalities while accounting for differences in reliability of different types of sensor (¶109). Like Stark, Adachi is concerned with construction equipment.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, Ishimoto, Reiners, and Adachi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, Reiners, and Adachi to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; adapting the system to suit user preferences; adapting the system to determine an object within a particular zone; and detecting abnormalities while accounting for differences in reliability of different types of sensor. Applying the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, Reiners, and Adachi to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates wherein:
“the second information obtaining device having a range within which information is obtainable, the range being smaller than and at least overlapping a range within which information is obtainable by the first information obtaining device in a direction toward or away from the shovel” in that the system of Stark would be adapted to detect objects within specified zones as per Reiners; and
“the predetermined event includes the detection of the predetermined object based on an output of an information obtaining device whose reliability with respect to the detection of the predetermined object is relatively high among the information obtaining devices” in that information processing as per Stark would be informed by reliability determinations as per Adachi.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US Pub. No. 2010/0138094) in view of Mitchell (US Pub. No. 2018/0170369), further in view of Ishimoto (US Pub. No. 2013/0088593), further in Reiners (US Pub. No. 2012/0271504).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Stark further discloses:
wherein the information obtaining devices (214a-h) include a first information obtaining device (214b) and a second information obtaining device (214a) (Fig. 2; ¶23-27); and
wherein the second information obtaining device (26a) is a LIDAR device configured to obtain reflected light from the object in the area surrounding the shovel (102) (¶21).
Stark does not expressly disclose: the second information obtaining device having a range within which information is obtainable, the range being smaller than and at least overlapping a range within which information is obtainable by the first information obtaining device in a direction toward or away from the shovel, the first information obtaining device is an image capturing device configured to capture an image of the area surrounding the shovel.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto
See rejection of Claim 10 for discussion of teachings of Reiners.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, Reiners, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell and Reiners to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; adapting the system to suit user preferences; and adapting the system to determine an object within a particular zone. Applying the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, Reiners, and Adachi to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates wherein: “the second information obtaining device having a range within which information is obtainable, the range being smaller than and at least overlapping a range within which information is obtainable by the first information obtaining device in a direction toward or away from the shovel” in that the system of Stark would be adapted to detect objects within specified zones as per Reiners.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US Pub. No. 2010/0138094) in view of Mitchell (US Pub. No. 2018/0170369), further in view of Ishimoto (US Pub. No. 2013/0088593), further in Sharp (US Pub. No. 2017/0191243).
As per Claim 12, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Stark further discloses wherein
the information obtaining devices (214a-h) include a first information obtaining device (214b) and a second information obtaining device (as per “one or more object sensors 214b) (Fig. 2; ¶19-27),
the hardware processor (208) is configured to
notify (as per “may provide a warning to operator of machine 102” in ¶25) at least one of an inside of a cabin of the shovel (102) and the area surrounding the shovel (102) when the predetermined object (as per 310) is detected based on an output of the first information obtaining part (214b) by the object detecting function (Fig. 3; ¶36-37), and
the predetermined event (as per YES at 310, 312, 314) includes the detection of the predetermined object (as per 310) based on the output of the second information obtaining device (as per “one or more object sensors 214b) (Figs. 2-3; ¶19-27, 36-37).
Stark does not expressly disclose: restrict a motion of the shovel when the predetermined object is detected based on an output of the second information obtaining device by the object detecting function.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
Sharp discloses a work machine (12) having a tool (20) and having cameras (14) used to capture images (46) on zones (48) around the work machine (12) (Figs. 1-2; ¶15, 19). The work machine (12) also includes a warning system (18) governed by a processor (16), the processor (16) programmed to automatically activate an override system (67) of the work machine (12) that stops operation of the work machine (12) or tool (20) if an object (60) detected by the cameras (14) is within one of the zones (48) (Figs. 2-3, 9; ¶15, 27-28). In this way, injury may be avoided (¶28). Like Stark, Sharp is concerned with construction equipment.
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, Ishimoto, and Sharp, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, and Sharp to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; adapting the system to suit user preferences; and avoiding injury. Applying the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, and Sharp to the system of Stark would result in a system that operates to “restrict a motion of the shovel when the predetermined object is detected based on an output of the second information obtaining device by the object detecting function” in that the system of Stark would perform override as per Sharp.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Stark, Mitchell, and Ishimoto teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Stark further discloses wherein
the predetermined event further includes at least one of {determination of a theft of the shovel by a theft determining function of the shovel; activation of a safety function of the shovel}; or detection of a predetermined object (as per 310) in an area surrounding the shovel (102) by an object detecting function of the shovel (102) (Fig. 3; ¶36-39).
Stark does not expressly disclose wherein:
the predetermined object includes a person and an obstacle other than the person, and
of detection of the person by the object detecting function and detection of the obstacle by the object detecting function, the predetermined event includes only the detection of the person by the object detecting function.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mitchell and Ishimoto.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Sharp. Sharp further discloses wherein
the predetermined object includes a person (62) and an obstacle (74) other than the person (62) (Fig. 3; 25, 33-35), and
of detection of the person (62) by the object detecting function (as per 14, 16) and detection of the obstacle (74) by the object detecting function (as per 14, 16), the predetermined event includes only the detection of the person by the object detecting function (as per 14, 16) (as per “ignore stationary objects 72” in ¶35) (Fig. 3; 25, 33-35).
Therefore, from these teachings of Stark, Mitchell, Ishimoto, and Sharp, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mitchell, Ishimoto, and Sharp to the system of Stark since doing so would enhance the system by: increasing safety; adapting the system to suit user preferences; and avoiding injury.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Stark and Mitchell … fail to teach or suggest the above-noted feature of claims 1 and 18” (page 11 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Stark and Mitchell in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Stark and Mitchell are not maintained. However, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Reiners, Adachi and Sharp … do not cure the deficiency of the combination of Stark and Mitchell because Reiners, Adachi and Sharp are silent with respect to the above-noted feature of claim 1” (page 12 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Reiners, Adachi and Sharp teach or suggest limitations as per the amended claim language. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kikinis (US Patent No. 5,815,093) discloses a vehicle accident recording system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656