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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 09.30.2025 Amendments are entered. Claims 1 and 3-4 are amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-6 are pending.
The §101 Rejections
The §101 rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments and arguments made.
The §103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013172277 A1 to Onozato, Takashi et al. (“Onozato”) in view of US 11280062 B2 to Takahama, Kazuhisa et al. (“Takahama”), further in view of US 20220252473 A1 to Michiwaki, Hiroshi (“Michiwaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Onozato teaches a working machine equipped with a working device that extends to an outside of a machine body ([Onozato Fig. 1]), the working machine comprising:
a physical quantity detection sensor that detects a physical quantity concerning the working machine ([Onozato 0020]: “As the posture-related parameter detectors, displacement detectors 15a, . . . for detecting displacements of the hydraulic cylinders 20, 22, and 24 are provided.”);
a monitor that displays predetermined information ([Onozato 0040]: “The display device 43 displays various information such as the stress distribution of the boom 10 and the arm 12 calculated by the arithmetic processing device 41, the lifespan, the presence or absence of damage, and the display device 43 functions as a notification means for the information.”); and
a controller that controls the monitor,
wherein
the controller is configured to calculate a distribution of stress applied to the working device based on the physical quantity concerning the working machine, detected by the physical quantity detection sensor ([Onozato 0098]: “Thus, in this embodiment, the stress is estimated by substituting the data actually measured by the sensor groups 13, 15, 17, 18, and 19 and the data output from the speed / angle calculation unit 41e into the stress estimation formula.”),
calculate an attitude of the working device based on the physical quantity concerning the working machine, detected by the physical quantity detection sensor ([Onozato 0020]: “As the posture-related parameter detectors, displacement detectors 15a, . . . for detecting displacements of the hydraulic cylinders 20, 22, and 24 are provided.” Machine posture taken as the attitude.).
While Onozato teaches the controller calculates excavator posture based on physical quantities and stores them alongside stress distribution data in real time and displaying some of the stress distribution on a display, it does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to control display of the predetermined information on the monitor to display a simulated view representing the working device in which the calculated attitude of the working machine is displayed in conjunction with the movement of the working device.
However, Takahama teaches a controller configured to control display of the predetermined information on the monitor to display a simulated view representing the working device in which the calculated attitude of the working machine is displayed in conjunction with the movement of the working device ([Takahama 15:33-41; FIG 8]: “The display control unit 93 causes the working equipment image 4G to be in the display device 80 such that the working equipment image 4G operates. For example, the display control unit 93 makes the boom image 6G move in conjunction with the change of the inclination angle α, the arm image 7G move in conjunction with the change of the inclination angle β, and the bucket image 8G move in conjunction with the change of the inclination angle γ.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the controller that calculates excavator posture in real time taught by Onozato with the controller that displays in a model image boom and bucket posture in conjunction with the motion thereof taught by Takahama. Doing so would have improved the ease of use of the excavator by informing the operator of the posture of the excavator in an easily understood format.
While Onozato teaches calculating the posture and stress distribution of the excavator in real time and Takahama teaches displaying a simulated image of the excavator posture in real time, the above combination of Takahama and Onozato does not appear to expressly teach a controller configured to control the display on the monitor so as to indicate the calculated distribution of the stress applied to the working device in the simulated view in conjunction with a movement of the working device,
wherein the simulated view is displayed on the monitor so that a change in the attitude of the working device and a change in the distribution of the stress in conjunction with movement of the working device are displayed simultaneously.
However, Michiwaki teaches a display system for an excavator (Michiwaki [0110]) configured to control the display on the monitor so as to indicate the calculated distribution of the stress applied to the working device in the simulated view in real time (Michiwaki FIG. 10, [0109]: “Specifically, the stress distribution image may be displayed on the user terminal by streaming distribution, and in this way, the stress distribution that may change with real time progress may be displayed on the user terminal.” Michiwaki teaches a real-time stress distribution overlaid on the image of a structure, including that of an excavator. APOSITA would have understood in combination with the above prior art that the distribution image on the boom taught by Onozato would have been overlaid in real time as taught in Michiwaki.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the controller that monitors excavator posture, calculates stress distribution therefrom in real time, and displays a stress distribution and real time posture taught by the above combination of Onozato and Takahama with the stress display system that displays a real-time stress distribution overlay taught by Michiwaki. Doing so would have “facilitate[d] understanding of changes in the stress distribution with time” as taught in [0108] of Michiwaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of prior art teaches indicating the calculated distribution of the stress applied to the working device in the simulated view in conjunction with a movement of the working device,
wherein the simulated view is displayed on the monitor so that a change in the attitude of the working device and a change in the distribution of the stress in conjunction with movement of the working device are displayed simultaneously because Onozato teaches collecting posture information and calculating corresponding stress information in real time and displaying a stress distribution on the excavator boom, Takahama teaches displaying a simulated image of excavator posture in real time, and Michiwaki teaches displaying a stress distribution on a structure in real time. Therefore, if all items are calculated and displayed in real time, they are necessarily displayed in simultaneously with one another.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination of Onozato, Takahama, and Michiwaki further teaches the working machine according to claim 1,
wherein the simulated view is a pseudo image in which the calculated attitude of the working device is in conjunction with the movement of the working device (The Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of a pseudo image is any kind of image without further definition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of filing given the above combination that a display that displays both real time excavator posture simulation and real time stress distribution on the excavator boom is displaying a pseudo image as claimed. The Examiner notes that further description of the pseudo image may overcome the art of record, but recommends Applicant contact him to discuss further before submitting such an amendment.).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of Onozato, Takahama, and Michiwaki teaches the working machine according to claim 1.
This combination as taught above does not appear to expressly teach the machine further comprising an imaging device that images the working device,
wherein
the display of the predetermined information includes an image of the working device captured by the imaging device,
the image is a perspective view when viewed from a direction corresponding to a direction in which the imaging device images the working device, and
the stress distribution and the image of the working device indicated in the simulated view are in conjunction with the movement of the working device.
However, Takahama further teaches a machine further comprising an imaging device that images the working device (Takahama 3:36-42: “The image capture device 50 acquires the real image RG (actual image) of the object WA in the front direction of the swing body 3.”),
wherein
the display of the predetermined information includes an image of the working device captured by the imaging device (Takahama FIG. 8 3:36-42: “The display control unit 93 causes the real image RG of the work place acquired by the image capture device 50 to be displayed in the display screen of the display device 80.”),
the image is a perspective view when viewed from a direction corresponding to a direction in which the imaging device images the working device (Takahama FIG. 8: Understood that an image displayed from a camera capture is inherently a perspective view from the direction the camera is facing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that displays a stress distribution and simulated posture image of the excavator taught by the above combination of Onozato, Takahama, and Michiwaki with the camera linked to a display displaying the camera’s perspective further taught by Takahama. Doing so would have improved the safety of the excavator by allowing the operator to see what they are digging even when the cab windows are obscured by dirt, rain, or another contaminant.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this combination further teaches the stress distribution and the image of the working device indicated in the simulated view are in conjunction with the movement of the working device (Takahama FIG. 8: Real image depicted as displayed along the simulated image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized given the above combination that the real image is displayed at least in conjunction with the movement of the working device in the simulated image as taught by Takahama and the stress distribution as taught in Michiwaki.).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of Onozato, Takahama, and Michiwaki further teaches the working machine according to claim 1, further comprising a communication device that performs wireless communication between the machine body and the monitor ([Onozato 0025]: “Here, the arithmetic processing device 41, the storage device 42, the display device 43, and the input / output arithmetic processing device 44 are described as being mounted on the hydraulic excavator shown in FIG. , 42, 43, 44 are mounted on an electronic computer in a management center for managing the operation of a plurality of hydraulic excavators, and outputs from the sensor groups 11, 13, 15 installed in each hydraulic excavator are transmitted to a wireless network.”),
wherein the monitor is provided separately from the machine body ([Onozato 0025]: “May be configured to execute various processes by the arithmetic processing unit 41, or a part of the configuration may be mounted on a hydraulic excavator while the rest may be mounted on an electronic computer in the management center. . That is, as long as communication with the sensor groups 11, 13, and 15 on the hydraulic excavator is possible, the installation locations of the devices 41, 42, 43, and 44 are not particularly limited.” Onozato at least implicitly teaches a monitor provided separately from the machine body by teaching that the installation location of the monitor is not particularly limited to any location. ).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013172277 A1 to Onozato, Takashi et al. (“Onozato”) in view of US 11280062 B2 to Takahama, Kazuhisa et al. (“Takahama”) and US 20220252473 A1 to Michiwaki, Hiroshi (“Michiwaki”), further in view of US 20170089044 A1 to Chitty, Gerard et al. (“Chitty”).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Onozato, Takahama, and Michiwaki teaches the working machine according to claim 1.
While the figures in Onozato appear to depict an operating cabin, such a cabin is not expressly disclosed. Thus, the Examiner introduces Chitty, which explicitly teaches wherein
the machine body is provided with an operating cabin where an operator who operates the machine body rides ([Chitty 0054]: “Excavator body has driver's cabin 21 atop engine room 22.”), and
the monitor is disposed in the operating cabin ([Chitty 0084]: “A typical display 70 on the Input/Output device 37 (cabin computer screen) output device is shown in FIG. 4.” The output device is disclosed in claim 5 of Chitty as being in the driver’s cabin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further combined the excavator of Onozato with the cabin taught by Chitty. Doing so would have improved operator safety and comfort by protecting them from the elements and harsh digging conditions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the cabin taught by the combination of Onozato and Chitty with the monitor disposed therein taught by Chitty. Doing so would have provided the operator with various excavator metrics and information, improving the safety, accuracy, and reliability of his operation of the excavator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Izumikawa, Takeya et al.. JP2014224410A. Periphery monitoring device for work machine.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665