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 Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----10/28/2025 for application 18/034,315. Claim 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 12 – 16 and 18 – 19 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 12 – 16 and 18 are amended.
Claim 5, 11 and 17 are canceled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated in page 10 that the cited portion of Nishi fail to disclose the features of claim 1 and claim 5. Examiner notes that based on the amendment, the argument are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Nishi teaches: “the functional element Fa may move the soil discharging start position by a predetermined distance away from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60, when the dropping of soil from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60 is detected based on the output of at least one of the object detector 70 and the image capturing device 80. In this manner, it is possible to prevent soil from dropping from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60 when a subsequent soil discharging operation is performed” (Nishi, 0237). When the system of Nishi detect/determines that soil drops out of the edge of the truck bed, the system correct the bucket position so that the position of the tip of the bucket (where the soil discharges/a movable region of the bucket) is entirely above the truck bed or entirely within a center region above the truck bed that is a distance away from all edges of the truck bed. One of skilled in the art knows that objects drops vertically with gravity thus the position consideration are projected onto the horizonal plan to make sure soil doesn’t fall out of the edges. Thus, Nishi fulfilled all the required limitation of Claim 1. For further detail, refer to claim rejection under 102 section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 4 – 7, 10 – 13 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishi, US20210002852.
[Claim 1], Nishi discloses: A control apparatus for controlling a work machine, said control apparatus comprising at least one processor (0056, “the controller 30 is configured by a computer including a CPU”), the at least one processor carrying out:
a movement control process of controlling the work machine to move a movable part of the work machine to a region which is a target destination (Fig. 1A, the arm and bucket of the machine is the movable part, Fig. 14A, the work machine moves the bucket to the truck bed which is the destination for dumping);
a determination process of determining whether or not a movable region of the movable part is entirely included in the target region, wherein the movable region and the target region are regions projected on a horizontal plane (Nishi, 0237, “the functional element Fa may move the soil discharging start position by a predetermined distance away from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60, when the dropping of soil from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60 is detected based on the output of at least one of the object detector 70 and the image capturing device 80. In this manner, it is possible to prevent soil from dropping from the edge of the bed of the dump truck 60 when a subsequent soil discharging operation is performed”; i.e., when the system of Nishi detect/determines that soil drops out of the edge of the truck bed, the system correct the bucket position so that the position of the tip of the bucket (where the soil discharges/a movable region of the bucket) is entirely above the truck bed (target region) or entirely within a center region (target region) above the truck bed that is a distance away from all edges of the truck bed. One of skilled in the art knows that objects drops vertically with gravity thus the position consideration are projected onto the horizonal plan to make sure soil doesn’t fall out of the edges.); and
a correction control process of detecting a positional relation between the target region and the movable part with reference to a detection value of a sensor (refer to the mapping above & 0047, “example of the objects include … work equipment, construction machine”, “object detector 70 may be a camera … a light detection and ranging (LIDAR), a distance image sensor”; i.e., using detected sensor values to detect the distance/position relation of the bucket position and the truck bed) to control the work machine to correct a position of the movable part such that the movable region is entirely included in the target region in a case where it is determined that the movable region is not entirely included in the target region (refer to the mapping above, when the soil drop out of the edge of the truck bed (tip of the bucket (movable region) is not entirely above the truck bed (target region) or not within the center region of the truck bed (target region) that is a distance away from the edge), the system automatically correct the bucket position so that the tip of the bucket (movable region) is entirely above the position).
[Claim 6] Nishi teaches all the limitation of claims 1. Nishi further teach: the movable part includes a tool for moving a movement target object to the region (Nishi, fig. 1A & 12A-C, the bucket 6 is a tool for moving dirt/soil).
Regarding Claim 7, 10, 12, these are the corresponding control system claim of Claim 1, 4, 6. These claim are rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 13, 16, 18, these are the corresponding method claim of Claim 1, 4, 6. These claim are rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium claim of Claim 1. Nishi discloses having computer to implement the recited function (refer to claim 1). Computer-readable non-transitory storage medium is thus inherent. Claim 19 is rejected with the same reason.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 – 3, 8 – 9 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi, US20210002852 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seki et al., (hereinafter Seki), US20200385958.
[Claim 2], Nishi disclose all the limitation of Claim 1. Nishi further teach:
the sensor includes a first sensor that three- dimensionally detects (0047, “object detector 70 may be … a stereo camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR), a distance image sensor”; these are 3 dimensional sensor), and
the movable region and the target region are based on pieces of point group data generated by the first sensor (fig. 4, BLu, BCu, BRu, BLb, BCb, BRb, are points of the bucket, the tips of the bucket (movable region) are a subset of the points of the bucket. Examiner notes that Nishi teaches using LIDAR sensor to detect object of interest and the environment including the truck, the bucket and the environment. One of ordinary skilled in the art knows that LIDAR data is point cloud, i.e., pieces of point group data of object of interest. Such understanding can be easily found online for example: “LiDAR is a technology for making point clouds”, Tully, “Evolution of Point Cloud”, page 2).
Nishi do not explicitly teach:
detects a target object in a space which includes the target region.
Seki, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
detects a target object in a space which includes the region (Seki, Fig. 3 & 0038, “The three-dimensional measurement device 20 measures a measurement target in front of the front vehicle body 2F. The measurement target includes an excavation target of the working equipment 10.”; Fig. 5, step S120 control work equipment based on the detected target position).
Nishi and Seki both teach the automatic/semi-automatic work and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further apply Nishi’s teaching of the automatic correction to the loading process of Seki’s teaching to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the loading efficiency (Nish, 0097).
[Claim 3] Nishi and Seki renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 2, Nishi further teach:
in the movement control process, the at least one processor controls, with reference to a detection value of a second sensor which detects a posture of the work machine, the work machine to move the movable part to the target region (Nishi, 0244, “calculates the coordinates of the coordinates point of the tip of the bucket 6 as a current tip position, based on the boom angle β1 detected by the boom angle sensor Sl, the arm angle β2 detected by the arm angle sensor S2, the bucket angle β3 detected by the bucket angle sensor S3…”; the posture is detected other sensors of the work machine); and
in the correction control process, the at least one processor controls, with reference to a detection value of the first sensor, the work machine to correct the position of the movable part (refer to the mapping in Claim 1. The correction is based on the target position and current posture/position).
Regarding Claim 8 – 9, these are the corresponding control system claim of Claim 2 – 3. These claim are rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 14 – 15, these are the corresponding method claim of Claim 2 – 3. These claim are rejected with the same reason.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi, US20210002852 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Singh US20160108602.
[Claim 4] Nishi teaches all the limitation of claims 1. Nishi does not explicitly teaches: in the correction control process, the at least one processor corrects the position of the movable part such that a difference between a target position in the region and the position of the movable part falls within a predetermined range.
Singh, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
in the correction control process, the at least one processor corrects the position of the movable part such that a difference between a target position in the target region and the position of the movable part falls within a predetermined range (Singh, fig. 8 & 0057, “once the reference point 160 is moved to a location within the inner threshold boundary 164, it can be assumed for control purposes that the reference point 160 is now located at the reference location 142A associated with the pre-defined position selected by the operator”).
Nishi and Singh both teach control system for work machine and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to apply the control technique of Singh in the system of Nishi to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to prevent overshooting or undershooting (Singh, 0003).
Regarding Claim 10 and 16, these are the corresponding control system claim and method claim of Claim 4. These claim are rejected with the same reason.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached on (571) 270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666