DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 February 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Claim 1-3 is amended.
Claims 10-14 are newly added.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeis Hosseiny et al. (US Publication 2021/0284238 A1) in view of Engelmann (US Publication 2017/0130405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raeis Hosseiny teaches a stop instruction system that issues an instruction to stop a carrier approaching a work machine, the stop instruction system comprising: a distance detection unit that detects a distance of the carrier from the work machine (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38; determined that trailer is at a far enough distance from vehicle; calibration of various system inputs or measurements that can improve the accuracy of distance measurements); a stop instruction output unit that outputs a stop instruction as the instruction to stop the carrier (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 48; instruct the user to stop the vehicle), a controller (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 29; a controller).
Raeis Hosseiny doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the distance detection unit detects a first distance as a distance from a specific reference position of the work machine to a rear portion of a platform of the carrier on a carrier rear side when the carrier is approaching the work machine, and a second distance as a distance from the reference position to a front portion of the platform on a carrier front side when the carrier is approaching the work machine, a first threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the first distance from the specific reference position of the work machine to the rear portion of the platform of the carrier and a second threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the second distance from the reference position of the work machine to the front portion of the platform of the carrier are set in the controller, and the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction at least either when the first distance falls from a value greater than the first threshold value to a value equal to or smaller than the first threshold value or when the second distance falls from a value greater than the second threshold value to a value equal to or smaller than the second threshold value.
However Engelmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the distance detection unit detects a first distance as a distance from a specific reference position of the work machine to a rear portion of a platform of the carrier on a carrier rear side when the carrier is approaching the work machine (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; position sensor may be located on cold planer at a known distance from a reference point cold planer such that the signal generated by position sensor can be used to determine a distance between the reference point of cold planer and other objects, such as haul truck; set point location may assume a default location as the center of bed, or a different location e.g., any location between the front and back of bed), and a second distance as a distance from the reference position to a front portion of the platform on a carrier front side when the carrier is approaching the work machine (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; position sensor may be located on cold planer at a known distance from a reference point cold planer such that the signal generated by position sensor can be used to determine a distance between the reference point of cold planer and other objects, such as haul truck; set point location may assume a default location as the center of bed, or a different location e.g., any location between the front and back of bed), a first threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the first distance from the specific reference position of the work machine to the rear portion of the platform of the carrier and a second threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the second distance from the reference position of the work machine to the front portion of the platform of the carrier are set in the controller (Engelmann: Para. 5, 51; set the calibration set point based on the current positioning of haul truck relative to cold planer; determine future changes in the distance between cold planer and haul truck with respect to the set point location; sensor determines when the haul truck reaches a minimum or maximum allowable distance from the milling machine), and the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction at least either when the first distance falls from a value greater than the first threshold value to a value equal to or smaller than the first threshold value or when the second distance falls from a value greater than the second threshold value to a value equal to or smaller than the second threshold value (Engelmann: Para. 5; controller connected to the sensor determines when the haul truck reaches a minimum or maximum allowable distance from the milling machine and generates “forward” and “stop” signals to command the haul truck operator to move forward or stop moving when the minimum or maximum distance is reached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because a haul truck is filled better by knowing the distance to the front, center, and back of the bed and generating forward and stop commands (Engelmann: Para. 5, 23, 45).
Regarding claim 2, Raeis Hosseiny doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first threshold value is set so as to provide a space between the rear portion of the platform on the carrier rear side and the work machine when the first distance is equal to the first threshold value.
However Engelmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches teach wherein the first threshold value is set so as to provide a space between the rear portion of the platform on the carrier rear side and the work machine when the first distance is equal to the first threshold value (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; known offset distance to determine a distance between the end of conveyor and, for example, the back of haul truck; any location between the front and back of bed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because a haul truck is filled better by knowing the distance to the front, center, and back of the bed and generating forward and stop commands (Engelmann: Para. 5, 23, 45).
Regarding claim 3, Raeis Hosseiny doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the second threshold value is set so as to enable an attachment of the work machine to reach the front portion of the platform on the carrier front side when the second distance is equal to the second threshold value.
However Engelmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second threshold value is set so as to enable an attachment of the work machine to reach the front portion of the platform on the carrier front side when the second distance is equal to the second threshold value (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; known offset distance to determine a distance between the end of conveyor and, for example, the back of haul truck; any location between the front and back of bed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because a haul truck is filled better by knowing the distance to the front, center, and back of the bed and generating forward and stop commands (Engelmann: Para. 5, 23, 45).
Regarding claim 8, Raeis Hosseiny teaches the stop instruction system according to claim 1, wherein the distance detection unit includes a light detection and ranging or laser imaging detection and ranging sensor, a time of flight sensor, or a stereo camera (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 36, 46; rear camera, center high-mount stop light (CHMSL) camera; image data can be used to derive stereoscopic image data that can be used to reconstruct a three-dimensional scene of the area or areas within overlapped areas of the various fields of view, including any objects therein).
Regarding claim 9, Raeis Hosseiny teaches the stop instruction system according to claim 1, wherein the stop instruction output unit includes a horn. a speaker. a light, or a display (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 6, 27, Fig. 11; video image further includes an indication for the user to stop; display of the image data with additional graphic overlays thereon to allow a user to assess a potential overshoot condition).
Regarding claim 10, Raeis Hosseiny teaches a stop instruction system that issues an instruction to stop a carrier approaching a work machine, the stop instruction system comprising: a distance detection unit that detects a distance of the carrier from the work machine (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38; determined that trailer is at a far enough distance from vehicle; calibration of various system inputs or measurements that can improve the accuracy of distance measurements); a stop instruction output unit that outputs a stop instruction as the instruction to stop the carrier (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 48; instruct the user to stop the vehicle); and a controller (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 29; a controller).
Raeis Hosseiny doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the distance detection unit detects a first distance as a distance from a specific reference position of the work machine to a rear portion of a platform of the carrier on a carrier rear side when the carrier is approaching the work machine, and a second distance as a distance from the reference position to a front portion of the platform on a carrier front side when the carrier is approaching the work machine, a first threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the first distance from the specific reference position of the work machine to the rear portion of the platform of the carrier and a second threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the second distance from the reference position of the work machine to the front portion of the platform of the carrier are set in the controller, the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction when the first distance is equal to or smaller than the first threshold value, and the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction when the first distance is greater than the first threshold value and the second distance is equal to or smaller than the second threshold value.
However Engelmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the distance detection unit detects a first distance as a distance from a specific reference position of the work machine to a rear portion of a platform of the carrier on a carrier rear side when the carrier is approaching the work machine (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; position sensor may be located on cold planer at a known distance from a reference point cold planer such that the signal generated by position sensor can be used to determine a distance between the reference point of cold planer and other objects, such as haul truck; set point location may assume a default location as the center of bed, or a different location e.g., any location between the front and back of bed), and a second distance as a distance from the reference position to a front portion of the platform on a carrier front side when the carrier is approaching the work machine (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2; position sensor may be located on cold planer at a known distance from a reference point cold planer such that the signal generated by position sensor can be used to determine a distance between the reference point of cold planer and other objects, such as haul truck; set point location may assume a default location as the center of bed, or a different location e.g., any location between the front and back of bed), a first threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the first distance from the specific reference position of the work machine to the rear portion of the platform of the carrier and a second threshold value as a threshold value to be compared with the second distance from the reference position of the work machine to the front portion of the platform of the carrier are set in the controller (Engelmann: Para. 5, 51; set the calibration set point based on the current positioning of haul truck relative to cold planer; determine future changes in the distance between cold planer and haul truck with respect to the set point location; sensor determines when the haul truck reaches a minimum or maximum allowable distance from the milling machine), the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction when the first distance is equal to or smaller than the first threshold value (Engelmann: Para. 5; controller connected to the sensor determines when the haul truck reaches a minimum or maximum allowable distance from the milling machine and generates “forward” and “stop” signals to command the haul truck operator to move forward or stop moving when the minimum or maximum distance is reached), and the controller causes the stop instruction output unit to output the stop instruction when the first distance is greater than the first threshold value and the second distance is equal to or smaller than the second threshold value (Engelmann: Para. 5; controller connected to the sensor determines when the haul truck reaches a minimum or maximum allowable distance from the milling machine and generates “forward” and “stop” signals to command the haul truck operator to move forward or stop moving when the minimum or maximum distance is reached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because a haul truck is filled better by knowing the distance to the front, center, and back of the bed and generating forward and stop commands (Engelmann: Para. 5, 23, 45).
Regarding claim 13, Raeis Hosseiny doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the second threshold value is greater than the first threshold value.
However Engelmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second threshold value is greater than the first threshold value.
Engelmann teaches identifying the left, right, front, and back edges of the truck bed. The system determines the distance between a reference point on the machine with a set point location of the truck bed. The setpoint can be any location between the front and back of the truck bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45, Fig. 2). When the truck backs up to the earth moving machine the second threshold to the front of the truck bed will have to be greater than the first threshold to the rear of the truck bed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because a haul truck is filled better by knowing the distance to the front, center, and back of the bed and generating forward and stop commands (Engelmann: Para. 5, 23, 45).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeis Hosseiny et al. (US Publication 2021/0284238 A1) in view of Engelmann (US Publication 2017/0130405 A1) and in further view of Tomura et al. (US Publication 2021/0237827 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Raeis Hosseiny teaches the stop instruction system according to claim 1, further comprising a carrier speed detection unit that detects a magnitude of a speed of the carrier relative to the work machine (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 45; measured vehicle speed and localization by way of speed sensor and positioning system).
Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach wherein the controller changes the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the magnitude of the speed detected by the carrier speed detection unit.
However Tomura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller changes the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the magnitude of the speed detected by the carrier speed detection unit (Tomura: Para. 90; the control section makes at least one of the first threshold value, a second threshold value, and a third threshold value of the distance smaller as vehicle velocity of the vehicle or relative velocity with respect to the target object becomes greater).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the speed dependent thresholds taught in Tomura (Tomura: Para. 90) with a reasonable expectation of success because changing the thresholds based on vehicle velocity provides a driver warning about a possibility of reaching the target object as taught by Tomura (Tomura: Para. 88).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeis Hosseiny et al. (US Publication 2021/0284238 A1) in view of Engelmann (US Publication 2017/0130405 A1) and in further view of Aizawa et al. (US Publication 2021/0310213 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach further comprising a lower travelling body orientation detection unit that detects an orientation of a lower travelling body of the work machine with respect to the carrier, wherein the controller changes the first threshold value based on information on a size and a shape of the lower travelling body and the orientation detected by the lower travelling body orientation detection unit.
However Aizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a lower travelling body orientation detection unit that detects an orientation of a lower travelling body of the work machine with respect to the carrier (Aizawa: Para. 55; controller of the conveyance vehicle transmits the position data of the conveyance vehicle, the bed data, and the rotation angle data; controller of the work machine stores vehicle dimension data indicative of the dispositions and the dimensions of the vehicle body of the conveyance vehicle and the bed; controller calculates a position of the bed from the position data of the conveyance vehicle, the bed data, the rotation angle data, and the vehicle dimension data), wherein the controller changes the first threshold value based on information on a size and a shape of the lower travelling body and the orientation detected by the lower travelling body orientation detection unit (Aizawa: Para. 55, 70, 94; the controller determines that the conveyance vehicle has reached the target stop position when the position of a reference point included in the conveyance vehicle matches or substantially matches the target stop position; the reference point of the conveyance vehicle is a rotation center of the bed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because the loading work is performed not only by the work machine but also in cooperation with the conveyance vehicle, and it is important to perform the work while appropriately coordinating the work machine and the conveyance vehicle in order to efficiently perform the loading work (Aizawa: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach further comprising an attachment orientation detection unit that detects an orientation of the attachment of the work machine, wherein the controller changes the first threshold value based on information on a size and a shape of the attachment and the orientation detected by the attachment orientation detection unit.
However Aizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising an attachment orientation detection unit that detects an orientation of the attachment of the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 41; rotation angle of the boom, the arm, and the bucket; rotation angle sensor detects the rotation angle of the rotating body with respect to the support body and outputs rotation angle data indicative of the rotation angle), wherein the controller changes the first threshold value based on information on a size and a shape of the attachment and the orientation detected by the attachment orientation detection unit (Aizawa: Para. 74, 75; first distance threshold is the maximum value of the distance that the blade tip of the bucket can reach; second distance threshold is the minimum value of the distance that the blade tip of the bucket can reach; the direction X1 of the loading position L2 with respect to the work machine is zero degrees and the counterclockwise direction is a positive value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because the loading work is performed not only by the work machine but also in cooperation with the conveyance vehicle, and it is important to perform the work while appropriately coordinating the work machine and the conveyance vehicle in order to efficiently perform the loading work (Aizawa: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach wherein the reference position is a specific point on a central axis of slewing of a upper slewing body of the work machine with respect to a lower travelling body of the work machine.
However Aizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the reference position is a specific point on a central axis of slewing of a upper slewing body of the work machine with respect to a lower travelling body of the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 41, 88; rotation angle sensor detects the rotation angle of the rotating body with respect to the support body and outputs rotation angle data indicative of the rotation angle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because the loading work is performed not only by the work machine but also in cooperation with the conveyance vehicle, and it is important to perform the work while appropriately coordinating the work machine and the conveyance vehicle in order to efficiently perform the loading work (Aizawa: Para. 5).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeis Hosseiny et al. (US Publication 2021/0284238 A1) in view of Engelmann (US Publication 2017/0130405 A1), Aizawa et al. (US Publication 2021/0310213 A1), and in further view of Tsukamoto (US Publication 2018/0328003 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach wherein the work machine includes an upper slewing body, and an attachment mounted on the upper slewing body so as to be raised and lowered.
However Aizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the work machine includes an upper slewing body (Aizawa: Para. 36, Fig. 2; vehicle body includes a rotating body and a traveling body), and an attachment mounted on the upper slewing body so as to be raised and lowered (Aizawa: Para. 37; boom is attached to the rotating body so as to allow movement in the up and down direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because the loading work is performed not only by the work machine but also in cooperation with the conveyance vehicle, and it is important to perform the work while appropriately coordinating the work machine and the conveyance vehicle in order to efficiently perform the loading work (Aizawa: Para. 5).
Raeis Hosseiny, Engelmann, and Aizawa don’t explicitly teach the controller change the first threshold value based on a height of the attachment of the work machine from a ground and a height of the platform of the carrier from the ground.
However Tsukamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controller change the first threshold value based on a height of the attachment of the work machine from a ground and a height of the platform of the carrier from the ground.
Tsukamoto teaches knowing the height from the ground to the bottom of the bucket compared to a desired height. The desired height is may be a height greater than or equal to the height of a dump (Tsukamoto: Para. 45). When a machine is dumping dirt from a bucket into a bed of a truck then the desired height of the bottom of the bucket to the ground needs to allow for a clearance between the height of the platform carrier and the height of the attachment in order to correctly dump dirt onto the platform. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to change the first threshold value based on the heights of the attachment and the platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45), the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29), and the desired height for the bottom of the bucket (Tsukamoto: Para. 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because the desired height is a height greater than or equal to the height of a dump to properly deposit the excavation soil (Tsukamoto: Para. 45).
Regarding claim 12, Raeis Hosseiny and Engelmann don’t explicitly teach wherein the attachment includes a distal end attachment is provided at a distal end of the attachment, and when the entire distal end attachment is located above a predetermined height determined from the height of the platform.
However Aizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the attachment includes a distal end attachment is provided at a distal end of the attachment (Aizawa: Para. 37; work implement includes a boom, an arm, and a bucket), and when the entire distal end attachment is located above a predetermined height determined from the height of the platform (Aizawa: Para. 67; the bucket is disposed in a position higher than the height of the bed of the conveyance vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45) and the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because the loading work is performed not only by the work machine but also in cooperation with the conveyance vehicle, and it is important to perform the work while appropriately coordinating the work machine and the conveyance vehicle in order to efficiently perform the loading work (Aizawa: Para. 5).
Raeis Hosseiny, Engelmann, and Aizawa don’t explicitly teach the controller sets the first threshold value to be smaller than when at least a part of the distal end attachment is located below the predetermined height.
However Tsukamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controller sets the first threshold value to be smaller than when at least a part of the distal end attachment is located below the predetermined height.
Tsukamoto teaches knowing the height from the ground to the bottom of the bucket compared to a desired height. The desired height is may be a height greater than or equal to the height of a dump (Tsukamoto: Para. 45). If the arm with the bucket is shorter or if the truck is further away then the machine would not have the range to achieve the desired height difference between the bucket and the truck bed. In that case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to set the first threshold value smaller when at least a part of the distal end attachment is located below the predetermined height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45), the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29), and the desired height for the bottom of the bucket (Tsukamoto: Para. 45) with a reasonable expectation of success because the desired height is a height greater than or equal to the height of a dump to properly deposit the excavation soil (Tsukamoto: Para. 45).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeis Hosseiny et al. (US Publication 2021/0284238 A1) in view of Engelmann (US Publication 2017/0130405 A1), Aizawa et al. (US Publication 2021/0310213 A1), Tsukamoto (US Publication 2018/0328003 A1), and in further view of Tomura et al. (US Publication 2021/0237827 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Raeis Hosseiny, Engelmann, Aizawa, and Tsukamoto don’t explicitly teach wherein the controller sets the first threshold and the second threshold to be greater as a speed of the carrier increases.
However Tomura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller sets the first threshold and the second threshold to be greater as a speed of the carrier increases (Tomura: Para. 90; the control section makes at least one of the first threshold value, a second threshold value, and a third threshold value of the distance smaller as vehicle velocity of the vehicle or relative velocity with respect to the target object becomes greater).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stop determination during a rearward alignment movement (Raeis Hosseiny: Para. 38, 48) with the distance between the reference point and either the front or back of the truck’s bed (Engelmann: Para. 23, 45), the conveyance vehicle moving towards the work machine (Aizawa: Para. 29), the desired height for the bottom of the bucket (Tsukamoto: Para. 45), and the speed dependent thresholds taught in Tomura (Tomura: Para. 90) with a reasonable expectation of success because changing the thresholds based on vehicle velocity provides a driver warning about a possibility of reaching the target object as taught by Tomura (Tomura: Para. 88).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights