DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 9, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-6, and 10 were amended and the title was amended in an Amendment filed on February 5, 2025.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and under examination, of which claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
The amended title overcome the objections previously set forth.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted and filed on November 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the references in the IDS with a signed and initialed copy being attached hereto.
Response to Arguments
At the bottom of page 7 and page 8 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
Kondo recites “a malfunction detection device that detects a malfunction of an electrical system related to the first proportional valve.” Kondo at ¶0008. As Kondo notes, “[w]hen the malfunction detection device detects the malfunction of the electrical system related to the first proportional valve, the control device switches the switch valve to the third valve position.” Id. Kondo notes that in the “third valve position the switch valve allows the operating oil dispensed from both the first hydraulic pump and the second hydraulic pump to be supplied to the first traveling hydraulic motor, the second traveling hydraulic motor, the first hydraulic actuator, and the second hydraulic actuator.” As Kondo further recites, “Consequently, even when the electrical system for the first proportional valve malfunctions, a drastic reduction in the operating speed of each of the first traveling hydraulic motor and the first hydraulic actuator can be minimized.” Id. at ¶0009 (emphasis added). Kondo recites that with the above “hydraulic drive system, it is possible to achieve a fail-safe for when the electrical system for the first proportional valve malfunctions.” Id. ¶0063-0064 and ¶0074 in Kondo, cited by the Examiner merely describe the malfunction detection and fail-safe operation in greater detail.
Thus, in Kondo, the “third valve position” operates to prevent “a drastic reduction in the operating speed of each of the first traveling hydraulic motor and the first hydraulic actuator.” In contrast to Kondo, where the “third valve position” attempts to “maintain the operating speed of the first traveling motor and first hydraulic actuator,” independent Claim 1 recites, in relevant part “actuating a second limiting unit that limits the movement of the first drive unit separately from the first limiting unit, based at least on a determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality,” which Kondo fails to disclose.
However, the cited portions of Kondo described in the arguments were not the ones cited to reject the features of the actuating function as recited in independent claim 1. Rather, the Office pointed out in the Non-Final Office Action dated November 5, 2025, that Kondo describes in Paragraph [0075] “Specifically, when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, the control device 40 outputs a switch command signal to the switch-valve proportional valve 57.” In addition, Kondo explains in Paragraph [0076] “…when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, for example, when a malfunction of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L of the left-side regulator 23L is detected, the control device 40 switches the horsepower characteristic line of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R to the horsepower characteristic line 44R such as that indicated by the dash-dot-dot line in (b) in FIG. 3. In other words, the control device 40 sets the dispense flow rate of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R according to a horsepower characteristic line that is set on the basis of the first malfunction preset horsepower greater than the first preset horsepower after using the first preset horsepower. Furthermore, the control device 40 outputs a flow rate command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R so as to achieve a dispense flow rate, and controls the operation of the right-side regulator 23R (first malfunction horsepower control). This allows the operating oil to be dispensed from the right-side hydraulic pump 21R at a higher dispense flow rate, with the dispense pressure unchanged, than in the case where the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34 operates normally. Thus, it is possible to increase the flow rate of the operating oil that can be distributed to the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13, and therefore a drastic reduction in the operating speed of each of the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13 at the time of a fail-safe compared to that during normal operation can be minimized.” (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, in light of the description provided in Kondo, the Office respectfully submits that when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, in this particular example, the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L is malfunctioning, outputting the command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R is construed to read on “actuating a second limiting unit that limits the movement of the first drive unit separately from the first limiting unit”. In response to the malfunctioning of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L, the operating oil to be dispensed from the right-side hydraulic pump 21R (in combination with the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R) at a higher dispense flow rate teaches the actuating function of independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections to independent claim 1 and related dependent claims 2-10 are maintained. For similar reasons as those presented above, the rejection to independent claim 11 and related dependent claim 12 is also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0010820 A1) (“Kondo”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kondo teaches:
A work machine control method, comprising: Kondo: Paragraph [0001] (“…a hydraulic drive system that includes two hydraulic pumps and if the flow rate of output falls below an expected flow rate due to a malfunction of one of the hydraulic pumps, can achieve a fail-safe with an appropriate compensatory function.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0027] (“Construction equipment such a hydraulic excavator and a hydraulic crane includes various attachments such as a bucket and a hoist and is configured to move these attachments by hydraulic actuators such as a hydraulic cylinder and a hydraulic motor (electrohydraulic motor). Some construction equipment, namely, a construction vehicle, includes a traveling device such as a crawler and is configured to be able to travel using the traveling device. A hydraulic excavator, which is one example of the construction vehicle, includes one pair of left and right traveling hydraulic motors 11L, 11R such as those illustrated in FIG. 1 in order to drive the traveling device.”)
actuating a first limiting unit that limits a movement of a first drive unit which drives a work machine; Kondo: Paragraph [0010] (“…a control device that controls an operation of the first proportional valve by outputting the first flow rate command signal to the first proportional valve and controls an operation of the switch valve by causing the switch-valve proportional valve to output the pilot pressure to the switch valve…”) Kondo: Paragraph [0040] (“The control device 40 outputs the flow rate command signal to each of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R and controls the dispense flow rate of each of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0041] (“More specifically, the control device 40 stores horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R such as those illustrated in (a) and (b) in FIG. 3. The horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R indicate the relationship between the dispense pressure and the dispense flow rate of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R and are set on the basis of the maximum output or preset output (for example, preset output for improving fuel efficiency) of the drive source 26. Note that in the present embodiments, the horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R are set so that the sum of the horsepower of the two hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R, namely, total horsepower, does not exceed the maximum output of the drive source 26. The control device 40 calculates dispense flow rates on the basis of the horsepower characteristic lines and the detected dispense pressures and outputs, to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R, the flow rate command signals corresponding to the calculated dispense flow rates. Thus, it is possible to control the dispense flow rates of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R so as not to exceed the first and second preset horsepower which are set on the basis of the maximum output or preset output (for example, preset output for improving fuel efficiency) of the drive source 26 (first and second horsepower control).”) [The drive source reads on “a first drive unit” and the controlling of the first proportional valve 34L reads on “actuating a first limiting unit”.]
determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality; and Kondo: Paragraph [0041] [As described above.] Kondo: Paragraph [0063] (“The control device 40 is designed to control the operation of the directional control valves 51L, 51R, 52-54 in accordance with the signals output from the three operation devices 71-73. The control device 40 is electrically connected the electromagnetic proportional control valves 51Lb, 51Lc, 51Rb, 51Rc, 52 b-54 b, 52 c-54 c provided on the directional control valves 51L, 51R, 52-54 and outputs command signals to the electromagnetic proportional control valves 51Lb, 51Lc, 51Rb, 51Rc, 52 b-54 b, 52 c-54 c in accordance with the signals output from the three operation devices 71-73. Furthermore, the control device 40 is electrically connected to the switch-valve proportional valve 57 provided on the straight travel valve 50 as well and outputs a switch command signal to the switch-valve proportional valve 57 in accordance with output signals of the three operation devices 71-73 (more specifically, an output signal of the traveling operation device 73).”) Kondo: Paragraph [0064] (“The control device 40 configured as described above is further capable of detecting a malfunction of an electrical system for the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R, specifically, an electrical malfunction of the proportional valve 34L and an electrical malfunction of electrical wiring including connecting portions between the control device 40 and the proportional valve 34L (hereinafter referred to simply as a “malfunction). In other words, the control device 40 which is one example of the malfunction detection device outputs an electric current (malfunction detection signal) to each of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R at a predetermined interval and detects the value of the electric current of the output malfunction detection signal. When the detected value of the electric current is less than or equal to a predetermined value, the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L, 34R is determined as electrically malfunctioning due to wire breakage or short circuit, in other words, a malfunction of the electrical system for the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected.”) [The detecting of whether the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L is malfunctioning (when one of the valves is malfunctioning) or not (when both valves are not malfunctioning) reads on “determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality”.]
actuating a second limiting unit that limits the movement of the first drive unit separately from the first limiting unit, based at least on a determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality. Kondo: Paragraphs [0063] and [0064] [As described above.] Kondo: Paragraph [0074] (“For example, when the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L malfunctions and the electric current no longer flows, the secondary pressure output from the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L matches the tank pressure, and the tilt angle of the swash plate 22L is maintained at the minimum tilt angle. This means that the dispense flow rate of the left-side hydraulic pump 21L is maintained at the minimum flow rate Qmin regardless of the dispense pressure of the left-side hydraulic pump 21L (refer to the dash-dot-dot line in (a) in FIG. 3).”) Kondo: Paragraph [0075] (“Specifically, when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, the control device 40 outputs a switch command signal to the switch-valve proportional valve 57.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0076] (“…when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, for example, when a malfunction of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L of the left-side regulator 23L is detected, the control device 40 switches the horsepower characteristic line of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R to the horsepower characteristic line 44R such as that indicated by the dash-dot-dot line in (b) in FIG. 3. In other words, the control device 40 sets the dispense flow rate of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R according to a horsepower characteristic line that is set on the basis of the first malfunction preset horsepower greater than the first preset horsepower after using the first preset horsepower. Furthermore, the control device 40 outputs a flow rate command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R so as to achieve a dispense flow rate, and controls the operation of the right-side regulator 23R (first malfunction horsepower control). This allows the operating oil to be dispensed from the right-side hydraulic pump 21R at a higher dispense flow rate, with the dispense pressure unchanged, than in the case where the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34 operates normally. Thus, it is possible to increase the flow rate of the operating oil that can be distributed to the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13, and therefore a drastic reduction in the operating speed of each of the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13 at the time of a fail-safe compared to that during normal operation can be minimized.”) [When a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, outputting the command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R reads on “actuating a second limiting unit that limits the movement of the first drive unit separately from the first limiting unit”.]
Regarding claim 7, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Kondo further teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, further comprising: disabling the first limiting unit that is determined to have an abnormality. Kondo: Paragraph [0064] (“When the detected value of the electric current is less than or equal to a predetermined value, the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L, 34R is determined as electrically malfunctioning due to wire breakage or short circuit, in other words, a malfunction of the electrical system for the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0074] (“In the hydraulic drive system 1, when the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R malfunction due to wire breakage or short circuit, the following situation occurs.”)
Regarding independent claim 11, Kondo teaches:
A work machine control system, comprising: Kondo: Paragraph [0001] (“…a hydraulic drive system that includes two hydraulic pumps and if the flow rate of output falls below an expected flow rate due to a malfunction of one of the hydraulic pumps, can achieve a fail-safe with an appropriate compensatory function.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0027] (“Construction equipment such a hydraulic excavator and a hydraulic crane includes various attachments such as a bucket and a hoist and is configured to move these attachments by hydraulic actuators such as a hydraulic cylinder and a hydraulic motor (electrohydraulic motor). Some construction equipment, namely, a construction vehicle, includes a traveling device such as a crawler and is configured to be able to travel using the traveling device. A hydraulic excavator, which is one example of the construction vehicle, includes one pair of left and right traveling hydraulic motors 11L, 11R such as those illustrated in FIG. 1 in order to drive the traveling device.”)
a first limiting processor that controls a first limiting unit which limits a movement of a drive unit that drives a work machine; Kondo: Paragraph [0010] (“…a control device that controls an operation of the first proportional valve by outputting the first flow rate command signal to the first proportional valve and controls an operation of the switch valve by causing the switch-valve proportional valve to output the pilot pressure to the switch valve…”) Kondo: Paragraph [0040] (“The control device 40 outputs the flow rate command signal to each of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R and controls the dispense flow rate of each of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0041] (“More specifically, the control device 40 stores horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R such as those illustrated in (a) and (b) in FIG. 3. The horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R indicate the relationship between the dispense pressure and the dispense flow rate of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R and are set on the basis of the maximum output or preset output (for example, preset output for improving fuel efficiency) of the drive source 26. Note that in the present embodiments, the horsepower characteristic lines 42L, 42R are set so that the sum of the horsepower of the two hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R, namely, total horsepower, does not exceed the maximum output of the drive source 26. The control device 40 calculates dispense flow rates on the basis of the horsepower characteristic lines and the detected dispense pressures and outputs, to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R, the flow rate command signals corresponding to the calculated dispense flow rates. Thus, it is possible to control the dispense flow rates of the hydraulic pumps 21L, 21R so as not to exceed the first and second preset horsepower which are set on the basis of the maximum output or preset output (for example, preset output for improving fuel efficiency) of the drive source 26 (first and second horsepower control).”) [The drive source reads on “a drive unit” and the controlling of the first proportional valve 34L reads on “controls a first limiting unit”.]
a determination processor that determines whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality; and Kondo: Paragraph [0064] (“The control device 40 configured as described above is further capable of detecting a malfunction of an electrical system for the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R, specifically, an electrical malfunction of the proportional valve 34L and an electrical malfunction of electrical wiring including connecting portions between the control device 40 and the proportional valve 34L (hereinafter referred to simply as a “malfunction). In other words, the control device 40 which is one example of the malfunction detection device outputs an electric current (malfunction detection signal) to each of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R at a predetermined interval and detects the value of the electric current of the output malfunction detection signal. When the detected value of the electric current is less than or equal to a predetermined value, the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L, 34R is determined as electrically malfunctioning due to wire breakage or short circuit, in other words, a malfunction of the electrical system for the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected.”) [The detecting of a malfunction of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L reads on “determines whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality”.]
a second limiting processor that controls a second limiting unit which limits the movement of the drive unit separately from the first limiting unit, based at least on a determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality. Kondo: Paragraphs [0063] and [0064] [As described above.] Kondo: Paragraph [0074] (“For example, when the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L malfunctions and the electric current no longer flows, the secondary pressure output from the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L matches the tank pressure, and the tilt angle of the swash plate 22L is maintained at the minimum tilt angle. This means that the dispense flow rate of the left-side hydraulic pump 21L is maintained at the minimum flow rate Qmin regardless of the dispense pressure of the left-side hydraulic pump 21L (refer to the dash-dot-dot line in (a) in FIG. 3).”) Kondo: Paragraph [0075] (“Specifically, when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, the control device 40 outputs a switch command signal to the switch-valve proportional valve 57.”) Kondo: Paragraph [0076] (“…when a malfunction of any of the two regulator electromagnetic proportional control valves 34L, 34R is detected, for example, when a malfunction of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L of the left-side regulator 23L is detected, the control device 40 switches the horsepower characteristic line of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R to the horsepower characteristic line 44R such as that indicated by the dash-dot-dot line in (b) in FIG. 3. In other words, the control device 40 sets the dispense flow rate of the right-side hydraulic pump 21R according to a horsepower characteristic line that is set on the basis of the first malfunction preset horsepower greater than the first preset horsepower after using the first preset horsepower. Furthermore, the control device 40 outputs a flow rate command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R so as to achieve a dispense flow rate, and controls the operation of the right-side regulator 23R (first malfunction horsepower control). This allows the operating oil to be dispensed from the right-side hydraulic pump 21R at a higher dispense flow rate, with the dispense pressure unchanged, than in the case where the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34 operates normally. Thus, it is possible to increase the flow rate of the operating oil that can be distributed to the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13, and therefore a drastic reduction in the operating speed of each of the actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13 at the time of a fail-safe compared to that during normal operation can be minimized.”) [In response to the malfunction detected of the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34L, the control device outputting the command signal to the regulator electromagnetic proportional control valve 34R of the right-side regulator 23R reads on “controls a second limiting unit which limits the movement of the drive unit separately from the first limiting unit, based at least on a determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality”.]
Regarding claim 12, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 11, from which claim 12 depends. Kondo further teaches:
A work machine, comprising: the work machine control system according to claim 11; and The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 11 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
a machine body on which the drive unit is installed. Kondo: Paragraph [0029] (“The hydraulic excavator configured as described above includes the hydraulic drive system 1 in order to supply the operating oil to these actuators 11L, 11R, 12, 13.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Izumikawa (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0284782 A1) (“Izumikawa”).
Regarding claim 2, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Kondo describes determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality, however, does not expressly teach “detecting a detection target in a monitoring area around the work machine, wherein the second limiting unit is actuated based on… a detection result of the detection target”, as recited claim 2. Izumikawa describes a construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor. Izumikawa teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, further comprising: detecting a detection target in a monitoring area around the work machine, wherein the second limiting unit is actuated based on, in addition to the determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality, a detection result of the detection target. Izumikawa: Paragraph [0111] (“When the detecting part 301 detects a monitoring target object within a predetermined area around the shovel (within the predetermined distance D1 from the shovel), the restricting process part 304 (an example of a restricting part) restricts the motion of the shovel by reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0112] (“For example, the restricting process part 304 transmits a restriction request to the pump controlling part 306 to change (reduce) the tilt angle α of the swash plate 14C of the main pump 14, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14. Specifically, the pump controlling part 306 sets an upper limit value (an upper limit tilt angle αlim) smaller than a maximum tilt angle αmax corresponding to a maximum discharge flow rate Qmax for the tilt angle α, and performs pump control (total power control and negative control described below) at or below the upper limit tilt angle αlim.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0113] (“Furthermore, for example, the restricting process part 304 outputs a restriction request to the engine controlling part 307 to reduce the rotational speed of the engine 11, namely, the target rotational speed Nset, and reduce the power of the engine 11, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0114] (“Furthermore, for example, the restricting process part 304 outputs a restriction request to both the pump controlling part 306 and the engine controlling part 307, thereby restricting both the tilt angle α of the swash plate 14C and the rotational speed of the engine 11 (the target rotational speed Nset).”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0126] (“Furthermore, for example, when relaxing or canceling the motion restriction of the shovel, the canceling process part 305 may relax or cancel a motion restriction on a different operating element among multiple operating elements (such as, the lower traveling body 1, the upper turning body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6) in accordance with other conditions.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Izumikawa before them, to detecting a detection target in a monitoring area around the work machine, wherein the second limiting unit is actuated based on, in addition to the determination result of determining whether or not the first limiting unit has an abnormality, a detection result of the detection target because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because for a situation where the shovel approaches a detected monitoring target can be prevented to ensure safety, and with respect to the movement of the shovel in a direction away from the monitoring target, the degree of restriction of the motion can be controlled to ensure the workability of the shovel. That is, it is possible to achieve both safety and workability of the shovel. Izumikawa Paragraph [0116]
Regarding claim 3, Kondo and Izumikawa teach the features of claim 2, from which claim 3 depends. In addition, Izumikawa teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 2, wherein the first limiting unit is actuated when the detection result of the detection target satisfies a first condition, and the second limiting unit is actuated when the first limiting unit is determined to have an abnormality and when the detection result of the detection target satisfies a second condition. Izumikawa: Paragraphs [0111]-[0114] and [0126] [As described in claim 2.]
The motivation to combine Kondo and Izumikawa as provided in claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 4. Izumikawa describes a construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor. Izumikawa teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the work machine includes a plurality of drive units, and Izumikawa: Paragraph [0112] (“For example, the restricting process part 304 transmits a restriction request to the pump controlling part 306 to change (reduce) the tilt angle α of the swash plate 14C of the main pump 14, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14. Specifically, the pump controlling part 306 sets an upper limit value (an upper limit tilt angle αlim) smaller than a maximum tilt angle αmax corresponding to a maximum discharge flow rate Qmax for the tilt angle α, and performs pump control (total power control and negative control described below) at or below the upper limit tilt angle αlim.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0113] (“Furthermore, for example, the restricting process part 304 outputs a restriction request to the engine controlling part 307 to reduce the rotational speed of the engine 11, namely, the target rotational speed Nset, and reduce the power of the engine 11, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14.”) [The pump controlling part and the engine controlling part reads on “a plurality of the drive units”.]
the second limiting unit limits a movement of the first drive unit that is subject to movement limitation by the first limiting unit and limits a movement of a second drive unit that is different from the first drive unit, the first drive unit and the second drive unit being included in the plurality of drive units. Izumikawa: Paragraphs [0112] and [0113] [As described above.] Izumikawa: Paragraph [0115] (“Furthermore, for example, when the detecting part 301 detects a monitoring target object within a predetermined area around the shovel, the restricting process part 304 may perform motion restriction differently in a non-uniform manner for each of operating elements whose motion is to be restricted (for example, the lower traveling body 1, the upper turning body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, the bucket 6, etc.). In this case, the restricting process part 304 controls, independent of the state of the operator's operation, control valves provided one for each operating element in the control valve 17 and controlling the flow rate and direction of hydraulic oil supplied to the corresponding hydraulic actuator ACT. For example, a solenoid proportional valve that can restrict a pilot pressure in response to a control signal from the controller 30 may be provided in a pilot line between the operating apparatus 26 and the control valve with respect to each operating element. This makes it possible for the controller 30 (the restricting process part 304) to control a secondary side pilot pressure acting on the control valves independent of the state of the operator's operation.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0116] (“Specifically, the restricting process part 304 may restrict the traveling motion of the lower traveling body 1 in a direction to move the shovel toward a monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301 while not restricting the traveling motion of the lower traveling body 1 in a direction to move the shovel away from the monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301. Furthermore, the restricting process part 304 may restrict the motion of (the hydraulic actuator ACT corresponding to) the lower traveling body 1 such that the degree of restriction is higher in the case where the lower traveling body 1 travels in a direction to move the shovel toward a monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301 than in the case where the lower traveling body 1 travels in a direction to move the shovel away from the monitoring target object.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Izumikawa before them, for the work machine to include a plurality of drive units, and the second limiting unit limits a movement of the first drive unit that is subject to movement limitation by the first limiting unit and limits a movement of a second drive unit that is different from the first drive unit, the first drive unit and the second drive unit being included in the plurality of drive units because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because for a situation where the shovel approaches a detected monitoring target can be prevented to ensure safety, and with respect to the movement of the shovel in a direction away from the monitoring target, the degree of restriction of the motion can be controlled to ensure the workability of the shovel. That is, it is possible to achieve both safety and workability of the shovel. Izumikawa Paragraph [0116]
Regarding claim 5, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 5. Izumikawa describes a construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor. Izumikawa teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the work machine includes a plurality of the first limiting units and a plurality of drive units, and Izumikawa: Paragraph [0112] (“For example, the restricting process part 304 transmits a restriction request to the pump controlling part 306 to change (reduce) the tilt angle α of the swash plate 14C of the main pump 14, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14. Specifically, the pump controlling part 306 sets an upper limit value (an upper limit tilt angle αlim) smaller than a maximum tilt angle αmax corresponding to a maximum discharge flow rate Qmax for the tilt angle α, and performs pump control (total power control and negative control described below) at or below the upper limit tilt angle αlim.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0113] (“Furthermore, for example, the restricting process part 304 outputs a restriction request to the engine controlling part 307 to reduce the rotational speed of the engine 11, namely, the target rotational speed Nset, and reduce the power of the engine 11, thereby reducing the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0115] (“Furthermore, for example, when the detecting part 301 detects a monitoring target object within a predetermined area around the shovel, the restricting process part 304 may perform motion restriction differently in a non-uniform manner for each of operating elements whose motion is to be restricted (for example, the lower traveling body 1, the upper turning body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, the bucket 6, etc.). In this case, the restricting process part 304 controls, independent of the state of the operator's operation, control valves provided one for each operating element in the control valve 17 and controlling the flow rate and direction of hydraulic oil supplied to the corresponding hydraulic actuator ACT. For example, a solenoid proportional valve that can restrict a pilot pressure in response to a control signal from the controller 30 may be provided in a pilot line between the operating apparatus 26 and the control valve with respect to each operating element.”) [The pump controlling part and the engine controlling part reads on “a plurality of drive units”.]
the second limiting unit collectively limits the movement of the plurality of drive units that are subject to movement limitation by the plurality of first limiting units, wherein the first drive unit is comprised in the plurality of drive units. Izumikawa: Paragraph [0116] (“Specifically, the restricting process part 304 may restrict the traveling motion of the lower traveling body 1 in a direction to move the shovel toward a monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301 while not restricting the traveling motion of the lower traveling body 1 in a direction to move the shovel away from the monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301. Furthermore, the restricting process part 304 may restrict the motion of (the hydraulic actuator ACT corresponding to) the lower traveling body 1 such that the degree of restriction is higher in the case where the lower traveling body 1 travels in a direction to move the shovel toward a monitoring target object detected by the detecting part 301 than in the case where the lower traveling body 1 travels in a direction to move the shovel away from the monitoring target object.”) Izumikawa: Paragraph [0127] (“Furthermore, for example, when relaxing or canceling the motion restriction of the shovel, the canceling process part 305 may cause the mode of cancellation to differ from operating element to operating element. In this case, the canceling process part 305 controls, independent of the state of the operator's operation, control valves provided one for each operating element in the control valve 17 and controlling the flow rate and direction of hydraulic oil supplied to the corresponding hydraulic actuator ACT as described above. This makes it possible for the controller 30 (the canceling process part 305) to control a secondary side pilot pressure acting on the control valves independent of the state of the operator's operation. Therefore, it is possible to relax or cancel the motion restriction in a mode that differs from operating element to operating element. The process of causing the mode of cancellation to differ for each operating element by the canceling process part 305 is described in detail below (see FIG. 29).”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Izumikawa before them, for the work machine includes a plurality of the first limiting units and a plurality of drive units, and the second limiting unit collectively limits the movement of the plurality of drive units that are subject to movement limitation by the plurality of first limiting units, wherein the first drive unit is comprised in the plurality of drive units because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because for a situation where the shovel approaches a detected monitoring target can be prevented to ensure safety, and with respect to the movement of the shovel in a direction away from the monitoring target, the degree of restriction of the motion can be controlled to ensure the workability of the shovel. That is, it is possible to achieve both safety and workability of the shovel. Izumikawa Paragraph [0116]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Kumagai (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0002868 A1) (“Kumigai”).
Regarding claim 6, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 6. Kumagai describes a work machine. Kumagai teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, wherein the first limiting unit limits the movement of the drive unit by controlling a pilot pressure that is input to a direction switching valve controlling the first drive unit, and Kumagai: Paragraph [0077] (“… the proportional solenoid pressure-reducing valves 37 and 38 generate command pressures to the pilot variable restrictors 33 and 36 (Step S312), and the pilot-variable-restrictor openings become openings Aps according to the command pressures (Step S313). In addition, the differential pressures across the pilot variable restrictors are compensated for by the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 with target compensation differential pressures ΔPpc (Step S314), and the flow rates Qm of the main valves 31 and 34 of the auxiliary flow rate control devices 27 and 28 are controlled by the pilot-variable-restrictor openings Aps and the target compensation differential pressures ΔPpc (Step S316). Subsequent to Step S316, it is decided whether or not the state where the flow rates of the hydraulic fluid that the hydraulic pumps 1 to 3 actually can deliver are lower than demanded delivery flow rates demanded for the hydraulic pumps 1 to 3 (saturation state) has occurred (Step S316).”) Kumagai: Paragraph [0104] (“Upstream pressures of the pilot variable restrictors 33 and 36 are guided to a first pressure signal port 35b that drives the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 in closing directions. A highest load pressure of the plurality of hydraulic actuators 204a, 205a and 206a is guided to the second pressure signal ports 32a and 35a that drive the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 in closing directions. Downstream pressures of the pilot variable restrictors 33 and 36 are guided to third pressure signal ports 32c and 35c that drive the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 in opening directions. The delivery pressures of the hydraulic pumps 1 to 3 are guided to the fourth pressure signal ports 32e and 35e that drive the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 in the opening directions. The fifth pressure signal ports 32d and 35d that drive the pressure-compensating valves 32 and 35 in the opening directions, and the delivery line 69 of the pilot pump 4 are connected to each other via the solenoid selector valve 39 that is opened and closed in accordance with a command from the controller 21.”)
the second limiting unit limits the movement of the first drive unit by controlling a discharge flow rate of a hydraulic pump that forcibly feeds hydraulic oil to the drive unit. Kumagai: Paragraphs [0077] and [0104] [As described above.] Izumikawa: Paragraph [0056] (“…auxiliary flow rate control devices 27 and 28 that limit the flow rate of the hydraulic fluid supplied from the second hydraulic pump 2 to the corresponding directional control valves at the time of combined operation.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Kumagai before them, for the first limiting unit limits the movement of the drive unit by controlling a pilot pressure that is input to a direction switching valve controlling the first drive unit, and the second limiting unit limits the movement of the first drive unit by controlling a discharge flow rate of a hydraulic pump that forcibly feeds hydraulic oil to the drive unit because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine includes a hydraulic actuator and a processor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve automatic control precision of actuators. Kumagai Paragraph [0106]
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Anahara (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0290411 A1) (“Anahara”).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 8. Anahara describes a work machine and a periphery monitoring system. Anahara teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, further comprising: making a notification when the first limiting unit is determined to have an abnormality. Anahara: Paragraph [0047] (“In addition, the operation limiting control section 20 b determines whether or not the operation limiting control is enabled, that is, whether or not the solenoid valves 23 a and 23 b are normally operating on the basis of the sensed results from the pressure sensors 23 c and 23 d. Specifically, when the operation limiting control is ON, an object is detected by the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, and a command signal is output from the operation limiting control section 20 b to the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b in order to perform the operation limiting control of the swing operation and the travel operation, that is, when the control for limiting (decompressing) the pilot pressure to the directional control valve 28 or the like is performed, it is determined whether the operation limiting control is enabled (normal) or disabled (abnormal) by determining whether or not the pressure of the pilot pressure via the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is limited (decompressed) to a predetermined pressure or less. The operation limiting control section 20 b outputs the determination result of whether or not the operation limiting control is enabled, that is, whether each of the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is normal or abnormal to the sound output control section 20 c.”) Anahara: Paragraph [0048] (“The sound output control section 20 c controls the sound output device 30 on the basis of the determination result of the detection position determination section 20 a, the determination result of the operation limiting control section 20 b, and the sensed results of the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b to notify the operator of the detection content.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Anahara before them, for making a notification when the first limiting unit is determined to have an abnormality because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine such as an excavator with control valves.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification so that the botheration for an operator can be suppressed while securing the effectiveness of an alarm in periphery monitoring of a work machine and the safety performance can be enhanced. Anahara Paragraph [0007]
Regarding claim 9, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 9. Anahara describes a work machine and a periphery monitoring system. Anahara teaches:
The work machine control method according to claim 1, further comprising: making a notification when the second limiting unit is in actuation. Anahara: Paragraph [0047] (“In addition, the operation limiting control section 20 b determines whether or not the operation limiting control is enabled, that is, whether or not the solenoid valves 23 a and 23 b are normally operating on the basis of the sensed results from the pressure sensors 23 c and 23 d. Specifically, when the operation limiting control is ON, an object is detected by the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, and a command signal is output from the operation limiting control section 20 b to the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b in order to perform the operation limiting control of the swing operation and the travel operation, that is, when the control for limiting (decompressing) the pilot pressure to the directional control valve 28 or the like is performed, it is determined whether the operation limiting control is enabled (normal) or disabled (abnormal) by determining whether or not the pressure of the pilot pressure via the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is limited (decompressed) to a predetermined pressure or less. The operation limiting control section 20 b outputs the determination result of whether or not the operation limiting control is enabled, that is, whether each of the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is normal or abnormal to the sound output control section 20 c.”) Anahara: Paragraph [0048] (“The sound output control section 20 c controls the sound output device 30 on the basis of the determination result of the detection position determination section 20 a, the determination result of the operation limiting control section 20 b, and the sensed results of the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b to notify the operator of the detection content.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Anahara before them, making a notification when the second limiting unit is in actuation because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine such as an excavator with control valves.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification so that the botheration for an operator can be suppressed while securing the effectiveness of an alarm in periphery monitoring of a work machine and the safety performance can be enhanced. Anahara Paragraph [0007]
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Oinonen et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0184270 A1) (“Oinonen”).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. However, Kondo does not expressly teach the features of claim 10. Oinonen describes an arrangement of a work machine. Oinonen teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for a work machine control program method that causes configures one or more processors to execute the work machine control method according to claim 1. Oinonen: Paragraph [0013] (“A working machine 1 may comprise a mobile working machine 1 and particularly advantageously a mobile working machine 1 adaptable to move in an inclined and/or uneven surface. Such a mobile working machine may be, for example, a forest work unit, such as a forwarder as in FIG. 1, a harvester as in FIG. 2, or another forest machine, such as a drive machine of another type suitable for carrying a load, or a combination of a forwarder or harvester, or another mobile working machine such as a mining machine or excavator.”) Oinonen: Paragraph [0039] (“In an embodiment, the computer program product may be stored on computer-readable media and executable by a processor, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable program code that is arranged to control an arrangement disclosed in this description and/or the associated drawings and/or work machine to carry out the steps of a method disclosed in this description and/or associated drawings when the program code is run in the processor.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kondo and Oinonen before them, for including a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for a work machine control program method that causes configures one or more processors to execute the work machine control method according to claim 1 because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on construction machine such as an excavator with control valves.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification for the control of a load movement in movements requiring high dynamics, such as high acceleration or high deceleration, or great precision, and prevent cavitation problems in hydraulic cylinders, for example. Oinonen Paragraph [0022]
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2025/0237037 A1 to Nishikawa et al. describes a construction machine that achieves both safety and operability by lowering the possibility of an accident due to contact between the construction machine and a worker in the periphery of a vehicle body while securing operability in situations where an object required for work is present in the periphery. A controller has a normal mode as a control mode for making the operation limiting control effective and a temporary cancelation mode as a control mode for temporarily canceling the operation limiting control. The controller shifts to the temporary cancelation mode in response to operation of the control canceling device while in the normal mode.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alicia M. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117