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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 23, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on May 12, 2025. Claim 1 is currently pending. Claims 2-5 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on September 23, 2025 overcome the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-7, filed September 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2020/0263384 A1, to Currier.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2020/0263384 A1, to Currier (previously of record) in view of CN 103911483 B, to Zhou (previously of record) and US 20200208373 A1, to Nakamura et al. (hereafter Nakamura)(newly of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Currier discloses A working machine provided with a main body and a working device attached to the main body (Currier [0017]-[0018] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Currier discloses a work machine 102 which includes a chassis 106 and further includes a linkage assembly 112 used to carry out the task required by the work machine),
the working device including:
a working arm having a distal end movable in vertical directions and front-rear directions (Currier [0020] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Currier discloses the linkage member comprising a lift and tilt cylinder wherein when used in combination, allows the bucket to be moved vertically and in the from-rear direction of the working machine); and
a bucket rotatably attached to the distal end and defining a space for accommodating an object and an opening face letting the space open (Currier [0018] & Fig. 1 & 4-9, Examiner Note: Currier discloses a bucket 118 attached to the linkage member which contains space and an opening face),
the working machine comprising processing circuitry configured to:
detect a load value of the object accommodated in the bucket (Currier [0022]-[0026] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Courier discloses a payload detection system (PDS) 130 which in coordination with a tip-off controller 132 is able to detect a weight of the material in the bucket);
detect a posture of the working device (Currier [0022] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Currier discloses a lift displacement sensor 138 which detects the posture of the linkage assembly);
detect a bucket angle that is an angle of the opening face of the bucket with respect to a vertical direction orthogonal to a horizontal plane on the basis of detection data indicating the posture of the working device detected by the circuitry (Currier [0022] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Currier discloses a tilt displacement sensor 140 which detects the angle of the bucket. Since the lift cylinder 124 and tilt cylinder 126 are a part of the same linkage assembly. Therefore, the tilt displacement sensor works in-sync with the lift displacement sensor);
determine whether the object is accommodated in the bucket or not on the basis of the load value detected by the circuitry (Currier [0030] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Currier discloses checking the weight of the material, step 212, after securing the material (i.e. stabilizing), step 210); and
determine that a dropping task of discharging a part of the object accommodated in the bucket is performed, when the bucket angle detected by the circuitry is on a discharge side beyond a predetermined discharge reference angle and a latest load value detected by the circuitry is equal to or greater than a load threshold and then the bucket angle is equal to the discharge reference angle or on is on a non-discharge side beyond the discharge reference angle (Currier, [0029] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Currier discloses first using the PDS in steps 202-208 to receiving a full bucket load, thus determining that a bucket load has been received; [0030] & Fig. 2 Examiner Note: Next, Currier discloses the tip-off controller determining the material weight in step 212; [0030] & [0033]-[0035] & Figs. 2 & 3, Examiner Note: Currier discloses dumping materials into the payload and repeating this process until the amount required to meet the payload target is less than the capacity of the bucket. This triggers an automated tip-off sequence as shown in Fig. 3. Steps 222-234 recites determining a tip-off threshold which is met once the dump has met or exceeded the threshold amount; Fig. 7, Examiner Note: This further shows that by making a dump, the dump angle δ is beyond the previously established discharge reference angle ε; [0036] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: After the partial dump sequence 234, the process of dumping sufficient amount of material will have been performed), and
determine that the object accommodated in the bucket is discharged when the bucket angle detected by the circuitry is on the discharge side beyond the predetermined discharge reference angle, and the latest load value detected by the circuitry is smaller than the load threshold, after the accommodation determination part determines that the object is circuitry (Currier [0035]-[0036] & Fig. 3 & 7, Examiner Note: Currier discloses a tip-off controller 132 which measures the material weight remaining in the bucket during a slow dump sequence. This sequence includes an increase in tilt of the bucket to an angle which results partial dump of the bucket’s contents, then a remeasuring of the bucket. This process is repeated until the weight in the bucket achieves; [0031] & [0035] & Fig. 8, Examiner Note: Further, Currier discloses a bucket angle ε which is an angle based on the angle of repose which is the steepest slope angle that the material can support relative to the horizontal (i.e. if the angle goes any further beyond that point, the material will begin dumping);
temporarily store, in a memory, the load value of the object accommodated in the bucket when the circuitry determines that the object is accommodated in the bucket (Currier [0025], Examiner Note: Currier discloses that the memory module can store payload history data meaning it can store a history of the weights determined during the dumping process), and update the load value temporarily stored in the memory to the latest load value detected by the circuitry after the circuitry determines that the dropping task is ended, Currier [0025], Examiner Note: Currier discloses the capability to determine a summed total weight of the material loaded into the haul truck (i.e. the material dumped from the bucket). This means the memory module must sum together the history of weights previously disclosed to reach a cumulative sum of weight) and avoid updating the load value temporarily stored in the memory to the latest load value detected by the circuitry when the circuitry determines that the series of the dropping task is not ended (Currier [0030] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Currier discloses determining the material weight at step 212, performing a full dump at step 214, and only updating the accumulated weight after the full dump in step 216 has been performed (i.e. when the dropping task has ended));
calculate a cumulative load value of the object discharged by the bucket from a start of a loading work to present by adding the load value temporarily stored in the memory when the circuitry determines that the object accommodated in the bucket is discharged (Currier [0025], Examiner Note: Currier discloses the capability to determine a summed total weight of the material loaded into the haul truck (i.e. the material dumped from the bucket). This means the memory module must sum together the history of weights previously disclosed to reach a cumulative sum of weight); and…
…the discharge reference angle is a predetermined angle to the vertical direction and is on a non-discharge side (Currier [0035] & Fig. 8, Examiner Note: As shown above, the discharge reference angle disclosed by Currier corresponds to angle ε which is based on angle Θ which is relative to the vertical axis as shown by the arrow pointing down in Figure A below),
PNG
media_image1.png
558
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
the non-discharge side corresponds to a direction in which the opening face approaches the main body (Currier Fig. 8, Examiner Note: Currier discloses that the opening face of the bucket moves towards and away from the main body of the vehicle. Further, the non-discharge side (e.g. 118 in Figure A above) also approaches the main body of the vehicle, and
However, Currier does not specifically disclose display the cumulative load value calculated by the circuitry, wherein…and the load threshold is a predetermined value indicating that the bucket is emptied.
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and the load threshold is a predetermined value indicating that the bucket is emptied (Zhou Step 4.5, Examiner Note: Zhou teaches using a threshold to determine that the bucket is empty “In the process of performing the summary bucket feeding, the judging bucket sends out the material empty signal based on the judgment that the detection value of the bucket is less than or equal to the summary bucket empty threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the payload detection system of Currier with the empty bucket threshold of Zhou in order to signal the end of a discharge step (Zhou Step 4.2).
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …display the cumulative load value calculated by the circuitry, wherein (Nakamura [0057], Examiner Note: Nakamura discloses displaying the total (i.e. cumulative) load value of a target work object on a monitor)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the payload detection system of Currier with load display of Nakamura in order to reduce waste due to overloading and increase production efficienc (Nakamura [0003]).
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL TYLER EVAN DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666