DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 8/21/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 have been amended. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As outlined below, Nishizawa discloses that a position of each component of the multijoint working device is calculated from the outputs of the angle detectors which read on the amendments of claims 1, 7, and 13. However, the amendments made to claims 2, 8, and 14 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant has amended the abstract to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. Claims 17-19 are not shown in the new claim set and it is unclear whether the claims are cancelled or not. If claims 17-19 are to be cancelled, the claims should be labelled as such.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processor, claims 7-12 are directed to a system that comprises one or more processors, claims 13-18 are directed to a method and recites at least one step, and claim 19 is directed toward a computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium storing a program. Therefore, claims 1-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process and apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 13 recites:
A control method for controlling a work machine, said control method comprising: acquiring state information, action information, and surrounding information by at least one processor, the state information indicating a posture of the work machine, the action information indicating an action of the work machine, and the surrounding information indicating an arrangement of a surrounding object around the work machine, wherein the state information includes turning angles of movable subparts of the work machine;
calculating a three-dimensional coordinates at a specific point of a movable part of the work machine based on the turning angles by the at least one processor;
specifying, by the at least one processor and based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates and the action information, a safe distance between the specific point of the movable part and the surrounding object; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, an action of the work machine in accordance with the safe distance and the surrounding information.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a mathematical concept and mental process. For example, a three-dimensional coordinate is calculated based on turning angles (mathematical calculation) and then a safe distance is specified (mental process) by determining a buffer area based on the location of the bucket.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control method for controlling a work machine, said control method comprising: acquiring state information, action information, and surrounding information by at least one processor, the state information indicating a posture of the work machine, the action information indicating an action of the work machine, and the surrounding information indicating an arrangement of a surrounding object around the work machine, wherein the state information includes turning angles of movable subparts of the work machine;
calculating a three-dimensional coordinates at a specific point of a movable part of the work machine based on the turning angles by the at least one processor;
specifying, by the at least one processor and based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates and the action information, a safe distance between the specific point of the movable part and the surrounding object; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, an action of the work machine in accordance with the safe distance and the surrounding information.
The recitation of “work machine” and “at least one processor” are provided at a high level of generality and fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The limitation of “acquiring state information, action information, and surrounding information…” falls under “mere data gathering” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “controlling… an action” is recited broadly and it is unclear what the action is. Therefore, this limitation is considered merely the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The MPEP states insignificant extra-solution activity fails to integrate a judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Therefore, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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 are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 1 and 7 are parallel in scope to claim 13 and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 8, and 14, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 7, and 13, recite an “expression” which is a mathematical equation to determine coordinates and also falls under mathematical concepts. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 8, and 14 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are dependent on claims 1, 7, and 13 and inherit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 7, and 13. No other technology or action has been recited in claims 3, 9, and 15 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 9, and 15 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims 4, 10, and 16, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 7, and 13, recite “sets an ellipsoid… specifies the safe distance…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a safety buffer zone around a bucket based on the bucket swing and movement. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4, 10, and 16 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are dependent on claims 1, 7, and 13 and inherit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1 and 7. The additional limitation “distance sensor” is also considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation “generating… a three-dimensional map… based on a detection value…” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 5, 11, and 17 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. The additional limitations of “computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium,” “program,” and “a computer” are also provided at a high level of generality and fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. Therefore, the limitation is considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0048871 A1; hereinafter Nishizawa) in view of Dunbabin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0223008 A1; hereinafter Dunbabin).
Regarding claim 1, Nishizawa discloses:
A control apparatus for controlling a work machine (hydraulic excavator 100 includes controller 162 and information controller 161, see at least [0038], [0048], and [0064]):
an acquisition process of acquiring state information, action information, and surrounding information (surrounding monitoring device 200 includes obstacle information acquisition section 211, machine state acquisition section 231, an operation state determination section 232, see at least [0058]), the state information indicating a posture of the work machine (machine state acquisition section 231 acquires positional information on each component of the working device, see at least [0061]), the action information indicating an action of the work machine (operation state determination section 232 obtains swing angular speed of working device, see at least [0061]), and the surrounding information indicating an arrangement of a surrounding object around the work machine (obstacle information is obtained from external recognition sensor 156, see at least [0043] and [0059]), wherein the state information includes turning angles of movable subparts of the work machine (machine states from angle detectors 181, 182, 183, and 184, which are installed in the muti joint front working device, see at least [0089] and Fig. 1);
a calculation process of three-dimensional coordinates at a specific point of a movable part of the work machine based on the turning angles (machine states are calculated from outputs of angle detectors and position of each component is represented by coordinate values of the vehicle-body coordinate system, see at least [0089]; coordinate system having x, y, and z axis, se at least [0050]);
a specification process of specifying, based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates and the action information, a safe distance between the specific point of the movable part and the surrounding object (working region setting section 223 sets working region from positional information of working device and proximity calculation section 224 calculates proximity of each obstacle by use of set working region, see at least [0062] and Figs. 19A and 19B; non-working region corresponds to area excavator is not able to reach, see at least [0122]) *Examiner sets forth being outside of the working region or being within the non-working region is a safe proximity or distance; and
an action control process of controlling an action of the work machine in accordance with the safe distance and the surrounding information (“operation instruction section 241 makes a decision about warning operation in accordance with the level of proximity of each obstacle, and outputs a control instruction in accordance with the warning operation to each component of the hydraulic excavator 100” see at least [0063] and [0171]; prevent contact with the obstacle, see at least [0164]).
Nishizawa does not explicitly disclose:
processor
However, Dunbabin teaches:
processor (controller 60 has processor, see at least [0086])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the processor taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known in the art to use processors for the use of controlling vehicles. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for controlling operations of a system (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
the action information is information indicating a dynamic characteristic of the work machine (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090])
the dynamic characteristic includes at least one of a speed and acceleration of the movable part (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
the at least one processor further carries out a surrounding information generation process of generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimension [positions] based on a detection value by a distance sensor (coordinate system with XYZ directions, see at least [0050]; obstacle information acquires position information regarding each obstacle detected by external recognition sensor, see at least [0059] and [0066])
Nishizawa does not explicitly disclose:
generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimensional map
However, Dunbabin teaches:
a surrounding information generation process of generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimensional map (3D map, see at least [0041]) that includes the work machine (maps are built using knowledge of sensor geometric offsets and knowledge of machine’s current rotational position, see at least [0039]) based on a detection value by a distance sensor (array of sensors used to generate terrain and obstacle map includes laser rangefinders or radar range finders and vision sensors, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surrounding monitoring disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the 3D map taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine if a collision of any of these points will occur” and “to determine obstacle-free paths when planning a swing operation” (see [0052] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
in a case where a distance between the object indicated in the surrounding information and the movable part is less than the safe distance (determine whether or not obstacle of interest exists within working region, see at least [0147] and steps S1503-S1507 of Fig. 18), the at least one processor controls, in the action control process, the movable part to avoid the object (when proximity is level 1, instruction is output to restrict the operation of hydraulic excavator in direction toward the obstacle, see at least [0159]).
Regarding claim 7, Nishizawa discloses:
A control system for controlling a work machine, said control system comprising a control apparatus (hydraulic excavator 100 includes controller 162 and information controller 161, see at least [0038], [0048], and [0064]) and a first sensor that acquires state information indicating a posture of the work machine (from data acquired by sensor installed in hydraulic excavator 100, machine state acquisition section 231 acquires positional information on each component of working device 110, see at least [0061]) , wherein the state information includes turning angles of movable subparts of the work machine (machine states from angle detectors 181, 182, 183, and 184, which are installed in the muti joint front working device, see at least [0089] and Fig. 1),
a calculation process of three-dimensional coordinates at a specific point of a movable part of the work machine based on the turning angles (machine states are calculated from outputs of angle detectors and position of each component is represented by coordinate values of the vehicle-body coordinate system, see at least [0089]; coordinate system having x, y, and z axis, se at least [0050])
a specification process of specifying, based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates and action information, (operation state determination section 232 obtains swing angular speed of working device, see at least [0061]), a safe distance between the specific point of the movable part and a surrounding object (working region setting section 223 sets working region from positional information of working device and proximity calculation section 224 calculates proximity of each obstacle by use of set working region, see at least [0062] and Figs. 19A and 19B; non-working region corresponds to area excavator is not able to reach, see at least [0122]) *Examiner sets forth being outside of the working region or being within the non-working region is a safe proximity or distance; and
an action control process of controlling an action of the work machine in accordance with the safe distance and surrounding information indicating an arrangement of the surrounding object around the work machine (“operation instruction section 241 makes a decision about warning operation in accordance with the level of proximity of each obstacle, and outputs a control instruction in accordance with the warning operation to each component of the hydraulic excavator 100” see at least [0063] and [0171]; prevent contact with the obstacle, see at least [0164])
Nishizawa does not explicitly disclose:
processor
However, Dunbabin teaches:
the control apparatus including at least one processor (controller 60 has processor, see at least [0086])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the processor taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known in the art to use processors for the use of controlling vehicles. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for controlling operations of a system (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
the action information is information indicating a dynamic characteristic of the work machine (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090]).
the dynamic characteristic includes at least one of a speed and acceleration of the movable part (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
a second sensor (external recognition sensor, see at least [0043]) for acquiring the surrounding information, the at least one processor further carrying out a surrounding information generation process of generating a three-dimensional [position] that includes the work machine based on a detection value by the second sensor (coordinate system with XYZ directions, see at least [0050]; obstacle information acquires position information regarding each obstacle detected by external recognition sensor, see at least [0059] and [0066]).
Nishizawa does not disclose:
generating a three-dimensional map
However, Dunbabin teaches:
generating a three-dimensional map (3D map, see at least [0041]) that includes the work machine based on a detection value by the second sensor(array of sensors used to generate terrain and obstacle map includes laser rangefinders or radar range finders and vision sensors, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surrounding monitoring disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the 3D map taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine if a collision of any of these points will occur” and “to determine obstacle-free paths when planning a swing operation” (see [0052] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
in a case where a distance between the object indicated in the surrounding information and the movable part is less than the safe distance (determine whether or not obstacle of interest exists within working region, see at least [0147] and steps S1503-S1507 of Fig. 18), the at least one processor controls, in the action control process, the movable part to avoid the object (when proximity is level 1, instruction is output to restrict the operation of hydraulic excavator in direction toward the obstacle, see at least [0159]).
Regarding claim 13, Nishizawa discloses:
A control method for controlling a work machine, said control method comprising (hydraulic excavator 100 includes controller 162 and information controller 161, see at least [0038], [0048], and [0064]):
acquiring state information, action information, and surrounding information (surrounding monitoring device 200 includes obstacle information acquisition section 211, machine state acquisition section 231, an operation state determination section 232, see at least [0058]), the state information indicating a posture of the work machine (machine state acquisition section 231 acquires positional information on each component of the working device, see at least [0061]), the action information indicating an action of the work machine (operation state determination section 232 obtains swing angular speed of working device, see at least [0061]), and the surrounding information indicating an arrangement of a surrounding object around the work machine (obstacle information is obtained from external recognition sensor 156, see at least [0043] and [0059]), wherein the state information includes turning angles of movable subparts of the work machine (machine states from angle detectors 181, 182, 183, and 184, which are installed in the muti joint front working device, see at least [0089] and Fig. 1);
calculating a three-dimensional coordinates at a specific point of moveable part of the work machine based on the turning angles by the at least one processor (machine states are calculated from outputs of angle detectors and position of each component is represented by coordinate values of the vehicle-body coordinate system, see at least [0089]; coordinate system having x, y, and z axis, se at least [0050]);
specifying, by the at least one processor and based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates and the action information, a safe distance between the specific point of the movable part and the surrounding object (working region setting section 223 sets working region from positional information of working device and proximity calculation section 224 calculates proximity of each obstacle by use of set working region, see at least [0062] and Figs. 19A and 19B; non-working region corresponds to area excavator is not able to reach, see at least [0122]) *Examiner sets forth being outside of the working region or being within the non-working region is a safe proximity or distance; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, an action of the work machine in accordance with the safe distance and the surrounding information (“operation instruction section 241 makes a decision about warning operation in accordance with the level of proximity of each obstacle, and outputs a control instruction in accordance with the warning operation to each component of the hydraulic excavator 100” see at least [0063] and [0171]; prevent contact with the obstacle, see at least [0164]).
Nishizawa does not explicitly disclose:
processor
However, Dunbabin teaches:
processor (controller 60 has processor, see at least [0086])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the processor taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known in the art to use processors for the use of controlling vehicles. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for controlling operations of a system (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
the action information is information indicating a dynamic characteristic of the work machine (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090])
the dynamic characteristic includes at least one of a speed and acceleration of the movable part (operation state determination section 232 calculates angular speed of working device, see at least [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
the acquiring of the surrounding information includes generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimensional [positions] that includes the work machine based on a detection value by a distance sensor (coordinate system with XYZ directions, see at least [0050]; obstacle information acquires position information regarding each obstacle detected by external recognition sensor, see at least [0059] and [0066]).
Nishizawa does not explicitly disclose:
generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimensional map
However, Dunbabin teaches:
the acquiring of the surrounding information includes generating, as the surrounding information, a three-dimensional map (3D map, see at least [0041]) that includes the work machine (maps are built using knowledge of sensor geometric offsets and knowledge of machine’s current rotational position, see at least [0039]) based on a detection value by a distance sensor (array of sensors used to generate terrain and obstacle map includes laser rangefinders or radar range finders and vision sensors, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surrounding monitoring disclosed by Nishizawa by adding the 3D map taught by Dunbabin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine if a collision of any of these points will occur” and “to determine obstacle-free paths when planning a swing operation” (see [0052] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
in a case where a distance between the object indicated in the surrounding information and the movable part is less than the safe distance (determine whether or not obstacle of interest exists within working region, see at least [0147] and steps S1503-S1507 of Fig. 18), the controlling of the action of the work machine includes controlling the movable part to avoid the object (when proximity is level 1, instruction is output to restrict the operation of hydraulic excavator in direction toward the obstacle, see at least [0159]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
A computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to carry out the acquisition process, the specification process, and the action control process which are recited in claim 1 (information controller 161 executes predefined program, program is stored on storage medium 155, see at least [0064]).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Dunbabin as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above and further in view of Iwamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0298316 A1; hereinafter Iwamura) and Kitajima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0289928 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
wherein θ0 represents an orientation of the movable part (angle detector 181 detects θ1 which is the angle of upper structure 131, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), θ1 represents an angle of a first movable subpart with respect to a reference plane (angle detector 182 detects θ2 which is the angle of boom 111, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), θ2 represents an angle of a second movable subpart with respect to the first movable subpart (angle detector 183 detects θ3 which is the angle of arm 112, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), and θ3 represents an angle of a third movable subpart with respect to the second movable subpart (angle detector 184 detects θ4 which is the angle of bucket 113, see at least [0089] and fig. 1)
Nishizawa and Dunbabin do not teach:
the three-dimensional coordinates at the specific point are calculated based on a following Expression (1);
x
=
f
x
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
y
=
f
y
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
z
=
f
z
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
However, Iwamura teaches:
the three-dimensional coordinates at the specific point are calculated based on a following Expression (1) (based on swing angle sensors, the coordinates of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 in the vehicle body coordinate system (x, y, z) are calculated, see at least [0113])
x
=
f
x
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
y
=
f
y
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
z
=
f
z
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
see at least Equation 1. Showing that x and z are a function of swing angles of the boom, arm, and bucket
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the position calculation using angle of the upper structure, boom, arm, and bucket disclosed by Nishizawa and the processor taught by Dunbabin by adding the equation showing that the x and z coordinates are a function of the swing angles taught by Iwamura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the position of the blade edge of the bucket can be estimated by a controller of the hydraulic excavator to move the blade edge of the bucket in conformity with a designed excavated surface” (see [0003]).
Furthermore, Kitajima teaches:
(coordinate of outline point of bucket are derived from equation 8 which shows coordinates x, y, z equal to an outline in xyz coordinates multiplied by an expression including bucket tilt, bucket angle, arm angle, and boom angle, see at least [0223]-[0224] and [0227])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the position calculation using angle of the upper structure, boom, arm, and bucket disclosed by Nishizawa, the processor taught by Dunbabin, and the equation showing that the x and z coordinates are a function of the swing angles taught by Iwamura by adding the determination of xyz coordinates from angles taught by Kitajima with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “suppressing a decrease in excavation accuracy even when a tilt bucket is used” (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nishizawa and Dunbabin teaches the elements above and Nishizawa further discloses:
wherein θ0 represents an orientation of the movable part (angle detector 181 detects θ1 which is the angle of upper structure 131, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), θ1 represents an angle of a first movable subpart with respect to a reference plane (angle detector 182 detects θ2 which is the angle of boom 111, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), θ2 represents an angle of a second movable subpart with respect to the first movable subpart (angle detector 183 detects θ3 which is the angle of arm 112, see at least [0089] and fig. 1), and θ3 represents an angle of a third movable subpart with respect to the second movable subpart (angle detector 184 detects θ4 which is the angle of bucket 113, see at least [0089] and fig. 1)
Nishizawa and Dunbabin do not teach:
the three-dimensional coordinates at the specific point are calculated based on a following Expression (1);
x
=
f
x
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
y
=
f
y
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
z
=
f
z
(
θ
0
,
θ
1
,
θ
2
,
θ
3
)
However, Iwamura teaches:
the three-dimensional coordinates at the specific point are calculated based on a following Expression (1) (based on swing angle sensors, the coordinates of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 in the vehicle body coordinate system (x, y, z) are calculated, see at least [0113])
x
=
f
x
θ
0
,
θ
1
,