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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract comprises of more than 150 words, and the abstract is not presented in narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8 and Claim 11, there is a “,.” at the end:
“when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets a given condition,.”
The comma should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “work machine control program for causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method” which is interpreted as determining a list of activities to complete, which encompasses the abstract idea of creating a mental “to-do” list.
Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a process of utilizing software to execute a work machine control method. Therefore, Claim 9 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A Analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitations of Claim 9 is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method” , are processes that could be completed with the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A Analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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. 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 present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 9:
A work machine control program for causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method according to claim 8.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering pavement condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Secondly, the “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The automotive control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 do 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an automotive control system to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “work machine control program”-- the examiner submits that this limitations is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “work machine control program” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the work machine control program is anything other than a program running on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 5 – 10, 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Keiichi Tsuji, et. al. (US 20220042283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuji.
Regarding Claim 1:
A work machine control system comprising:
an acquisition processing unit that acquires a detection result of an object around a machine body of a work machine provided with an actuator actuated in response to an operation of an operation unit; and
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).
a state switch processing unit that, apart from a gate lock lever capable of switching between an unlocked state capable of operating the work machine and a locked state incapable of operating the work machine, is capable of switching between an enabled state and disabled state of the operation unit, wherein
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]) and “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061]).the state switch processing unit, in a standby state of the work machine, when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state, and the detection result meets a given condition, puts the operation unit in the enabled state.
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]), “the safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area” (Tsuji, [0150]), and “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061].
Regarding Claim 5:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the given condition includes the object being present in a monitoring area around the work machine.
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 6:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
an alarm processing unit that presents information on the detection result, when the state switch processing unit puts the operation unit in the enabled state despite at least the gate lock lever being in the unlocked state and the detection result meeting the given condition.
Tsuji discloses “Further, for example, for the notification function, the safety function control part 305 may change the manner of displaying an image on the display device 50 or the like (see FIG. 20, for example) between when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304A and when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304B.” (Tsuji, [0225]).
Regarding Claim 7:
A work machine, comprising:
the work machine control system according to claim 1;
Tsuji discloses “the controller 30 may output a control command, which corresponds to the operation details of the operating device 26, the details of a remote operation specified in a remote operation signal, the details of an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function, or the like, to an electric actuator, a driver that drives the electric actuator, or the like.” ([0060]).and the machine body.
Tsuji discloses “the controller 30 may output a control command, which corresponds to the operation details of the operating device 26, the details of a remote operation specified in a remote operation signal, the details of an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function, or the like, to an electric actuator, a driver that drives the electric actuator, or the like.” ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 8:
A work machine control method comprising:
acquiring a detection result of an object around a machine body of a work machine provided with an actuator actuated in response to an operation of an operation unit; and
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).apart from a gate lock lever capable of switching between an unlocked state capable of operating the work machine and a locked state incapable of operating the work machine, putting the operation unit in the enabled state, in a standby state of the work machine, when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets a given condition,.
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]), “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061]), “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).
Regarding Claim 9:
A work machine control program for causing one or more processors to execute the work machine control method according to claim 8.
Tsuji discloses “Functions of the control device 210 may be implemented by any hardware, a combination of hardware and software, or the like. For example, the control device 210 may be configured mainly by a computer including a central processing unit (CPU), a memory device such as a random-access memory (RAM), an auxiliary storage device such as a read-only memory (ROM), and input and output interfaces for external devices.” (Tsuji, [0071]).
Regarding Claim 10:
A work machine control system comprising:
an acquisition processing unit that acquires a detection result of an object around a machine body of a work machine provided with an actuator actuated in response to an operation of an operation unit; and
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).
a state switch processing unit that, apart from a gate lock lever capable of switching between an unlocked state capable of operating the work machine and a locked state incapable of operating the work machine, is capable of switching between an enabled state and disabled state of the operation unit, wherein
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]) and “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061]).the state switch processing unit, in an action state of the work machine, when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets a given condition, puts the operation unit in the disabled state.
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]), “the safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area” (Tsuji, [0150]), and “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061].
Regarding Claim 14:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 10, wherein
the given condition includes the object being present in a monitoring area around the work machine.
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 15:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
an alarm processing unit that presents information on the detection result, when at least the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets the given condition.
Tsuji discloses “Further, for example, for the notification function, the safety function control part 305 may change the manner of displaying an image on the display device 50 or the like (see FIG. 20, for example) between when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304A and when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304B.” (Tsuji, [0225]).
Regarding Claim 16:
A work machine, comprising:
the work machine control system according to claim 10; and
Tsuji discloses “the controller 30 may output a control command, which corresponds to the operation details of the operating device 26, the details of a remote operation specified in a remote operation signal, the details of an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function, or the like, to an electric actuator, a driver that drives the electric actuator, or the like.” ([0060]).
the machine body.
Tsuji discloses “the controller 30 may output a control command, which corresponds to the operation details of the operating device 26, the details of a remote operation specified in a remote operation signal, the details of an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function, or the like, to an electric actuator, a driver that drives the electric actuator, or the like.” ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 17:
A work machine control method comprising:
acquiring a detection result of an object around a machine body of a work machine provided with an actuator actuated in response to an operation of an operation unit; and
Tsuji discloses “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).
apart from a gate lock lever capable of switching between an unlocked state capable of operating the work machine and a locked state incapable of operating the work machine, putting the operation unit in the disabled state, in an action state of the work machine, when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets a given condition.
Tsuji discloses “the safety function control part 305 may be configured to activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state. When the gate lock lever is in an unlocked state, the shovel 100 is likely to be operated in accordance with the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function. Conversely, the safety function control part 305 may be configured to not activate the external notification function when the gate lock lever is in a locked state. When the gate lock lever is in a locked state, the operator's operation or an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function is disabled, and thus, the shovel 100 is not operated” (Tsuji, [0244]), “when a gate lock lever of the cabin 10 is pulled up (a “locked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are disabled, and thus, the operation of the shovel 100 is disabled. Conversely, when the gate lock lever is pushed down (“an unlocked state”), an operation with respect to the operating device 26, a remote operation, and an operation command corresponding to the automatic operation function are enabled” (Tsuji, [0061]), “The surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 monitors the entry of a predetermined object (hereinafter referred to as a “monitoring target”) into a predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100. If a monitoring target is detected in the predetermined area surrounding the shovel 100, the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 activates a safety function to ensure the safety in the surroundings of the shovel 100.” (Tsuji, [0085]) and “The safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function to limit the operation of the shovel 100 by controlling the hydraulic control valve 56. In this case, the safety function control part 305 may limit the operations of all of the driven elements” (Tsuji, [0151]).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi Tsuji, et. al. (US 20220042283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, in view of Nee, et. al. (US 20160130788 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nee.
Regarding Claim 2:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a determination processing unit that determines the standby state and an action state of the work machine, based on an operation state of the operation unit operated by a user.
Nee discloses “[0033] The controller 42 may monitor operator inputs, such as, in module 62 and module 64. Operator inputs may comprise input from the operator into the operator controls of the operator interface 32… More specifically, the controller 42 may determine operator inactivity. For example, based on the signals sent from the associated sensors, the controller 42 may determine when the first brake pedal 48, the second brake pedal 50, the parking brake control 52, and the load brake control 56 are not being used by the operator.” (Nee, [0033 – 0035]).
The “controller 42” taught by Nee is synonymous with the “determination processing unit” disclosed by the applicant. Just like the “determination processing unit” (applicant), the “controller 42” (Nee) is capable of determining the current “action state” of the machine, and can determine “operator inactivity”, based on the “operation state of the operation unit operated by the user”.
Regarding Claim 11:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 10, wherein
the state switch processing unit puts the operation unit in the enabled state, in a standby state of the work machine, when the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets the given condition,.
Nee discloses “[0033] The controller 42 may monitor operator inputs, such as, in module 62 and module 64. Operator inputs may comprise input from the operator into the operator controls of the operator interface 32… More specifically, the controller 42 may determine operator inactivity. For example, based on the signals sent from the associated sensors, the controller 42 may determine when the first brake pedal 48, the second brake pedal 50, the parking brake control 52, and the load brake control 56 are not being used by the operator.” (Nee, [0033 – 0035]).
The “controller 42” taught by Nee is synonymous with the “determination processing unit” disclosed by the applicant. Just like the “determination processing unit” (applicant), the “controller 42” (Nee) is capable of determining the current “action state” of the machine, and can determine “operator inactivity”, based on the “operation state of the operation unit operated by the user”.
Regarding Claim 12:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
a determination processing unit that determines a standby state and the action state of the work machine, based on an operation state of the operation unit operated by a user.
Nee discloses “[0033] The controller 42 may monitor operator inputs, such as, in module 62 and module 64. Operator inputs may comprise input from the operator into the operator controls of the operator interface 32… More specifically, the controller 42 may determine operator inactivity. For example, based on the signals sent from the associated sensors, the controller 42 may determine when the first brake pedal 48, the second brake pedal 50, the parking brake control 52, and the load brake control 56 are not being used by the operator.” (Nee, [0033 – 0035]).
The “controller 42” taught by Nee is synonymous with the “determination processing unit” disclosed by the applicant. Just like the “determination processing unit” (applicant), the “controller 42” (Nee) is capable of determining the current “action state” of the machine, and can determine “operator inactivity”, based on the “operation state of the operation unit operated by the user”.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi Tsuji, et. al. (US 20220042283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, in view of Agarwal, et. al. (US 20200393838 A1), hereinafter referred to as Agarwal.
Regarding Claim 3:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a deceleration processing unit that, when the work machine is in the standby state, controls a speed of an engine of the work machine to be lower than a given value, and, when the work machine is in an action state, controls the speed of the engine to be higher than the given value.
Agarwal discloses “The present disclosure provides an industrial truck to automatically sense obstacles in real-time using algorithmic structures operating on a truck controller processor as disclosed herein, and to automatically limit the speed of the vehicle, such as by applying braking mechanisms to prevent accidents” (Agarwal, [0018]) and “Proximity sensor 206 can include one or more camera, LIDAR unit, safety scanner or other suitable devices that can be used to sense the presence of obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle. The field of view of the proximity sensor can divided into three proximity zones, or other suitable numbers of zone. In this example embodiment, a Warning Zone 1 can be the first zone that is used to generate an alert as a vehicle approaches an object. Once an object enters this zone, the driver assistance system can automatically apply a gentle brake by pulsing the brake (rapid on/off control) and limit the top speed of the vehicle.” (Agarwal, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuji teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to teach a state during which a speed is lower or higher than a given value. However, Agarwal teaches a controller that automatically limits the speed of a vehicle in the presence of an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 1 taught by Tsuji with the system of Agarwal because the system taught by Agarwal is a machine that navigates through an environment full of obstacles. It would therefore have been obvious to combine the tools and systems taught by Tsuji to the system taught by Agarwal, to control braking in a system.
Regarding Claim 13:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
a deceleration processing unit that, when the work machine is in a standby state, controls a speed of an engine of the work machine to be lower than a given value, and, when the work machine is in the action state, controls the speed of the engine to be higher than the given value.
Agarwal discloses “The present disclosure provides an industrial truck to automatically sense obstacles in real-time using algorithmic structures operating on a truck controller processor as disclosed herein, and to automatically limit the speed of the vehicle, such as by applying braking mechanisms to prevent accidents” (Agarwal, [0018]) and “Proximity sensor 206 can include one or more camera, LIDAR unit, safety scanner or other suitable devices that can be used to sense the presence of obstacles in the vicinity of a vehicle. The field of view of the proximity sensor can divided into three proximity zones, or other suitable numbers of zone. In this example embodiment, a Warning Zone 1 can be the first zone that is used to generate an alert as a vehicle approaches an object. Once an object enters this zone, the driver assistance system can automatically apply a gentle brake by pulsing the brake (rapid on/off control) and limit the top speed of the vehicle.” (Agarwal, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 13, Green teaches the system of Claim 10, but fails to teach a state during which a speed is lower or higher than a given value. However, Agarwal teaches a controller that automatically limits the speed of a vehicle in the presence of an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 10 taught by Green with the system of Agarwal because the system taught by Agarwal is a machine that navigates through an environment full of obstacles. It would therefore have been obvious to combine the tools and systems taught by Green to the system taught by Agarwal, to control braking in a system.
Claim 4 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi Tsuji, et. al. (US 20220042283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, in view of Nee, et. al. (US 20160130788 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nee, and in view of Agarwal, et. al. (US 20200393838 A1), hereinafter referred to as Agarwal.
Regarding Claim 4:
The work machine control system as claimed in claim 3, wherein
the state switch processing unit puts the operation unit in the disabled state, when, after the speed of the engine being higher than the given value, the gate lock lever is in the unlocked state and the detection result meets the given condition.
Nee discloses “If the speed 70 is greater than the speed threshold, and the throttle signal 72 or the brake signal 74 is high, then the controller 42 may determine that the machine 20 is active or in a working state. For example, a machine working parameter may be set to high. If the speed 70 is lower than the speed threshold, then the controller 42 may determine that the machine 20 is in an inactive state. In this case, the machine working parameter may be set to low.” (Nee, 0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Watts, et. al. (US 9746852 B1)
Watts discloses a robot that uses laser scanners to scan an area in front of the robot however, does not teach a specific method for controlling speed, or setting different states, and was therefore not used as prior art.
Siegel, et. al. (US 11263579 B1)
Siegel discloses a method for controlling a network of autonomous vehicles with safety areas and scanners, however does not teach a specific method for controlling speed, or setting different states, and was therefore not used as prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656