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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “and operating in a non-line-of-sight control mode using.” The sentence ends in “using”, which is confusing. The examiner is interpreting/recommending rephrasing into “while operating in a non-line-of-sight control mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US20230383500A1 in view of Nakamoto (US20230095687A1) and Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches;
A control system for a machine, comprising:
a machine body (taught as an excavator, element 1);
a linkage assembly (taught as a link component, element 21);
an implement coupled to the machine body via the linkage assembly (taught as a bucket, element 12);
an operation console remote from the machine (taught as a portable terminal, element 29; portability indicates remote); and
a controller in communication with the operation console (suggested as a portable terminal, element 29, which communicates with eh excavator, paragraph 0036), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive one or more signals from the operation console in order to operate the machine in a remote control mode (taught as the operator setting points in accordance with an instruction of the portable terminal, paragraph 0043) and define:
a dig region of the machine, wherein defining the dig region includes: (1) positioning the machine body, the linkage assembly, and the implement of the machine such that the implement contacts two or more dig points on a work site (taught as an operator setting points A and C to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043), wherein the two or more dig points include a first dig point at a left side of a far end of the dig region relative to the machine body and a second dig point at a right side of a near end of the dig region relative to the machine body, such that the first dig point and the second dig point are on opposite corners of the dig region (taught as defining points A and C, shown in Fig 2 to be opposite corners of a rectangular region), and (2) storing those two or more dig points relative to the work site (taught as, after the coordinates of all the points A-D are determined, storing the working area, paragraph 0045), wherein the dig region is an [[arced]] area extrapolated from the two or more dig points [[and spanned by a plurality of dig paths, wherein the dig region is arced between a left edge of the dig region and a right edge of the dig region]] (taught as extrapolating corner points B and D based on the defined points A and C, paragraph 0045; while not explicitly an arced area, Fig 2 shows the arced region based on the lifting/positioning of the bucket arm, P1-P4); and
a dump region of the machine (taught as a discharge area, defined as a position at P2, paragraph 0057), and
operate the machine in the autonomous mode to dig material from the dig region and dump the material to the dump region (taught as performing automatic driving control of the excavator, paragraph 0071).
However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein the dig region is an arced area extrapolated from the two or more dig points and spanned by a plurality of dig paths, wherein the dig region is arced between a left edge of the dig region and a right edge of the dig region (shown in defining a working area, based on a swing angle, fig 5, paragraph 0042, and further suggesting multiple swing angles [second swing angle], paragraph 0043),
wherein defining the dump region includes: (1) positioning the machine body, the linkage assembly, and the implement of the machine such that the implement is positioned at or above two or more second dump points on a work site, wherein the two or more dump points include at least a first dump point at or above a front portion of a bed of a haul truck and a second dump point at or above a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, and (2) storing those two or more second dump points relative to the work site, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dig region and the dump region are different shapes;
receive one or more signals from the operation console to enter the machine into an autonomous mode [emphasis added].
Nakamoto teaches; wherein the dig region is an arced area extrapolated from the two or more dig points (indicated in the swing angle being represented by an arc, paragraph 0041) and spanned by a plurality of dig paths, wherein the dig region is arced between a left edge of the dig region and a right edge of the dig region
wherein defining the dump region includes: (1) positioning the machine body, the linkage assembly, and the implement of the machine such that the implement is positioned at or above two or more second dump points on a work site (taught as, once the working implement is at the position, the operator selecting the position as a border to set the dump/discharge border for the area, and delineating sections of the circular area surrounding the machine as the working area and the dumping area, paragraph 0046), , and (2) storing those two or more second dump points relative to the work site (indicated in showing the current setting for the dump or discharging border distance, paragraph 0045).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define dump regions as taught by Nakamoto in the system taught by Noda in order to save specific instructions/positions for a dump region. As indicated by Nakamoto, such a system allows the defined boundaries and positions to control signals and movement of the working machine responsive to the operator input (paragraph 0033). As Noda already deals with similar operations in defining a dig region, it would further be obvious to similarly define a dump region.
However, Nakamoto does not explicitly teach; wherein the two or more dump points include at least a first dump point at or above a front portion of a bed of a haul truck and a second dump point at or above a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dig region and the dump region are different shapes,
Yamamoto teaches; wherein the two or more dump points include at least a first dump point at or above a front portion of a bed of a haul truck and a second dump point at or above a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dig region and the dump region are different shapes, (taught as defining a line in the haul truck as a dumping area, using a plurality of dumping points along the length of dump truck bed, shown in Fig 6, section 3.3; such defining of points effectively creates the two or more dump points defined, spanning linearly across the midline of the truck bed, and is defined differently than the suggested excavation in Fig 4, indicating different shapes),
receive one or more signals from the operation console to enter the machine into an autonomous mode (suggested in that the implementation includes autonomous control, from a personal computer in a remote operating room and be remotely operated and monitored, section 2.3; and in a test operating scenario, the hydraulic excavator being switched over to an automatic mode, step d, section 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further define the dump region as taught by Yamamoto in the system taught by Noda and modified by Nakamoto in order to improve the dumping operation. As suggested by Yamamoto, such a system helps reliably prevent contact between the bucket and the dump bed (section 3.3).
Regarding claim 2, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller is configured to monitor the autonomous digging and dumping for one or more notification conditions, and to provide one or more notifications to the operation console.
Nakamoto teaches; wherein the controller is configured to monitor the autonomous digging and dumping for one or more notification conditions, and to provide one or more notifications to the operation console (taught as outputting audible information, such as alerts, too the operator of the working machine, such as an alert of the haul truck being full, paragraph 0031, controls executing the methods such as from a remote computer, paragraph 0070).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor conditions during operation as taught by Nakamoto in the system taught by Noda in order to improve warning systems. As taught by Nakamoto, such alerts provide operators with additional information pertinent to operation, such as a haul truck being full (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) wherein the controller is configured to receive signals indicative of a position of the implement at a first edge position and a second edge position for the dig region (taught as extrapolating corner points B and D based on the defined points A and C, and stored to set the working area, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Noda further teaches; wherein the first edge position and the second edge position for the dig region are opposite corners of the dig region adjacent to the machine at the work site (taught as defining points A and C, which are shown to be opposite corners, paragraph 0046, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Noda teaches;
A digging system, comprising;
A digging machine (taught as an excavator, element 1), including an undercarriage (taught as a lower running body, element 2), a machine body rotatable relative to the undercarriage (taught as an upper turning body, element 3, rotatably attached to the lower running body, paragraph 0024), a linkage assembly (taught as a link component, element 21), a bucket movable coupled to the machine body via the linkage assembly (taught as a bucket, element 12), one or more cameras or sensors (taught as three dimensional measurement device, such as camera, LIDAR etc. paragraph 0035), and a controller (taught as a controller, element 8); and
an operator station that is remote from the digging machine, wherein the operator station is in communication with the one or more cameras or sensors and the controller (taught as a portable terminal, element 29, paragraph 0036),
wherein the controller is configured to, in a remote operation mode, receive signals from the operator station to define a dig region and a dump region (taught as using an operator setting points in a working area, paragraph 0043, interacting with a portable terminal, paragraph 0044), via a non-line-of-sight control using the one or more cameras or sensors,
wherein defining the dig region includes positioning a portion of the bucket at a first edge corner of the dig region, wherein the first edge corner is far left edge corner of the dig region, storing into a memory a bucket position at the first edge corner of the dig region, positioning the portion of the bucket at a second edge corner of the dig region, wherein the second edge corner is a near right edge corner opposite the first edge corner (taught as an operator setting points A and C to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043, shown to be opposite corners in Fig 2), and storing into the memory a bucket position at the second edge corner of the dig region(taught as an operator setting points A and C to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043), wherein the dig region is extrapolated from the bucket position at the first edge corner and the bucket position at the second edge corner, the dig region being an area spanned by a plurality of dig paths and arced between a far left edge corner and the near right edge corner (taught as an operator setting points A and C to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043), and
wherein defining the dump region includes positioning the machine body and the linkage assembly such that the portion of the bucket is positioned at or above a first end of the dump region (taught as the operator teaching a path, paragraph 0056, which includes the positions wherein soil is discharged, paragraph 0057), and
wherein the controller is further configured to, in an autonomous operation mode, control the machine body, the linkage assembly, and the bucket to dig material from the dig region and to dump region to the dump region (taught as automatic driving control based on the set points, paragraph 0075).
However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller is configured to, in a remote operation mode, receive signals from the operator station to define a dig region and a dump region, via a non-line-of-sight control using the one or more cameras or sensors,
wherein the first end of the dump region is a front potion of a bed of a haul truck, storing a bucket position at the first end of the dump region, positioning the machine body and the linkage assembly such that the portion of the bucket is positioned at or above a second end of the dump region, wherein the second end of the dump region is a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, and storing a bucket position at the second end of the dump region, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dump region is a different shape than the dig region.
Nakamoto teaches;, storing a bucket position at the first end of the dump region, positioning the machine body and the linkage assembly such that the portion of the bucket is positioned at or above a second end of the dump region, and storing a bucket position at the second end of the dump region (taught as, once the working implement is at the position, the operator selecting the position as a border to set the dump/discharge border for the area, and delineating sections of the circular area surrounding the machine as the working area and the dumping area, paragraph 0046).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define dump regions as taught by Nakamoto in the system taught by Noda in order to save specific instructions/positions for a dump region. As indicated by Nakamoto, such a system allows the defined boundaries and positions to control signals and movement of the working machine responsive to the operator input (paragraph 0033). As Noda already deals with similar operations in defining a dig region, it would further be obvious to similarly define a dump region.
However, Nakamoto does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller is configured to, in a remote operation mode, receive signals from the operator station to define a dig region and a dump region, via a non-line-of-sight control using the one or more cameras or sensors,
wherein the first end of the dump region is a front potion of a bed of a haul truck, wherein the second end of the dump region is a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dump region is a different shape than the dig region.
Yamamoto teaches; wherein the controller is configured to, in a remote operation mode, receive signals from the operator station to define a dig region and a dump region, via a non-line-of-sight control using the one or more cameras or sensors (suggested in that the implementation includes autonomous control, from a personal computer in a remote operating room and be remotely operated and monitored, section 2.3; and in a test operating scenario, the hydraulic excavator being switched over to an automatic mode, step d, section 3),
wherein the first end of the dump region is a front potion of a bed of a haul truck, wherein the second end of the dump region is a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck, wherein the dump region extends linearly from the front portion of the bed of the haul truck to the rear portion of the bed of the haul truck along a midline of the bed of the haul truck, such that the dump region is a different shape than the dig region (taught as defining a line in the haul truck as a dumping area, using a plurality of dumping points along the length of dump truck bed, shown in Fig 6, section 3.3; such defining of points effectively creates the two or more dump points defined, spanning linearly across the midline of the truck bed, and is defined differently than the suggested excavation in Fig 4, indicating different shapes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further define the dump region as taught by Yamamoto in the system taught by Noda and modified by Nakamoto in order to improve the dumping operation. As suggested by Yamamoto, such a system helps reliably prevent contact between the bucket and the dump bed (section 3.3).
Regarding claim 20, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The system of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; further comprising one or more haul trucks.
Nakamoto teaches; further comprising one or more haul trucks (taught as one or more haul trucks, paragraph 0027).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more haul trucks as taught by Nakamoto int eh system taught by Noda in order to transport material. A haul truck, unlike a pile, can further transport material to other locations. Additionally, the use of a haul truck, with sensors, can even be used to detect proper dumping [such as whether material has been received or not], as taught by Nakamoto (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 23, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more signals from the operation console in order to operate the machine in the remote control mode to define the dig region and the dump region via one or more cameras and operating in a non-line-of-sight control mode using.
Yamamoto teaches; wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more signals from the operation console in order to operate the machine in the remote control mode to define the dig region and the dump region via one or more cameras and operating in a non-line-of-sight control mode using (shown in Fig 6, where point 1 is at a front end of the haul truck, and using remote operating room, using on-board camera images and CG images to perform a test operating scenario to define a worksite including an excavation location and a dump location, section 3, steps a-c; the use of generated images and a separate operation room indicates non-line-of-sight).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use remote control as taught by Yamamoto int eh system taught by Noda and Nakamoto in order to improve usability. As suggested by Yamamoto, the use of remote control enhances safety, such as a disaster restoration work sites (section 1), since such usage does not require an operator to be in range of the motion of a work machine.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US20230383500A1 as modified by Nakamoto (US20230095687A1) and Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009), and further in view of Koch (US20110153117A1).
Regarding claim 3, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein, when the controller detects one or more notification conditions during the autonomous digging and dumping, the controller is configured to end the autonomous digging and dumping.
Koch teaches; wherein, when the controller detects one or more notification conditions during the autonomous digging and dumping, the controller is configured to end the autonomous digging and dumping (taught as detecting abnormal operating conditions, and in such situations, automatically shut-down or disable the autonomous machine, paragraph 0023).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a failsafe end autonomous mode as taught by Koch in the system taught by Noda in order to improve safety of operation. Obviously, continuing in a malfunctioning capacity can cause injury, improper behavior etc. which needs to be addressed. By providing an automatic shutdown, one allows a service technician or operator to inspect and repair the issue, as taught by Koch (paragraph 0023), before it becomes a further problem.
Regarding claim 7, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller is configured to estimate an amount of material being dug during the operation in the autonomous mode.
Koch teaches; wherein the controller is configured to estimate an amount of material being dug during the operation in the autonomous mode (taught as productivity software determining amount of material moved by a particular machine, paragraph 0054).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate an amount of material moved as taught by Koch in the system taught by Noda in order to improve tracking. Such tracking can enable determinations of productivity levels, associated with particular machines, quotas etc., as taught by Koch (paragraph 0054), and thus can be used for future analysis to enhance further productivity.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US20230383500A1) as modified by Nakamoto (US20230095687A1), Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009), and Koch (US20110153117A1), and further in view of Ready (US20210148086A1) as evidenced by SANY (SANYamerica, 2019).
Regarding claim 8, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, and Koch teaches;
The control system of claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection), Noda further teaches; wherein the implement is a bucket (taught as a bucket, element 12).
However, Noda does not explicitly teach; and wherein when the dump region is full during operation of the machine in the autonomous mode, the controller signals the bucket to be positioned in a lowered position and suspends movement of the bucket.
Nakamoto teaches; wherein when the dump region is full during operation of the machine in the autonomous mode (taught as detecting when a haul truck is full, paragraph 0034),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect that the haul truck is full as taught by Nakamoto in the system taught by Noda in order to improve operations. As suggested by Nakamoto, such a feature enables improved communication, including alerts to an operator of the current state of the haul truck (paragraph 0031, and 0034).
However, Nakamoto does not explicitly teach; the controller signals the bucket to be positioned in a lowered position and suspends movement of the bucket.
Ready teaches; the controller signals the bucket to be positioned in a lowered position and suspends movement of the bucket (taught as halting the transfer of earth when the loading location is at maximum capacity, paragraph 0178).
While Ready does not explicitly teach “the controller signals the bucket to be positioned in a lowered position“, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a safety concern. For example, SANY suggests keeping the bucket low when possible keeps it easier to see and maintain a lower center of gravity, which greatly improves stability.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to halt operations based on the fill amount of the dump region as taught by Ready in the system taught by Noda and modified by Nakamoto in order to prevent overfilling.
Claim(s) 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US20230383500A1) as modified by Nakamoto (US20230095687A1) and Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009), and further in view of Rocke (US5446980).
Regarding claim 21, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The system of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein, when operating in the autonomous digging and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the bucket, and to determine a bucket position for each of a number of dumps such that consecutive dumps are spaced along a length of the dump region, and
Wherein when operating in the autonomous diffing and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to monitor the machine for one or more notification conditions.
Nakamoto teaches; Wherein when operating in the autonomous diffing and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to monitor the machine for one or more notification conditions (taught as outputting audible information, such as alerts, too the operator of the working machine, such as an alert of the haul truck being full, paragraph 0031, controls executing the methods such as from a remote computer, paragraph 0070).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor conditions during operation as taught by Nakamoto in the system taught by Noda in order to improve warning systems. As taught by Nakamoto, such alerts provide operators with additional information pertinent to operation, such as a haul truck being full (paragraph 0031).
However, Nakamoto does not explicitly teach; wherein, when operating in the autonomous digging and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the bucket, and to determine a bucket position for each of a number of dumps such that consecutive dumps are spaced along a length of the dump region.
Yamamoto teaches; determine a bucket position for each of a number of dumps such that consecutive dumps are spaced along a length of the dump region (taught as defining a line in the haul truck as a dumping area, using a plurality of dumping points along the length of dump truck bed, shown in Fig 6, section 3.3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further define the dump region as taught by Yamamoto in the system taught by Noda and modified by Nakamoto in order to improve the dumping operation. As suggested by Yamamoto, such a system helps reliably prevent contact between the bucket and the dump bed (section 3.3).
However, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach; wherein, when operating in the autonomous digging and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the bucket.
Rocke teaches; wherein, when operating in the autonomous digging and dumping mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the bucket (taught as an operator setting values for a dig span, sump span, and the control maps the dig span and dump span into dig and dump paths, column 9 lines 40-51).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set dig and dump paths as taught by Rocke in the system taught by Noda in order to better define action mapping. As taught by Rocke, such a system allows the machine, upon completion of one path, to immediately increment the dig location to begin digging at the next path (column 9 lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 24, Noda as modified by Nakamoto and Yamamoto teaches;
The control system of claim 23 (see claim 23 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein, when operating in the autonomous mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the implement, and to determine an implement position for each of a number of dumps such that consecutive dumps are spaced along a length of the dump region.
Yamamoto teaches; determine an implement position for each of a number of dumps such that consecutive dumps are spaced along a length of the dump region (taught as defining a line in the haul truck as a dumping area, using a plurality of dumping points along the length of dump truck bed, shown in Fig 6, section 3.3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further define the dump region as taught by Yamamoto in the system taught by Noda and modified by Nakamoto in order to improve the dumping operation. As suggested by Yamamoto, such a system helps reliably prevent contact between the bucket and the dump bed (section 3.3).
Rocke teaches; wherein, when operating in the autonomous mode, the controller is further configured to interpolate the dig region into a plurality of dig paths that span the dig region, wherein a number of the plurality of dig paths is based on a dig width of the dig region divided by a width of the implement (taught as an operator setting values for a dig span, sump span, and the control maps the dig span and dump span into dig and dump paths, column 9 lines 40-51).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set dig and dump paths as taught by Rocke in the system taught by Noda in order to better define action mapping. As taught by Rocke, such a system allows the machine, upon completion of one path, to immediately increment the dig location to begin digging at the next path (column 9 lines 61-65).
Claim(s) 9-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US20230383500A1) as modified by Nakamoto (US20230095687A1), Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009) and Rocke (US5446980), and further in view of Koch (US20110153117A1).
Regarding claim 9, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 3 and 24. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as the combination of claims 3 and 24.
Regarding claim 10, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, Koch, and Rocke teaches;
The method of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Noda further teaches; wherein, storing into the memory the implement position at the first edge corner of the dig region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at the first edge corner of the dig region (taught as an operator setting points A to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043, and storing the coordinates as a working area, paragraph 0046), and
wherein storing into the memory the implement position at the second edge corner of the dig region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at the second edge corner of the dig region (taught as an operator setting points C to specify the border between the working area and outside the area, paragraph 0043, and storing the coordinates as a working area, paragraph 0046.
However, Noda does not explicitly teach; via non-line-of-sight remote control.
Yamamoto teaches; via non-line-of-sight remote control (taught as using remote operating room, using on-board camera images and CG images to perform a test operating scenario to define a worksite including an excavation location and a dump location, section 3, steps a-c; the use of generated images and a separate operation room indicates non-line-of-sight)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use remote control as taught by Yamamoto int eh system taught by Noda and Nakamoto in order to improve usability. As suggested by Yamamoto, the use of remote control enhances safety, such as a disaster restoration work sites (section 1), since such usage does not require an operator to be in range of the motion of a work machine.
Regarding claim 11, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, Koch, and Rocke teaches;
The method of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein, storing into the memory the implement position at the first end of the dump region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at the front portion of the bed of the haul truck via the non-line-of-sight remote control for the first end of the dump region, wherein storing into the memory the implement position at the second end of the dump region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck via the no-line-of-sight remote control for the second end of the dump region.
Yamamoto teaches; wherein, storing into the memory the implement position at the first end of the dump region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at the front portion of the bed of the haul truck via the non-line-of-sight remote control for the first end of the dump region (shown in Fig 6, where point 1 is at a front end of the haul truck, and using remote operating room, using on-board camera images and CG images to perform a test operating scenario to define a worksite including an excavation location and a dump location, section 3, steps a-c; the use of generated images and a separate operation room indicates non-line-of-sight), wherein storing into the memory the implement position at the second end of the dump region includes receiving one or more user inputs when the implement is positioned at a rear portion of the bed of the haul truck via the no-line-of-sight remote control for the second end of the dump region (shown in Fig 6, where point … [the last point] at the second/back end of the haul truck, using remote operating room, using on-board camera images and CG images to perform a test operating scenario to define a worksite including an excavation location and a dump location, section 3, steps a-c; the use of generated images and a separate operation room indicates non-line-of-sight).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use remote control as taught by Yamamoto int eh system taught by Noda and Nakamoto in order to improve usability. As suggested by Yamamoto, the use of remote control enhances safety, such as a disaster restoration work sites (section 1), since such usage does not require an operator to be in range of the motion of a work machine.
Regarding claim 12, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, Koch, and Rocke teaches;
The method of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; further comprising an initial step of positioning the machine to a dig site under the remote control mode using one or more cameras on the machine.
Yamamoto teaches; further comprising an initial step of positioning the machine to a dig site under the remote control mode using one or more cameras on the machine (taught as using remote operating room, using on-board camera images and CG images to perform a test operating scenario to define a worksite including an excavation location and a dump location, section 3, steps a-c; the use of generated images and a separate operation room indicates non-line-of-sight).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use remote control as taught by Yamamoto int eh system taught by Noda and Nakamoto in order to improve usability. As suggested by Yamamoto, the use of remote control enhances safety, such as a disaster restoration work sites (section 1), since such usage does not require an operator to be in range of the motion of a work machine.
Regarding claim 13, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, Koch, and Rocke teaches;
The method of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Noda further teaches; further comprising an initial step of positioning the machine to a dig site under the remote control mode using a remote console in a line-of-site control (taught as an area setting unit, wherein the operator defines/operates the attachment to specify points A and C, such as by using a portable terminal, paragraphs 0043-0044; while not explicitly in line of sight, a portable terminal is certainly capable of allowing the operator to be in line of sight of the excavator).
Regarding claim 14, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, Koch, and Rocke teaches;
The method of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Noda further teaches; wherein the implement is a bucket (taught as a bucket, element 12), and wherein the bucket is coupled to the machine body of the machine by a linkage assembly (shown in Fig 1, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 22, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto and Rocke teaches;
The system of claim 21 (see claim 21 rejection). However, Noda does not explicitly teach; wherein, when one or more notification conditions are detected, the controller ends the autonomous digging and dumping mode and returns to the remote control mode.
Koch teaches; when one or more notification conditions are detected, the controller ends the autonomous digging and dumping mode and returns to the remote control mode (taught as detecting abnormal operating conditions, and in such situations, automatically shut-down or disable the autonomous machine, paragraph 0023).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a failsafe end autonomous mode as taught by Koch in the system taught by Noda in order to improve safety of operation. Obviously, continuing in a malfunctioning capacity can cause injury, improper behavior etc. which needs to be addressed. By providing an automatic shutdown, one allows a service technician or operator to inspect and repair the issue, as taught by Koch (paragraph 0023), before it becomes a further problem.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US20230383500A1) as modified by Nakamoto (US20230095687A1), Yamamoto (Development of Autonomous Excavation Technology for Hydraulic Excavators, 2009) Rocke (US5446980), and Koch (US20110153117A1), and further in view of Ready (US20210148086A1) as evidenced by SANY (SANYamerica, 2019).
Regarding claim 15, Noda as modified by Nakamoto, Yamamoto, and Koch teaches;
The method of claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection), wherein the method further comprises estimating an amount of material being dug during the operation in the autonomous digging and dumping mode, and, when loads from the bucket are approaching an end of the dump region, suspending autonomous digging and dumping to replace the haul truck with a new haul truck, wherein suspending autonomous digging and dumping includes positioning the bucket in a lowered position.
Koch teaches; wherein the method further comprises estimating an amount of material being dug during the operation in the autonomous digging and dumping mode (taught as productivity software determining amount of material moved by a particular machine, paragraph 0054).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate an amount of material moved as taught by Koch in the system taught by Noda in order to improve tracking. Such tracking can enable determinations of productivity levels, associated with particular machines, quotas etc., as taught by Koch (paragraph 0054), and thus can be used for future analysis to enhance further productivity.
However, Koch does not explicitly teach; and wherein the method further comprises, when loads from the bucket are approaching an end of the dump region, suspending autonomous digging and dumping to replace the haul truck with a new haul truck, wherein suspending autonomous digging and dumping includes positioning the bucket in a lowered position.
Ready teaches; and wherein the method further comprises, when loads from the bucket are approaching an end of the dump region, suspending autonomous digging and dumping to replace the haul truck with a new haul truck (taught as halting the transfer of earth when it detects that the loading location is at maximum capacity, until another hauling vehicle reaches the loading location, paragraph 0178).
While Ready does not explicitly teach “wherein suspending autonomous digging and dumping includes positioning the bucket in a lowered position“, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a safety concern. For example, SANY suggests keeping the bucket low when possible keeps it easier to see and maintain a lower center of gravity, which greatly improves stability.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect capacities of haul trucks as taught by Ready in the system taught by Noda in order to improve efficiency. Such action allows for replacing hauling vehicles when capacity is met, and as suggested by Ready, can further be used to update paths/instructions for relevant vehicles in the site (paragraph 0179).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that, based on the interview conducted 07/29/2026, and the amendments to the claims the rejections should be overcome.
The examiner agrees, based on the amendments to the claims, that the previous rejections are overcome. However, a new rejection in light of Noda and Yamamoto is presented above that rectify the deficiencies of the previous rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further implements for excavators; US6363632B1,
For further calibration and positioning of excavator/work vehicles; US20220412057A1
For further site planning for work sites; US20200103906A1
For further arcing and swing positioning/planning of an implement [using a dredge], US4156317A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights