DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Current Status
The amendment to the title is accepted, and the objection withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are pending. With this Office Action, claim(s) 1-7 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 7/25/25 have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues, in substance, the combination does not disclose the new limitations directed to a “location apart” (REMARKS, p. 5) and “posterior” and “advance direction.”
With respect to this issue, as set forth below, these terms appear to have no special definition found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111-2111.01. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131. Although the cited references are different from that described in the application, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference.
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 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stentz (US 6363632) in view of LaChapelle (US 20180284246).
Regarding claim 1, Stentz discloses a laser scanning method by a laser scanning apparatus which is arranged at a location apart from a construction machine (abst, scanning sensor system such as a laser rangefinder; i.e., a laser rangefinder must be at some distance to work), the method comprising: a first laser scanning performed on a blade of the construction machine by the laser scanning apparatus (left sensor 40 and right sensor 42 are scanning laser rangefinders, clm 4 lines 21-23, the planning and control module 30 commands sensors 40 and 42 to monitor a bucket, clm 7 lines 6-7, at least some portion of the bucket would act as a blade in operation of the excavator); and a second laser scanning performed on an area in which the construction machine has operated, by the laser scanning apparatus (the control module operates the right sensor to scan the dig face 204, clm 7 lines 19-25, this is done while the excavated material is being transferred to a dump truck, therefore this would be scanning an area that the machine has operated in); and the second laser scanning being performed on a range posterior to the construction machine in the advance direction (i.e., the claimed respective directions are not defined by the claim and individual perspective varies, thus this limitation is deemed met).
While Stentz does not specifically disclose the first laser scanning being performed at a frequency higher than a frequency of the second laser scanning, Stentz does disclose an obstacle detector 84 (figure 2) that receives sensor data (clm 10 line 63 and clm 11 lines 12-13) and determines, about every 100 milliseconds, the position of the bucket (clm 11 lines 23-27). To achieve the determination of the location of the bucket at this rate, it would seem that at least during some periods the bucket would be scanned more often than the dig face as there are times when the dig face is not being scanned (clm 7 lines 19-59).
LaChapelle, in the same field of laser scanning around a moving object, teaches a method of operating a LIDAR system wherein one area is scanned at a higher rate than other areas (a region of interest can be retraced without retracing other regions, paragraph [0137]).
One of ordinary skill would have recognized that knowing the location of the bucket as it moves is important for predicting the path of the bucket and determining if there are objects in the proposed path (clm 10 line 53 to clm 11 line 22, Stentz), and that the increased scanning frequency would have had the predictable result of obtaining more accurate data for a region of interest (paragraph [0137, LaChapelle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the scanning frequency, as a result affective variable, of the different areas and arrive at a configuration where the bucket is scanned more often than the area where the machine has operated (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2¸ Stentz and LaChapelle teach all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Stentz also discloses the method wherein the first laser scanning is performed in order to control the blade (the obstacle detector 84 uses the scan data to determine the position of the bucket, clm 11 lines 23-27, this position information is used in determining if there are obstacles in the proposed path of the bucket and for planning a path around the obstacles if they are present, clm 10 lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 3, Stentz and LaChapelle teach all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Stentz also discloses the method wherein the second laser scanning is performed over a scanning range that covers at least a part of the construction machine (during the digging cycle the sensors 40 and 42 monitor a bucket and an adjacent area, clm 7 lines 5-8, when the bucket arrives near the dig face both sensors scan the dig face, clm 7 lines 40-44, this would be a scan of the area that the machine has operated on that also includes at least part of the construction machine (the bucket).
Regarding claim 4, Stentz and LaChapelle teach all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Stentz also discloses wherein operation is shifted from the first laser scanning to the second laser scanning, based on a position of the blade that is identified by the first laser scanning (as the bucket arrives near the dig face the right sensor scans the dig face, clm 7 lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 6, Stentz discloses a laser scanning system (scanning sensor system such as a laser rangefinder) comprising: a laser scanning apparatus which is configured to perform a first laser scanning on a blade of a construction machine (left sensor 40 and right sensor 42 are scanning laser rangefinders, clm 4 lines 21-23, the planning and control module 30 commands sensors 40 and 42 to monitor a bucket, clm 7 lines 6-7, at least some portion of the bucket would act as a blade in operation of the excavator) and to perform a second laser scanning on an area in which the construction machine has operated (the control module operates the right sensor to scan the dig face 204, clm 7 lines 19-25, this is done while the excavated material is being transferred to a dump truck, therefore this would be scanning an area that the machine has operated in), operated, and which is arranged at a location apart from the construction machine (abstr, i.e., a laser rangefinder must be at some distance to work); and a controller (planning and control module 30, including sensor motion planner and obstacle detector, figure 2), wherein the second laser scanning being performed on a range posterior to the construction machine in the advance direction (i.e., the claimed respective directions are not defined by the claim and individual perspective varies, thus this limitation is deemed met).
While Stentz does not specifically disclose the controller configured to cause the first laser scanning to be performed at a frequency higher than a frequency of the second laser scanning, Stentz does disclose an obstacle detector 84, which is part of the planning and control module, (figure 2) that receives sensor data (clm 10 line 63 and clm 11 lines 12-13) and determines, about every 100 milliseconds, the position of the bucket (clm 11 lines 23-27). To achieve the determination of the location of the bucket at this rate, it would seem that at least during some periods the bucket would be scanned more often than the dig face as there are times when the dig face is not being scanned (clm 7 lines 19-59).
LaChapelle, in the same field of laser scanning around a moving object, teaches a LIDAR system wherein one area is scanned at a higher rate than other areas (a region of interest can be retraced without retracing other regions, paragraph [0137]).
One of ordinary skill would have recognized that knowing the location of the bucket as it moves is important for predicting the path of the bucket and determining if there are objects in the proposed path (clm 10 line 53 to clm 11 line 22, Stentz), and that the increased scanning frequency would have had the predictable result of obtaining more accurate data for a region of interest (paragraph [0137, LaChapelle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the scanning frequency, as a result affective variable, of the different areas and arrive at a configuration where the bucket is scanned more often than the area where the machine has operated (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 7, Stentz discloses a non-transitory computer recording medium storing computer executable instructions for performing laser scanning, the computer executable instructions being made to, when read and executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to (the planning and control module may be implemented in computer software, firmware, or hardware, clm 13 lines 8-11): make a laser scanning apparatus perform a first laser scanning on a blade of a construction machine (left sensor 40 and right sensor 42 are scanning laser rangefinders, clm 4 lines 21-23, the planning and control module 30 commands sensors 40 and 42 to monitor a bucket, clm 7 lines 6-7, at least some portion of the bucket would act as a blade in operation of the excavator); and make the laser scanning apparatus which is arranged at a location apart from a construction machine (abstr, i.e., a laser rangefinder must be at some distance to work) perform a second laser scanning on an area in which the construction machine has operated (the control module operates the right sensor to scan the dig face 204, clm 7 lines 19-25, this is done while the excavated material is being transferred to a dump truck, therefore this would be scanning an area that the machine has operated in), and the first laser scanning being performed on a range posterior to the construction machine in the advance direction (i.e., the claimed respective directions are not defined by the claim and individual perspective varies, thus this limitation is deemed met).
While Stentz does not specifically disclose the first laser scanning being performed at a frequency higher than a frequency of the second laser scanning, Stentz does disclose an obstacle detector 84, which is part of the planning and control module, (figure 2) that receives sensor data (clm 10 line 63 and clm 11 lines 12-13) and determines, about every 100 milliseconds, the position of the bucket (clm 11 lines 23-27). To achieve the determination of the location of the bucket at this rate, it would seem that at least during some periods the bucket would be scanned more often than the dig face as there are times when the dig face is not being scanned (clm 7 lines 19-59).
LaChapelle, in the same field of laser scanning around a moving object, teaches a LIDAR system wherein one area is scanned at a higher rate than other areas (a region of interest can be retraced without retracing other regions, paragraph [0137]).
One of ordinary skill would have recognized that knowing the location of the bucket as it moves is important for predicting the path of the bucket and determining if there are objects in the proposed path (clm 10 line 53 to clm 11 line 22, Stentz), and that the increased scanning frequency would have had the predictable result of obtaining more accurate data for a region of interest (paragraph [0137, LaChapelle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the scanning frequency, as a result affective variable, of the different areas and arrive at a configuration where the bucket is scanned more often than the area where the machine has operated (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stentz (US 6363632) in view of LaChapelle (US 20180284246) in further view of Nau (US 20160076228).
Regarding claim 5, Stentz and LaChapelle teach all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
While Stentz and LaChapelle do not specifically teach wherein operation is shifted from the first laser scanning to the second laser scanning, in response to a distance between the position of the blade identified by the first laser scanning and a work target of the blade, exceeding a predetermined value, Stentz does disclose using a sensor to scan the dig face as the excavator swings away from the dig face toward a dump truck for unloading (clm 7 lines 21-24, the bucket is attached to the excavator arm, see figure 4, therefore the swinging away of the excavator would involve the bucket being some distance from the dig face).
Nau, in the same field of guidance systems for earthmoving machinery, teaches a system for scanning a target work area to determine the surface profile (see figure 7) wherein the scan is initiated in response to a distance a position of the machine arm and a work target of the blade exceeding a predetermined value (scans can be automatically initiated when the position sensor output is within a selected range, paragraph [0109], this range would have to have a minimum and therefore the position being within this range would be the position exceeding a predetermined value, the position sensor is part of sensing device 10 and is attached to an arm of the machinery, see figures 1, 7, and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Stentz with the scanning of the dig face happening after the position of the arm exceeds a predetermined value of Nau, for the benefit of performing the scanning when the working tool is in the desired position of a digging cycle (paragraph [0109], Nau).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871