DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Further, the present application’s status as a 371 of PCT/JP2021/037508 (filing date 10/11/2021) is hereby acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
The cancellation of claims 3-4, 9-10, and 15-16 is acknowledged.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, the Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the claims correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments to the claims correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns. In particular, antecedent basis issues remain with respect to “the pieces of the height information of the excavation target”, as is discussed in further detail in the corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection below.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 5, 11, and 17 has been withdrawn, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 8-9, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-18 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim language “in the inference process, the at least one processor infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus, and in the area division process, the at least one processor calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus, and sets a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number” allegedly results in the claimed subject matter “being directed to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea or other judicial exception”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inferring the excavation amount with reference to pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track is an abstract decision-making process capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. Similarly, calculating a number of measurement points in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus, and setting a size of each of the plurality of meshes are each abstract decision-making processes capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. Applicant does not provide any particular reasoning as to why the above-recited language allegedly results in the claimed subject matter being directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and the prior art rejections of their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that Martinsson fails to teach or suggest the amended limitations “in the area division process, the at least one processor calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus, and sets a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, however, that Martinsson fails to teach or suggest “in the inference process, the at least one processor infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus,” and asserts that Martinsson does teach such limitations in at least ([0136]). Applicant does not provide any particular reasoning as to why Martinsson allegedly fails to teach or suggest this limitation.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and the prior art rejections of their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martinsson, Seki, and Friend.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a memory storing instructions:” should end with a semicolon rather than a colon.
In claim 7, “a memory storing instructions:” should end with a semicolon rather than a colon.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein in the inference process, the at least one processor infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus,” However, claim 1 already recites “an acquisition process of acquiring pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target which is to be excavated by an excavation apparatus; an extraction process of extracting a plurality of excavation point candidates with reference to the pieces of height information,” Therefore, antecedent basis is unclear for “the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus”, particularly because it is unclear whether “the pieces of height information in meshes…” are the same as or a separate category or subcategory of “pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target”.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are parallel in scope to independent claim 1 and are similarly deficient with respect to “the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus”. Accordingly, independent claims 7 and 13 are rejected under similar reasoning as independent claim 1 above.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are dependent upon claim 7 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Claims 14 and 17-18 are dependent upon claim 13 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under similar reasoning as independent claims 7 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “in the extraction process, the at least one processor extracts, as the excavation point candidate, a mesh from among the plurality of meshes in accordance with the pieces of height information of the excavation target.” However, antecedent basis for “the pieces of height information of the excavation target” is unclear. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, already recites “an acquisition process of acquiring pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target which is to be excavated by an excavation apparatus;” and “wherein in the inference process, the at least one processor infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus,” In particular, it is unclear whether the “pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target” of claim 1 correspond to “the pieces of height information of the excavation target”, as height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target is not necessarily the same as pieces of height information of the excavation target (i.e., the height information appears to correspond to the plurality of points rather than the excavation target itself).
Dependent claims 8 and 14 are parallel in scope to claim 2 and are similarly deficient with respect to “the pieces of height information of the excavation target”. Accordingly, claims 8 and 14 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 2 above.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are directed to selecting an excavation point from among a plurality of excavation point candidates. Decision-making processes fall within a subject-matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (mental processes or concepts performed in the mind: i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-2 and 5-6 recite an apparatus comprising at least one processor, a memory, and an excavation apparatus. Claims 7-8 and 11-12 recite a system comprising at least one processor, a memory, and an excavation apparatus. Claims 13-14 and 17-18 recite a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, apparatus, process).
Under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the abstract idea of selecting an excavation point from among a plurality of excavation point candidates in the following limitations:
an acquisition process of acquiring pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target which is to be excavated…
an extraction process of extracting a plurality of excavation point candidates with reference to the pieces of height information,
each of the plurality of excavation point candidates being a candidate for an excavation point at which the excavation apparatus starts excavation;
an inference process of inferring, based on an excavation track of the excavation apparatus, an excavation amount for each of the plurality of excavation point candidates which have been extracted, the excavation amount being an amount by which the excavation apparatus carries out excavation;
a selection process of selecting an excavation point from among the plurality of excavation point candidates based on the excavation amount which has been inferred;
and an area division process of dividing an area including the excavation target into a plurality of meshes having a same size,
wherein in the inference process… infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus,
and in the area division process… calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus,
and sets a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number.
The above-recited limitations establish the use of generic computing devices (i.e., “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processing comprising:”) to perform a decision-making process. This arrangement amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. This concept has been considered ineligible as a mental process by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Extracting a plurality of excavation point candidates with reference to pieces of height information is able to be performed mentally (e.g., by comparison) or with the assistance of pen and paper. Inferring an excavation amount for each of the plurality of excavation point candidates which have been extracted can be performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper (e.g., performing volume estimation calculations). Selecting an excavation point from among the plurality of excavation point candidates based on the excavation amount which has been inferred is likewise an abstract decision-making process capable of being performed mentally (e.g., comparing candidates based on respective excavation amounts) or with the assistance of pen and paper. Calculating a number of measurement points in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus, and setting a size of each of the plurality of meshes are each abstract decision-making processes capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. While the claim recites “an amount by which the excavation apparatus carries out excavation”, the actual act of carrying out the excavation is not claimed.
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a memory storing instructions:
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processing comprising:
an excavation track of the excavation apparatus
These additional elements merely amount to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The specification sets forth the general-purpose nature of the computing technology. Paragraph [0108] indicates that “As the processor 61, for example, it is possible to use a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a micro processing unit (MPU), a floating point number processing unit (FPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a microcontroller, general- purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU), or a combination of these. The memory 62 can be, for example, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination of these.” That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific to or integral to the claim.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Claims 7 and 13 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, which sets forth:
in the extraction process, the at least one processor extracts, as the excavation point candidate, a mesh from among the plurality of meshes in accordance with the pieces of height information of the excavation target.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of selecting an excavation point from among a plurality of excavation point candidates by introducing an area division process and further defining the extraction process. Selecting the excavation point candidate as a mesh from among the plurality of meshes is an abstract decision-making process with respect to height information of the excavation target. Further, “the at least one processor extracts” merely amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 8 and 14 are parallel in scope to claim 2 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth:
in a case where an excavation region that is indicated by the excavation track, where a first excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates is assumed to be an excavation point, includes a second excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates in the extraction process, the at least one processor excludes the second excavation point candidate from the plurality of excavation point candidates.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of selecting an excavation point from among a plurality of excavation point candidates by introducing the further decision-making step of excluding a second excavation point candidate from the plurality of excavation point candidates in a case where an excavation region that is indicated by an excavation track, where a first excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates is assumed to be an excavation point, includes a second excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates in the extraction process. Such decision-making is capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. Further, “the at least one processor excludes” merely amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 11 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 5 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 6, which sets forth:
in the extraction process, the at least one processor does not set the excavation point candidate in a range which is unreachable by a shovel of the excavation apparatus.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of selecting an excavation point from among a plurality of excavation point candidates by further stipulating that an excavation point candidate is not set in a range which is unreachable by a shovel of the excavation apparatus. A human being would be capable of visually observing/estimating whether an excavation point candidate is within range of the shovel of the excavation apparatus. Further, “the at least one processor does not set” merely amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 12 and 18 are parallel in scope to claim 6 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsson et al. (US 2015/0046044 A1), hereinafter Martinsson, in view of Seki et al. (US 2020/0385958 A1), hereinafter Seki, and in further view of Friend (US 2021/0239808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martinsson teaches an excavation point identification apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing instructions:
Martinsson teaches ([0048]): "In FIG. 2, a system 45 for automatic control of the movement of the working machine is shown. The system includes the sensor sytem 43 which is connected to an electronic control unit 47. The electronic control unit contains a functional block 49 which acquires three dimensional pile data from the sensor 43. Further in a second control block 51 bucket trajectories and attack poses are generated." The same paragraph further indicates that the electronic control unit includes a third functional block and a fourth functional block.
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processing comprising:
Martinsson teaches ([0048]): "In FIG. 2, a system 45 for automatic control of the movement of the working machine is shown. The system includes the sensor sytem 43 which is connected to an electronic control unit 47. The electronic control unit contains a functional block 49 which acquires three dimensional pile data from the sensor 43. Further in a second control block 51 bucket trajectories and attack poses are generated." The same paragraph further indicates that the electronic control unit includes a third functional block and a fourth functional block.
an acquisition process of acquiring pieces of height information at a plurality of points in an excavation target which is to be excavated by an excavation apparatus;
Martinsson teaches ([0007]): "A method according to an aspect of the present invention includes the steps of: acquiring three dimensional pile data, generating a set of attack poses, and generating a bucket trajectory through the pile for each attack pose. The acquiring of the pile data can be performed by use of a 3D range sensor." Martinsson further teaches ([0071]): "The output of the 3D range sensor is a point cloud; that is, a set of measured points from the surrounding surfaces, each with a 3D (x, y, z) position. See an example point cloud in FIG. 4" Martinsson even further teaches ([0048]): "In a fourth functional block the movement of the bucket will be controlled to follow the selected bucket trajectory 59 by control of the wheels 42 of the wheel loader as well as the actuating cylinders 35a, 35b and 36 which determines the position of the bucket relative to the working machine." FIG. 4, included below, depicts an example point cloud of a gravel pile.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an extraction process of extracting a plurality of excavation point candidates with reference to the pieces of height information,
Martinsson teaches ([0007]): "A method according to an aspect of the present invention includes the steps of: acquiring three dimensional pile data, generating a set of attack poses, and generating a bucket trajectory through the pile for each attack pose." Martinsson further teaches ([0010]): "An attack pose consists of or comprises an angle of attack of the bucket and a position for the attack. The angle of attack is an angle of the bucket with reference to a negative surface normal, which is a normal pointing inwardly into the pile, hence in the same direction as the attack of the bucket into the pile at the position of attack. The position of the attack is considered to be the point of the pile at which the middle of the bucket in a lateral direction makes contact with the pile." Martinsson even further teaches ([0089]): "Given a cluster of points, sampled from a pile surface, the next step is to select a pose (that is, a position and an orientation) at which to attack the pile."
each of the plurality of excavation point candidates being a candidate for an excavation point at which the excavation apparatus starts excavation;
Martinsson teaches ([0007]): "A method according to an aspect of the present invention includes the steps of: acquiring three dimensional pile data, generating a set of attack poses, and generating a bucket trajectory through the pile for each attack pose." Martinsson further teaches ([0010]): "An attack pose consists of or comprises an angle of attack of the bucket and a position for the attack. The angle of attack is an angle of the bucket with reference to a negative surface normal, which is a normal pointing inwardly into the pile, hence in the same direction as the attack of the bucket into the pile at the position of attack. The position of the attack is considered to be the point of the pile at which the middle of the bucket in a lateral direction makes contact with the pile." Martinsson even further teaches ([0089]): "Given a cluster of points, sampled from a pile surface, the next step is to select a pose (that is, a position and an orientation) at which to attack the pile." Martinsson still further teaches ([0136]): "The set of attack poses may contain a range of possible attack positions and angles of attack. The attack position is selected along the pile border, or if desired at a height distance from the border."
an inference process of inferring, based on an excavation track of the excavation apparatus, an excavation amount for each of the plurality of excavation point candidates which have been extracted,
Martinsson teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Martinsson further teaches ([0011]): "By considering the convexity of the area of the pile for an area at the surface of the pile delimited by the bucked width and vertical projection of the trajectory, a measure which has a substantial impact on the filling rate of the bucket is evaluated." Martinsson even further teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution."
the excavation amount being an amount by which the excavation apparatus carries out excavation;
Martinsson teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Martinsson further teaches ([0011]): "By considering the convexity of the area of the pile for an area at the surface of the pile delimited by the bucked width and vertical projection of the trajectory, a measure which has a substantial impact on the filling rate of the bucket is evaluated." Martinsson even further teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution."
a selection process of selecting an excavation point from among the plurality of excavation point candidates based on the excavation amount which has been inferred;
Martinsson teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Martinsson further teaches ([0010]): "An attack pose consists of or comprises an angle of attack of the bucket and a position for the attack." Martinsson even further teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution." Martinsson still further teaches ([0006]): "It is desirable to provide an improved method for selecting an attack pose which enables provision of high fill rates of the bucket." Martinsson yet further teaches ([0015]): "The attack pose may be selected in dependence of the measure of convexity and the side load measure."
and an area division process of dividing an area including the excavation target into a plurality of meshes having a same size,
Martinsson teaches ([0136]): "FIG. 8a shows a pile 1 positioned on a ground plane 3. The pile is delimited by a pile border 5 which separates the pile 1 from the ground plane 3. The position of a bucket 11 is indicated. The attack position 9 is for practical reasons set to be in the middle of the bucket in a lateral direction. In the method a set of attack poses in generated... The attack position is selected along the pile border, or if desired at a height distance from the border... A bucket trajectory 13 being the intended trajectory of the bucket through the pile in the event the attack pose is selected is indicated with a dashed line. The dashed lines 13L and 13R show the trajectories of the left and sight front corner of the bucket. A measure convexity of the pile surface is to be calculated for an area 15 of the pile surface 17 delimited by a bucket width 19 and a vertical projection 21 of the bucket trajectory 13. The area is on the surface of the pile is delimited by the front end 15a, the back end 15b, and the left and right sides 15c,15d respectively being the surface projection of an area constituted by the width of the bucket and the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory." Therefore, as a set of attack poses is generated and analyzed, so too are a plurality of meshes generated as part of the convexity measurement consideration. FIG. 8a, included below, depicts an example where an area including the excavation target is divided into a plurality of meshes having a same size.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein in the inference process, the at least one processor infers the excavation amount with reference to the pieces of height information in meshes included in the excavation track of the excavation apparatus,
Martinsson teaches ([0136]): "FIG. 8a shows a pile 1 positioned on a ground plane 3. The pile is delimited by a pile border 5 which separates the pile 1 from the ground plane 3. The position of a bucket 11 is indicated. The attack position 9 is for practical reasons set to be in the middle of the bucket in a lateral direction. In the method a set of attack poses in generated... The attack position is selected along the pile border, or if desired at a height distance from the border. If the attack is selected at a certain height from the ground plane, the angle of attack is determined with respect to the surface normal of the pile for a plane at the selected height. A bucket trajectory 13 being the intended trajectory of the bucket through the pile in the event the attack pose is selected is indicated with a dashed line. The dashed lines 13L and 13R show the trajectories of the left and sight front corner of the bucket. A measure convexity of the pile surface is to be calculated for an area 15 of the pile surface 17 delimited by a bucket width 19 and a vertical projection 21 of the bucket trajectory 13. The area is on the surface of the pile is delimited by the front end 15a, the back end 15b, and the left and right sides 15c,15d respectively being the surface projection of an area constituted by the width of the bucket and the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. With surface projection is here intended the projection of the area constituted by the width of the bucket and the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory on the surface area of the pile." Martinsson further teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Martinsson even further teaches ([0011]): "By considering the convexity of the area of the pile for an area at the surface of the pile delimited by the bucked width and vertical projection of the trajectory, a measure which has a substantial impact on the filling rate of the bucket is evaluated." Martinsson still further teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution."
However, Martinsson does not outright teach that in the area division process, the at least one processor calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus. Seki teaches a work machine control device, comprising:
and in the area division process, the at least one processor calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus,
Seki teaches ([0100]): "The target calculation unit 86 groups a plurality of irradiation points PJ based on the distance to each of the irradiation points PJ. Grouping means, for example, grouping a plurality of irradiation points PJ each having the difference in distance to its adjacent irradiation point PJ equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as one group. In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, for example, the difference in the distance between an irradiation point PJa defined by irradiating the surface of the measurement target and an irradiation point PJb defined by irradiating a part of the working equipment 10 is large. Thus, irradiation points PJa defined on the surface of the measurement target are grouped as one group, and irradiation points PJb defined on the surface of the working equipment 10 are grouped as another group." Seki further teaches ([0101]): "The target calculation unit 86 removes the group of the irradiation points PJb indicating the working equipment 10, divides the group of the irradiation points PJa indicating the measurement target into groups, and classifies the irradiation points PJ into a first group and a second group." FIGS. 8 and 9, included below, demonstrate that the number of measurement points are made in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus
PNG
media_image3.png
310
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
392
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Martinsson to incorporate the teachings of Seki to provide that in the area division process, the at least one processor calculates a number of measurement points measured by a measurement apparatus per unit area in accordance with an installation height of the measurement apparatus. Martinsson and Seki are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of excavation point measurement. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Seki, as doing so beneficially allows for division of area of an excavation point into a ground-level section and an incline section, while excluding measurement points related to accidental measurement of the excavation point identification apparatus, as recognized by Seki (see at least [0100]-[0104] and FIGs. 8-9).
However, Martinsson does not outright teach setting a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number. Friend teaches configuration of a LIDAR sensor scan area according to a cycle segment of an operation of a machine, comprising:
and sets a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number.
Friend teaches ([0053]): "When the ECM 114 detects that the dig operation has been performed (e.g., during the dig segment of FIG. 2), at block 420, the ECM 114 configures a scan area of the LIDAR sensor 126 and performs a bucket ground material analysis. For example, the ECM 114 may increase a point density of LIDAR sensor 126 within an area of the field of view 128 that includes the bucket 120 (e.g., a cavity of the bucket and/or the ground material within the bucket 120) to provide an increased quantity of LIDAR data (e.g., from an increased quantity of LIDAR points being focused on the bucket 120) that is associated with the bucket 120 and/or representative of the amount of ground material in the bucket 120. The ECM 114 may analyze the LIDAR data (e.g., using a LIDAR object detection model, a LIDAR spatial analysis model, and/or the like) to determine an amount of ground material that is in the bucket 120 (e.g., to measure or score a performance of the dig operation)." The Examiner has interpreted the configuration of a scan area within an area of the field of view of the sensor to increase a point density of the sensor as setting a size of the mesh such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying these teachings to each of the plurality of meshes of Martinsson and Seki.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Martinsson and Seki to incorporate the teachings of Friend to provide setting a size of each of the plurality of meshes such that the number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number. Martinsson, Seki, and Friend are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of excavation point measurement. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Friend, as setting the size of the mesh in the manner of Friend beneficially allows for obtaining increased amounts of sensor data by ensuring a number of measurement points is not less than a predetermined number, which Friend identifies as being useful in determining metrics such as dig operation performance (see at least [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Martinsson, Seki, and Friend teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Martinsson further teaches:
in the extraction process, the at least one processor extracts, as the excavation point candidate, a mesh from among the plurality of meshes in accordance with the pieces of height information of the excavation target.
Martinsson teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Martinsson further teaches ([0010]): "An attack pose consists of or comprises an angle of attack of the bucket and a position for the attack." Martinsson even further teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution." Martinsson still further teaches ([0006]): "It is desirable to provide an improved method for selecting an attack pose which enables provision of high fill rates of the bucket." Martinsson yet further teaches ([0015]): "The attack pose may be selected in dependence of the measure of convexity and the side load measure." The Examiner has interpreted the selection of the attack pose based on the measure of convexity (i.e., based on the associated mesh) as selecting a mesh from among the plurality of meshes in order to provide higher fill rates of the bucket. In other words, when selecting for higher fill rates, a mesh is selected resulting in the selection of the attack pose associated with the mesh.
Regarding claim 5, Martinsson, Seki, and Friend teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Martinsson further teaches:
in a case where an excavation region that is indicated by the excavation track, where a first excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates is assumed to be an excavation point, includes a second excavation point candidate included in the plurality of excavation point candidates in the extraction process, the at least one processor excludes the second excavation point candidate from the plurality of excavation point candidates.
Martinsson teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution." Martinsson further teaches ([0006]): "It is desirable to provide an improved method for selecting an attack pose which enables provision of high fill rates of the bucket." Martinsson even further teaches ([0015]): "The attack pose may be selected in dependence of the measure of convexity and the side load measure." Martinsson still further teaches ([0053]): "In a fourth method step S40 a measure of a convexity of the pile surface for an area of the pile surface delimited by a bucket width and a vertical projection of the bucket trajectory is calculated for each attack pose in said set of attack poses." Here, one attack pose of the set of attack poses may be selected to enable provision of high fill rates of the bucket. Therefore, by selecting one attack pose of the set of attack poses, all other attack poses of the set of attack poses are no longer being considered; the Examiner has interpreted such as excluding a second excavation point candidate from the plurality of excavation point candidates.
Regarding claim 6, Martinsson, Seki, and Friend teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Martinsson further teaches:
in the extraction process, the at least one processor does not set the excavation point candidate in a range which is unreachable by a shovel of the excavation apparatus.
Martinsson teaches ([0012]): "In an embodiment of the invention the convexity measure is determined by determining sweep volumes of segments of said bucket. A sweep volume is a volume of the pile within a sweep area at the surface of the pile defined by a width of a segment of the bucket and length extension of the bucket trajectory, that is the vertical projection of the bucket trajectory. The bucket trajectory is the trajectory which the bucket is intended to propagate through the pile in the event the bucket trajectory is selected for execution." Martinsson further teaches ([0006]): "It is desirable to provide an improved method for selecting an attack pose which enables provision of high fill rates of the bucket." Martinsson even further teaches ([0015]): "The attack pose may be selected in dependence of the measure of convexity and the side load measure." Here, an extraction point candidate is selected to enable provision of high fill rates of the bucket. Therefore, the excavation point candidate is set in a range which is reachable by a shovel (i.e., the bucket) of the excavation apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an unreachable excavation point candidate would naturally result in being unable to fill the bucket.
Regarding claim 7, Martinsson teaches an excavation point identification system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions:
Martinsson teaches ([0048]): "In FIG. 2, a system 45 for automatic control of the movement of the working machine is shown. The system includes the sensor sytem 43 which is connected to an electronic control unit 47. The electronic control unit contains a functional block 49 which acquires three dimensional pile data from the sensor 43. Further in a second control block 51 bucket trajectories and attack poses are generated." The same paragraph further indicates that the electronic control unit includes a third functional block and a fourth functional block.
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processing comprising:
Martinsson teaches ([0048]): "In FIG. 2, a system 45 for automatic control of the movement of the working machine is shown. The system includes the sensor sytem 43 which is connected to an electronic control unit 47. The electronic control unit contains a functional block 49 which acquires three dimensional pile data from the sensor 43. Further in a second control block 51 bucket trajectories and attack poses are generated." The same paragraph further indicates that the electronic control unit includes a third functional block and a fourth functional block.
a measurement process of measuring an area including an excavation target which is to be excavated by an excavation apparatus;
Martinsson teaches ([0007]): "A method according to an aspect of the present invention includes the steps of: acquiring three dimensional pile data, generating a set of attack poses, and generating a bucket trajectory through the pile for each attack pose.