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 .
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of September 8, 2025.
Claims 5-7 have been canceled.
Claims 8-17 have been newly added.
Claims 1-4 and 8-17 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the interpretation of claims under 35 USC §112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the interpretation of claims under 35 USC §112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of YONEDA and MORITA.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, “an end zone” should read “the end zone”.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, “wherein wherein the processor …” appears to be a typographical error and should read “wherein the processor”.
Claim 4, lines 2-3, “wherein wherein the processor …” appears to be a typographical error and should read “wherein the processor”.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “wherein outputting the alarm control signal …” should read “wherein the outputting the alarm control signal …”.
Claim 15, line 3, “attitude of the working equipment” should read “the attitude of the working equipment”.
Claim 15, line 4, “the display” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the display” to “the display apparatus”.
Claim 16, lines 3-4, “the worksite” should read “the work site”.
Claim 17, line 5, “… in the remote place” ends with no punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the limitation “the work machine” at line 2 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a work machine”.
Further, the limitation “the work site” at line 4 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a work site”.
Furthermore, the limitation “the operator” at line 16 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “an operator”.
As to claim 2, the limitation “the hydraulic oil” at lines 5-6 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a hydraulic oil”.
As to claim 16, the limitation “the operator” at line 13 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “an operator”.
As to claim 17, the limitation “the work machine” at line 2 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a work machine”.
Claims 3, 4, and 8-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 17 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 17 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claim (claim 17) recites the limitation of “when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and determines that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply determining that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a work machine remote control system (claim 17), a processor (claim 17), a work machine (claim 17), a swinging platform (claim 17), a boom (claim 17), or an attitude sensor (claim 17) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 17 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “receive an image of a work site”, “display the image on a display apparatus disposed in the remote place”, “receive detection data of an attitude of working equipment included in the work machine or an output of a proximity switch”, “output an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place, wherein the operation signal is generated by a remote controller disposed in the remote place outside of the work machine, and the movable range is a movable range of a hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment”, “detect data of an angle of the boom with respect to the swinging platform”, a work machine remote control system (claim 17), a processor (claim 17), a work machine (claim 17), a swinging platform (claim 17), a boom (claim 17), and an attitude sensor (claim 17). The receiving and detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The displaying and outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The attitude sensor in claim 17 is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a work machine remote control system” in claim 17, “a processor” in claim 17, and “a work machine” in claim 17, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a work machine remote control system”, “a processor”, and “a work machine” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a vehicle. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a swinging platform” in claim 17 and “a boom” in claim 17, the Examiner submits that “a swinging platform” and “a boom” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are “a swinging platform” and “a boom”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a vehicle. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a vehicle. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the work machine remote control system”, “the processor”, and “the work machine” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of “a swinging platform”, “a boom”, and “the attitude sensor” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 17 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 17 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
As such, claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONEDA et al., JP 2008144378 A, hereinafter referred to as YONEDA, in view of MORITA et al., JP 2019157409 A, hereinafter referred to as MORITA, respectively.
As to claim 1, YONEDA teaches a work machine remote control system operated by an operation signal from a remote place outside of the work machine comprising (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 9-10 and 35, YONEDA):
a processor, the processor being configured to (see at least paragraphs 28-35, YONEDA):
receive an image of the work site (see at least paragraphs 35-39 regarding receiving image data of an obstacle that is wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14, YONEDA);
display the image on a display apparatus disposed in the remote place (see at least paragraphs 35-39 regarding displaying the image data transmitted from the first transmitter 14 on the hydraulic excavator 10 side and received by the first receiver 21, YONEDA);
receive detection data of an attitude of working equipment included in the work machine or an output of a proximity switch (see at least paragraphs 21-27 regarding an angle sensor (attitude detection sensor) 4a that detects the rotation angle of the boom 5a (the rotation angle relative to the upper rotating body 6) is provided at the pivotal support portion between the boom 5a and the upper rotating body 6. An angle sensor 4b for detecting the rotation angle of the arm 5b (the rotation angle with respect to the boom 5a) is provided on the pivot portion of the arm 5b with respect to the boom 5a. An angle sensor 4c for detecting the rotation angle of the bucket 5c (the rotation angle with respect to the arm 5b) is provided at a portion where the bucket 5c is supported by the arm 5b, YONEDA).
YONEDA teaches outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, (see at least paragraphs 34-35 regarding if there are multiple obstacles that are highly proximate to the hydraulic excavator 10 body, image data capturing images of those obstacles will be wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14 in order of proximity, and if there is only one obstacle, only image data capturing an image of that obstacle will be wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14. Base Station] The base station 20 is equipped with a first receiver (receiver) 21 and a second receiver 22 for receiving radio waves transmitted from the hydraulic excavator 10, a television monitor (first display device) 24 for displaying images captured by the imaging cameras 2a to 2d, a CG monitor (second display device) 26 for displaying virtual CG images based on the detection results of the distance sensors 1a to 1e and the angle sensors 4a to 4c, an imaging calculation processor 23 as an electronic control device that creates the CG images to be displayed on the CG monitor 26, and an alarm 25 for alerting the operator of the possibility of the hydraulic excavator 10 coming into contact with an obstacle, YONEDA), however, YONEDA does not explicitly teach outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range; or upon determining the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, outputting a cushion control command to change a speed of the working equipment more than a speed of the working equipment set by an operation signal from the operator.
However, MORITA teaches outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding the operator continuously operates the operation lever for turning to turn the upper turning body 4 to the turning position shown in FIG. 20C, for example. In this case, since the turning angle θt falls within the restriction region range 80, the first controller 70a transmits a fourth restriction control signal RC4 including information on the opening degree 0 [%] to the second controller 20. In addition, since the turning prohibition flag is in the ON state, the third alarm signal AS3 is transmitted to the external alarm device 91); and upon determining the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, outputting a cushion control command to change a speed of the working equipment more than a speed of the working equipment set by an operation signal from the operator (see at least paragraphs 40-42 regarding the restriction area range 80 is a turning angle range in which a control for prohibiting the turning operation or a control for restricting the turning speed is performed and an alarm is output. When the restriction region range 80 is the hydraulic pressure limit range, the control for relaxing the flow rate change of the pressure oil when the turning angle θt is within the hydraulic buffer range 81 to 82 and the turning angle θt of the upper turning body 4 are The control for limiting the turning speed of the upper-part turning body 4 when it is within the restricted area range 80 is the turning restriction control of the first embodiment, and the function for performing these controls is the turning restriction control function. See also at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding when the turning operation is performed from the normal turning range 83 toward the restriction region range 80, the turning speed of the upper turning body 4 does not suddenly become 0 from the turning speed at the opening degree of 100 [%]. It becomes slower and then stops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range; and upon determining the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, outputting a cushion control command to change a speed of the working equipment more than a speed of the working equipment set by an operation signal from the operator with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range; and upon determining the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, outputting a cushion control command to change a speed of the working equipment more than a speed of the working equipment set by an operation signal from the operator and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 2, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein when the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, the cushion control command is configured to reduce the speed of the working equipment by adjusting a flow rate control valve to reduce a flow rate of the hydraulic oil supplied to a hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least Abstract regarding a hydraulic alleviation range 81 to 82 as a rotatable range alleviating flow-rate change of hydraulic oil supplied to a hydraulic motor 51 for rotation in its longitudinal direction; and a rotation restricting controller 176 restricting the floor rate of the hydraulic oil supplied to the hydraulic motor 51 for the rotation and controlling to output a warning from the inside warning device 90 and the first outside warning device 91 when a rotated position (rotation angle θt) of the backhoe 1 is within the hydraulic alleviation range 81 to 82 and the restricting area range 80. See also at least paragraphs 40-42 regarding in the hydraulic restriction range, the turning speed is restricted by restricting the flow rate of the pressure oil supplied to the turning hydraulic motor 51 within a range in which the turning operation is not stopped. When the restriction region range 80 is the hydraulic pressure limit range, the control for relaxing the flow rate change of the pressure oil when the turning angle θt is within the hydraulic buffer range 81 to 82 and the turning angle θt of the upper turning body 4 are The control for limiting the turning speed of the upper-part turning body 4 when it is within the restricted area range 80 is the turning restriction control of the first embodiment, and the function for performing these controls is the turning restriction control function. See also at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding when the turning operation is performed from the normal turning range 83 toward the restriction region range 80, the turning speed of the upper turning body 4 does not suddenly become 0 from the turning speed at the opening degree of 100 [%]. It becomes slower and then stops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein when the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range, the cushion control command is configured to reduce the speed of the working equipment by adjusting a flow rate control valve to reduce a flow rate of the hydraulic oil supplied to a hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of reducing the speed of the working equipment by adjusting a flow rate control valve to reduce a flow rate of the hydraulic oil supplied to a hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment when the working equipment is approaching the end position in an end zone including the end position in the movable range and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 3, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to output the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in the end zone including the end position in the moveable range.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding the operator continuously operates the operation lever for turning to turn the upper turning body 4 to the turning position shown in FIG. 20C, for example. In this case, since the turning angle θt falls within the restriction region range 80, the first controller 70a transmits a fourth restriction control signal RC4 including information on the opening degree 0 [%] to the second controller 20. In addition, since the turning prohibition flag is in the ON state, the third alarm signal AS3 is transmitted to the external alarm device 91. As a result, the opening degree of the proportional solenoid valve 50 is changed from 30 [%] to 0 [%], and the supply of pressure oil to the turning hydraulic motor 51 is stopped. As a result, the turning operation of the upper turning body 4 is stopped. That is, when the turning operation is performed from the normal turning range 83 toward the restriction region range 80, the turning speed of the upper turning body 4 does not suddenly become 0 from the turning speed at the opening degree of 100 [%]. It becomes slower and then stops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein the processor is configured to output the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in the end zone including the end position in the moveable range with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of outputting the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in the end zone including the end position in the moveable range and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 4, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to output the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment has reached the end position.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding the operator continuously operates the operation lever for turning to turn the upper turning body 4 to the turning position shown in FIG. 20C, for example. In this case, since the turning angle θt falls within the restriction region range 80, the first controller 70a transmits a fourth restriction control signal RC4 including information on the opening degree 0 [%] to the second controller 20. In addition, since the turning prohibition flag is in the ON state, the third alarm signal AS3 is transmitted to the external alarm device 91. As a result, the opening degree of the proportional solenoid valve 50 is changed from 30 [%] to 0 [%], and the supply of pressure oil to the turning hydraulic motor 51 is stopped. As a result, the turning operation of the upper turning body 4 is stopped. That is, when the turning operation is performed from the normal turning range 83 toward the restriction region range 80, the turning speed of the upper turning body 4 does not suddenly become 0 from the turning speed at the opening degree of 100 [%]. It becomes slower and then stops. Further, the rotating light of the internal alarm device 90 continues to be activated in the interior 5i of the cab 5, and outside the cab 5, the third warning corresponding to the third alarm signal AS3 from the speaker of the first external alarm device 91. A voice message is output. Here, for example, a voice message such as “the backhoe turning is stopped” is output to an external worker or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein the processor is configured to output the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment has reached the end position with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of outputting the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment has reached the end position and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 8, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein the processor outputs the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in an alarm zone adjacent to the end zone.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 118-122 regarding the rotating lamp of the internal alarm device 90 rotates and lights in the interior 5i of the cab 5, and outside the cab 5, the first warning corresponding to the first alarm signal AS1 from the speaker of the first external alarm device 91. A voice message is output. Here, for example, a voice message such as “backhoe turning speed is being reduced” is output to an external worker or the like. Subsequently, it is assumed that the operator continuously operates the turning operation lever to turn the upper turning body 4 to the turning position shown in FIG. 20B, for example. In this case, since the turning angle θt falls within the third hydraulic pressure buffering range 82A, the first controller 70a transmits a third restriction control signal RC3 including information on the opening degree 30 [%] to the second controller 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein the processor outputs the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in an alarm zone adjacent to the end zone with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of outputting the alarm control signal when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching the end position in an alarm zone adjacent to the end zone and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 9, YONEDA teaches wherein the operation signal is generated by a remote controller disposed in the remote place (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 4, 9-10 and 35 regarding the control device for a remotely operated work machine of the present invention described in claim 1 is a control device for a remotely operated work machine having a boom and an arm as working devices provided on an upper rotating body, and a radio control device for remotely controlling the working devices using radio signals, YONEDA).
As to claim 10, YONEDA teaches wherein the work machine includes a swinging platform (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 19-21 regarding this hydraulic excavator 10 is configured to include a lower traveling body 7 equipped with a crawler-type hydraulic traveling device, and an upper rotating body 6 mounted on the lower traveling body 7 so as to be able to rotate freely, YONEDA), and the working equipment includes a boom mounted on the swinging platform, wherein the boom includes an attitude sensor to detect data of an angle of the boom with respect to the swinging platform (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 19-21 regarding the boom 5 a is a member whose lower end is axially supported by an upper rotating body 6. An angle sensor (attitude detection sensor) 4a that detects the rotation angle of the boom 5a (the rotation angle relative to the upper rotating body 6) is provided at the pivotal support portion between the boom 5a and the upper rotating body 6, YONEDA).
As to claim 11, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein the movable range is a movable range of the hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 38-43 regarding the hydraulic buffer ranges 81 to 82 are swing angle ranges in which control is performed to alleviate changes in the flow rate of the pressure oil supplied to the swing hydraulic motor 51 in a predetermined swing angle range before and after the restriction region range 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein the movable range is a movable range of the hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the movable range is a movable range of the hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 13, YONEDA does not explicitly teach wherein the end position is an end position of a working equipment component that is set based on a mechanical structure of the working equipment.
However, such matter is taught by MORITA (see at least FIGS. 20(a)-(c) and paragraphs 38-42 regarding when the working machine 3 is in the posture (the posture shown in FIG. 7) that is the longest in the radial direction (the turning radius is the maximum), the turning portion of the backhoe 1 (the work in the first embodiment is a work). The range including the turning position where the machine 3 and the upper turning body 4) cannot avoid the restriction target. The restriction area range 80 is set as a turning prohibition range or a range that limits the turning speed when the restriction target is an area to be noted (hereinafter, referred to as “hydraulic restriction range”). See also at least paragraph 141 regarding it is possible to prevent the occurrence of problems such as the breakdown of the ground balance of the backhoe 1 due to the change in the turning speed when turning is stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MORITA which teaches wherein the end position is an end position of a working equipment component that is set based on a mechanical structure of the working equipment with the system of YONEDA as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling an operation of a work vehicle based on a detected position, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the end position is an end position of a working equipment component that is set based on a mechanical structure of the working equipment and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of YONEDA.
As to claim 14, YONEDA teaches wherein the alarm device is the display apparatus (see at least paragraphs 38 and 58 regarding if any one of the distances D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>5</sub> detected by each distance sensor 1a to 1e is judged to be a "distance at which contact may occur," the imaging calculation processor 23 controls the alarm 25 to issue an alarm, YONEDA).
As to claim 15, YONEDA teaches wherein outputting the alarm control signal includes changing a working equipment data image displayed on the display apparatus to include graphics indicating a position and attitude of the working equipment superimposed on the image displayed on the display (see at least paragraphs 38 and 58 regarding the posture of the virtual hydraulic excavator 10 is output to the CG monitor 26 based on the image data created in step B130, and the proximity of the obstacle is superimposed and displayed on the monitor 26 based on the values of each of the flags, namely the boom flag F<sub>B</sub>, the arm flag F<sub>A</sub>, the rear right flag F<sub>C1</sub>, the rear center flag F<sub>C2</sub> and the rear left flag F<sub>C3</sub>. If a flag with a value of 2 exists, the imaging calculation processor 23 controls the alarm device 25 to issue an alarm, YONEDA).
As to claim 16, Examiner notes claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 17, YONEDA teaches a work machine remote control system operated by an operation signal from a remote place outside of the work machine comprising (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 9-10 and 35, YONEDA):
a processor, the processor being configured to (see at least paragraphs 28-35, YONEDA):
receive an image of a work site (see at least paragraphs 35-39 regarding receiving image data of an obstacle that is wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14, YONEDA);
display the image on a display apparatus disposed in the remote place (see at least paragraphs 35-39 regarding displaying the image data transmitted from the first transmitter 14 on the hydraulic excavator 10 side and received by the first receiver 21, YONEDA); and
receive detection data of an attitude of working equipment included in the work machine or an output of a proximity switch (see at least paragraphs 21-27 regarding an angle sensor (attitude detection sensor) 4a that detects the rotation angle of the boom 5a (the rotation angle relative to the upper rotating body 6) is provided at the pivotal support portion between the boom 5a and the upper rotating body 6. An angle sensor 4b for detecting the rotation angle of the arm 5b (the rotation angle with respect to the boom 5a) is provided on the pivot portion of the arm 5b with respect to the boom 5a. An angle sensor 4c for detecting the rotation angle of the bucket 5c (the rotation angle with respect to the arm 5b) is provided at a portion where the bucket 5c is supported by the arm 5b, YONEDA);
wherein the operation signal is generated by a remote controller disposed in the remote place outside of the work machine (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 4, 9-10 and 35 regarding the control device for a remotely operated work machine of the present invention described in claim 1 is a control device for a remotely operated work machine having a boom and an arm as working devices provided on an upper rotating body, and a radio control device for remotely controlling the working devices using radio signals, YONEDA),
the work machine includes a swinging platform, and the working equipment is mounted on the swinging platform (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 19-21 regarding this hydraulic excavator 10 is configured to include a lower traveling body 7 equipped with a crawler-type hydraulic traveling device, and an upper rotating body 6 mounted on the lower traveling body 7 so as to be able to rotate freely, YONEDA), where the working equipment includes a boom mounted on the swinging platform, wherein the boom includes an attitude sensor to detect data of an angle of the boom with respect to the swinging platform (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 19-21 regarding the boom 5 a is a member whose lower end is axially supported by an upper rotating body 6. An angle sensor (attitude detection sensor) 4a that detects the rotation angle of the boom 5a (the rotation angle relative to the upper rotating body 6) is provided at the pivotal support portion between the boom 5a and the upper rotating body 6, YONEDA).
YONEDA teaches outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, (see at least paragraphs 34-35 regarding if there are multiple obstacles that are highly proximate to the hydraulic excavator 10 body, image data capturing images of those obstacles will be wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14 in order of proximity, and if there is only one obstacle, only image data capturing an image of that obstacle will be wirelessly transmitted from the first transmitter 14. Base Station] The base station 20 is equipped with a first receiver (receiver) 21 and a second receiver 22 for receiving radio waves transmitted from the hydraulic excavator 10, a television monitor (first display device) 24 for displaying images captured by the imaging cameras 2a to 2d, a CG monitor (second display device) 26 for displaying virtual CG images based on the detection results of the distance sensors 1a to 1e and the angle sensors 4a to 4c, an imaging calculation processor 23 as an electronic control device that creates the CG images to be displayed on the CG monitor 26, and an alarm 25 for alerting the operator of the possibility of the hydraulic excavator 10 coming into contact with an obstacle, YONEDA), however, YONEDA does not explicitly teach outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the output of the proximity switch, that the working equipment is approaching or has reached an end position in a movable range; or the movable range is a movable range of a hydraulic cylinder that drives the working equipment.
However, MORITA teaches outputting an alarm control signal to an alarm device provided in the remote place when it is determined, based on the detection data or the outp