DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 02/05/2021.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 03/17/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cameras of Hayakawa and the antenna of Yamada are coherent or consistent with the claim language. Applicant again argues that the camera of Hayakawa does not receive from an “external device”, specific information to identify a position of the turning body. Applicant appears to argue that the reference points of Hayakawa are deficient because they are not actively emitting a signal, however those arguments are not commensurate with the claim language. Each reference point has specific and unit markings that are visually transmitted to the camera to define a known location. That is “specific information to indemnify a position of the turning body” as claimed. The applicant is invited to amend the claims to require the external device to emit an active signal instead of a passive signal but those devices are well known in the art and would not advance prosecution. Applicants other arguments are moot in light of the updated rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a travelling body, a turning body, and a reception unit in claim 1, a work unit and a control unit in claim 7, and a detection unit in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et. al. (US 11,906,641), herein Hayakawa (from IDS) in view of Koga (US 2022/0205221), herein Koga.
Regarding claim 1:
Hayakawa teaches:
A construction machine (fig. 1, a hydraulic excavator 1) comprising:
a traveling body (fig. 1, a lower track structure 1BB);
a turning body (fig. 1, an upper swing structure 1BA) that is disposed above the traveling body (see at least fig. 1 showing 1BA above 1BB) and turns around a turning axis with respect to the traveling body (The upper swing structure 1BA is attached swingably at an upper section of the lower track structure 1BB [col 4, lines 10-12]); and
a reception unit (fig. 1, image-capturing device (camera) 19) that receives from an external device (A reference point SP is a point whose coordinates in the site coordinate system Co6 are known, and is written on a certain object installed fixedly at a predetermined position in the work site [col 10, lines 31-34]) specific information to identify a position of the turning body (The image-capturing device 19 has known internal parameters for capturing photographs of reference points SP installed at a work site (e.g. the focal length (f), the image sensor size (h in the vertical direction, w in the horizontal direction), the number of pixels (H in the vertical direction, W in the horizontal direction), the unit cell size, the image center coordinates, and the like), and external parameters (the angles in the upward/downward direction, the leftward/rightward direction, and the rotation direction (i.e. the tilt angle (pitch angle), the pan angle (azimuth), and the roll angle) [col 4, lines 14-25]), wherein the reception unit is disposed between the turning axis and a rear end of the turning body (While the image-capturing device 19 is installed on the right side of the upper swing structure 1BA (the right side of the machine body) in the present embodiment, the installation position of the image-capturing device 19 may be the front side or rear side of the machine body, or the left side of the machine body, or image-capturing devices 19 may be installed at a plurality of portions [col 4, lines 48-54]),
a cabin disposed on one side of the turning body (see at least fig. 1 showing the cabin on the front left side of the machine body 1B),
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) antenna (A first GNSS antenna 17a and a second GNSS antenna 17b are arranged on the upper swing structure 1BA [col 5, lines 57-58])
wherein the reception unit is disposed at an opposite side of the turning body relative to the cabin (see at least fig. 1 showing camera 19 on right side of machine body 1B which is opposite from the left side the cabin is on.) and at a rear portion of the cabin (see at least fig. 1 showing the camera disposed behind the cabin) so as to not overlap, in the front-rear direction, with a plate member located at the back of the turning body (see at least fig. 1 showing that camera 19 does not overlap with the back plate of the cabin in a forward/rearward direction. Although in applicants specification it shows the reception unit mounted via an arm to the cabin, the claims do not limit the reception into to be directly coupled to the cabin and even if that was claimed, it would be obvious under making integral/separable since the claimed positional limitations are meant to allow the reception device to not be blocked by the cabin from receiving their signal which is achieved in the cited art.),
the reception unit is disposed below the GNSS antenna (see at least fig. 1 showing GNSS 17a and 17b above image device 19), and
the GNSS antenna and the reception unit are arranged so as not to overlap each other in a vertical direction (see at least fig. 1 showing GNSS 17a and 17b not vertically overlapping image device 19).
Koga also teaches:
wherein the reception unit (The upper portion of the cover 3a of the upper traveling body 3 is provided with an imaging device 80 [0026]) is disposed at an opposite side of the turning body relative to the cabin and at a rear portion of the cabin so as to not overlap, in the front-rear direction, with a plate member located at the back of the turning body (see at least fig 2 showing imaging devices 80B and 80R behind and on the opposite side as the cabin),
the reception unit is disposed below the GNSS antenna (see at least fig. 1 showing GPS device G1 above cameras 80L, 80R, and 80B), and
the GNSS antenna and the reception unit are arranged so as not to overlap each other in a vertical direction (see at least fig. 1 showing GPS device G1 not vertically overlapping cameras 80F, 80L, 80R, and 80B).
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach, however Koga teaches:
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) antenna provided on the top of the cabin (At the top of the cabin 10, a GPS device (GNSS receiver) G1 and a transmitter device T1 are provided [0028]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa to include the teachings as taught by Koga with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of determining positioning of work machines. The combination of the references is applying a known solution to achieve an expected result. Adjusting the location of certain sensors would be an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art as long as the location of the sensor relative to the machine is known and accounted for.
Regarding claim 5:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
the reception unit protrudes from the cabin in a left direction or a right direction of the turning body (While the image-capturing device 19 is installed on the right side of the upper swing structure 1BA (the right side of the machine body) in the present embodiment, the installation position of the image-capturing device 19 may be the front side or rear side of the machine body, or the left side of the machine body [col 4, lines 48-53]).
Regarding claim 6:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
the reception unit is disposed in the cabin, and a height of an upper end of the reception unit is substantially identical to a height of an upper end of the cabin or the upper end of the reception unit is located below the upper end of the cabin (the installation position of the image-capturing device 19 may be the front side or rear side of the machine body, or the left side of the machine body, or image-capturing devices 19 may be installed at a plurality of portions [col 4, lines 50-54]; the exact location of the mounting would be an obvious design choice in view of Hayakawa.).
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach that the reception unit is mounted inside of the cabin, however Hayakawa does teach that the camera can me mounted in multiple locations on the vehicle and “The position (the machine-body-coordinate-system coordinates), image-capturing direction, and internal parameters of the image-capturing device 19 in a machine-body coordinate system Co4 which is a three-dimensional coordinate system set for the upper swing structure 1BA are known or can be detected. Since coordinate conversion parameters Pr14 and Pr41 for conversion between coordinates in an image-capturing-device coordinate system Col which is a three-dimensional coordinate system set for the image-capturing device 19, and coordinates in the machine-body coordinate system Co4 are known or can be detected, these can be converted to each other [Hayakawa, col 4, lines 62-67]”. The specific mounting location as long as it is known as described above, does not modify the operation of the invention and therefore is an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 7:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
a work unit (fig. 1, an articulated-type work implement (front work implement) 1A configured by coupling a plurality of front-implement members (a boom 2, an arm 3, and the bucket 4)) that is mounted on the turning body and performs work (The base end of the boom 2 positioned closer to the base end of the work implement 1A is supported at a front section of the upper swing structure 1BA so as to be pivotable in the upward/downward direction. The upper swing structure 1BA is attached swingably at an upper section of the lower track structure 1BB. [col 4, lines 7-12]); and
a control unit (fig. 2, controller 100) that controls the work unit on the basis of the position of the turning body identified on the basis of the specific information (The controller 100 has a function of converting coordinates in a geographic coordinate system Co5 of a certain point into coordinates in a site coordinate system Co6 by using a coordinate conversion parameter Pr56 generated on the basis of coordinates in the geographic coordinate system Co5, and coordinates in the site coordinate system Co6 of the reference points SP installed at the work site [col 4, lines 25-32]), wherein the control unit is disposed behind the work unit and at a front side of the turning body (see fig. 1 showing controller 100 behind the boom but in the front half on the main body. Examiner also notes the exact location would be an obvious design choice as moving the location of the controller does not change the operation of the device.).
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach that the controller is mounted to the front side of the turning body. The specific mounting location does not modify the operation of the invention and therefore is an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 8:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
wherein the control unit (fig. 2, controller 100) includes:
a controller that outputs control signals on the basis of the position of the turning body identified by the specific information (since the system including the controller 100, the image-capturing device 19, and the GNSS antennas 17a and 17b is mounted on the hydraulic excavator 1 in the embodiment described above, the calibrated coordinate conversion parameter Pr56 can be output to the controller of hydraulic excavator 1 promptly, and control using the coordinate conversion parameter Pr56 can be implemented without delay. [col 16, lines 54-61]); and
a switching valve that converts the control signals into hydraulic signals and controls the work unit on the basis of the hydraulic signals (The pilot pressures to drive the plurality of driven members described above include not only pressures output by operation of the operation levers 10 and 11, but also pressures output by some (pressure-increasing valves) of a plurality of proportional solenoid valves 20 (see FIG. 2), which are mounted on the hydraulic excavator 1, being operated independently of operation of the operation levers 10 and 11, and pressures generated by reducing pilot pressures output by operation of the operation levers 10 and 11 due to some (pressure-reducing valves) of the plurality of proportional solenoid valves 20 being operated. In this manner, the pilot pressures output from the plurality of proportional solenoid valves 20 (pressure-increasing valves and pressure-reducing valves) trigger MC to operate the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 according to a predetermined condition. [col 5, lines 23-39]), and
the controller and the switching valve are disposed along a front and rear direction of the turning body (examiner notes that the exact location of the controller and valves would be obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Regarding claim 9:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
the control unit and the cabin are disposed along a left and right direction of the turning body (examiner notes that the exact location of the cab and controller would be obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Regarding claim 10:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
the cabin has an opening located at a right side face section or a left side face section of the cabin (see fig. 1 showing door opening on left side of cab.), and
the control unit is disposed below the opening (examiner notes that the exact location of the cab and controller would be obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Regarding claim 15:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
further comprising a detection unit that detects a posture of the work unit (the posture sensors (angle sensors) 12, 13, and 14; the inclination angle sensors 16a and 16b [col 6, lines 41-43]).
Regarding claim 16:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 15, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
wherein the reception unit, the control unit, and the detection unit are disposed along a front and rear direction of the turning body (see fig. 1. Examiner notes that the exact location of the various components would be an obvious design choice because as long as their location and orientation are known, their function is the same regardless of mounting location and would be an obvious design choice in light of the teachings of Hayakawa. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 17:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
further comprising a first antenna (fig. 1, GNSS antenna 17a) for receiving position information indicating the position of the turning body from a satellite (A first GNSS antenna 17a and a second GNSS antenna 17b are arranged on the upper swing structure 1BA. The first GNSS antenna 17a and the second GNSS antenna 17b are antennas for the RTK-GNSS (Real Time Kinematic-Global Navigation Satellite Systems), and receive radio waves (navigation signals) emitted from a plurality of GNSS satellites [col 5, lines 57-63]), wherein the position information is calibrated on the basis of the specific information (Thereby, the latest geographic-coordinate-system coordinates can be used to promptly calibrate the coordinate conversion parameter Pr56 for conversion from coordinates in the geographic coordinate system Co5 to coordinates in the site coordinate system Co6, and thus, by using the calibrated coordinate conversion parameter Pr56 for the control at the hydraulic excavator 1 [col 16, lines 14-33]).
Regarding claim 18:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 17, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
the first antenna is disposed at a top surface of the cabin (see fig. 1. Examiner notes that the exact location of the various components would be an obvious design choice because as long as their location and orientation are known, their function is the same regardless of mounting location and would be an obvious design choice in light of the teachings of Hayakawa. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et. al. (US 11,906,641), herein Hayakawa (from IDS) in view of Koga (US 2022/0205221), herein Koga in further view of Dirt Ninja (NPL - Youtube), herein Ninja.
Regarding claim 3:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Koga Hayakawa does not explicitly teach, however Ninja teaches:
wherein a first length from a front end of the turning body to a rear end of the turning body is less than or equal to a second length along a traveling direction of the traveling body (see attached video showing size of cab in relation to size of treads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Ninja with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa in view of Koga and Ninja teach an excavator system. While the exact sizing of the components are a design choice, Ninja teaches that the turning body is shorter than the travelling body. Substituting the shorter body of Ninja into the excavator of Hayakawa would be an obvious design choice since many different excavator sizes are well known in the art and designed depending on the designed use case. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the sizing of Ninja with the system of Hayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Koga Hayakawa does not explicitly teach, however Ninja teaches:
wherein a length from a front end of the turning body to a rear end of the turning body is less than or equal to a total width of the traveling body along a direction substantially orthogonal to a traveling direction of the traveling body (see attached video showing size of cab in relation to size of treads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Ninja with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa in view of Koga and Ninja teach an excavator system. While the exact sizing of the components are a design choice, Ninja teaches that the turning body is shorter than the travelling body. Substituting the shorter body of Ninja into the excavator of Hayakawa would be an obvious design choice since many different excavator sizes are well known in the art and designed depending on the designed use case. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the sizing of Ninja with the system of Hayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et. al. (US 11,906,641), herein Hayakawa (from IDS) in view of Koga (US 2022/0205221), herein Koga in further view of Hoshino et. al. (US 202/00032479), herein Hoshino (from IDS).
Regarding claim 11:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
wherein the turning body has a wiring connecting the reception unit to the control unit (fig. 2, showing connection between image device 19 and controller 100),
Hayakawa in view of Koga does not explicitly teach, however Hoshino teaches:
the wiring being disposed along the cabin (see fig. 7 showing wiring disposed along the cabin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Hoshino with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa and Hoshino teach an excavator system. Hoshino teaches the benefit of “a work vehicle is provided that includes a cab to be boarded by an operator, and an antenna. The cab includes a roof. The antenna is mounted on the roof. The antenna is positionable selectively at one of a first arrangement position located lower than a topmost portion of the roof, and a second arrangement position protruding upward relative to the topmost portion of the roof [Hoshino, 0006]”.
Regarding claim 12:
Hayakawa in view of Koga and Hoshino teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hoshino further teaches:
wherein the wiring is disposed along an inner surface of the cabin (see fig. 7 showing wiring going inside the cabin.).
Regarding claim 13:
Hayakawa in view of Koga and Hoshino teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa and Hoshino further teaches:
wherein the cabin includes a first support member that supports the wiring (examiner notes that both Hayakawa and Hoshino inherently have mounting supports that attach the wires to the vehicle. See at least fig. 7 of Hoshino.).
Regarding claim 14:
Hayakawa in view of Koga and Hoshino teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
wherein the control unit (fig. 2, controller 100) includes:
Hoshino further teaches:
a housing that houses the controller and the switching valve (In container box 84, a connector is housed for electrically connecting a device attached to base 81 and an electrical device located in cab 10 [0035]; A wire 35 is connected to bottom end portion 32 of first antenna 30. Wire 35 extends into a box 36. Wire 35 connects first antenna 30 and box 36 to each other. [0045]); and
a second support member that is disposed in the housing and supports the wiring (Bracket 38 includes a bottom portion 39, an erect portion 40, and a support portion 41. Bottom portion 39 has a flat plate shape and is disposed in substantially parallel with upper surface 21 of condenser unit 20. Box 36 is mounted on bottom portion 39. Erect portion 40 extends orthogonally to bottom portion 39. Coupling portions 33, 34 for first antenna 30 are fixed to erect portion 40. Support portion 41 supports second antenna 43. [0047]; examiner notes that the inside of the box would also inherently include mounting points for the internal components.).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et. al. (US 11,906,641), herein Hayakawa (from IDS) in view of Koga (US 2022/0205221), herein Koga in further view of Olsen et. al. (US 2019/0048559), herein Olsen.
Regarding claim 19:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Koga does not explicitly teach, however Olsen teaches:
the cabin includes a guide unit extending in an up and down direction of the turning body (a location of the camera along the connector component. [0004]), and the reception unit is supported to be able to be raised and lowered along the guide unit (In some examples, the mounting device is electronically controllable by a control unit for manipulating the orientation of the camera or the location along the connector component of the camera [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Olsen with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa and Olsen teach an excavator system. Olsen teaches the benefit of “the operator's field of view can become obstructed while the operator uses the work vehicle. For example, a deep trench, a pile of dirt, or the sides/sideboards of a dump truck can obstruct the operator's field of view, preventing the operator from seeing underground obstructions (e.g., pipes, gas lines, etc.), the inside of hauling equipment, or other workers. This can create hazardous conditions or otherwise impede the operator's ability to perform a task [Olsen, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 20:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Koga does not explicitly teach, however Olsen teaches:
and a rotational member that connects the reception unit to the cabin (The mounting device can be operable to adjust (i) an orientation of the camera [0004]), and
the rotational member is connected rotatably to the cabin (In some examples, the mounting device is electronically controllable by a control unit for manipulating the orientation of the camera or the location along the connector component of the camera [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Olsen with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa and Olsen teach an excavator system. Olsen teaches the benefit of “the operator's field of view can become obstructed while the operator uses the work vehicle. For example, a deep trench, a pile of dirt, or the sides/sideboards of a dump truck can obstruct the operator's field of view, preventing the operator from seeing underground obstructions (e.g., pipes, gas lines, etc.), the inside of hauling equipment, or other workers. This can create hazardous conditions or otherwise impede the operator's ability to perform a task [Olsen, 0003]”.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et. al. (US 11,906,641), herein Hayakawa (from IDS) in view of Koga (US 2022/0205221), herein Koga in further view of Cebrian (WO 2012013838), herein Cebrian.
Regarding claim 21:
Hayakawa in view of Koga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa further teaches:
wherein the reception unit (fig. 1, image-capturing device (camera) 19) includes:
Hayakawa in view of Koga does not explicitly teach, however Cebrian teaches:
a second antenna that receives the specific information (fig. 4, antenna 4; antenna (4) responsible for tracking the surroundings of the dipper (3) in order to detect the different RFID tags or radio beacons (8) [Cebrian]); and
a main body that obtains the specific information received by the second antenna (an antenna is installed (4) that through the corresponding wiring (5) it is connected to a computer (6) [Cebrian]), and
the main body and the second antenna are disposed at positions different from each other (fig. 4 showing antenna (4) and computer (6) in different locations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa in view of Koga to include the teachings as taught by Cebrian with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa and Cebrian teach an excavator system. Cebrian teaches the benefits of “The excavator machine will be complemented with a series of REID or radio beacon tags, which may be surrounded by a protective matrix to withstand blasting, tags that will be intended to be inserted into holes or empty holes that are made on the blasting bench, or within perforations intended to be loaded with explosives but isolated from them by protective inert material, so that from the material extracted in the drilling itself for insertion of the explosives an analysis of the contents of minerals in each zone, and delimit, prior to blasting, the area of interest, an area that will be delimited by inserting the corresponding RFID or radio beacon tags, and where appropriate with its corresponding protective shell against impacts during the movement of the blasting, so that, once the blasting is done, the excavator can remove the sterile material, so that, when approaching the useful mineral, the antenna installed in the vicinity of its bucket will detect the corresponding radio beacon, generating the associated computer to it the corresponding warning signal, visible through a display screen, and n that the limits of each material will be represented, allowing the operator to separate the materials, for example, by loading the materials in different trucks. [Cebrian]”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Utter (US 2020/0110417) discloses A system for a vehicle is provided herein that includes a position sensor configured to identify a location of the vehicle and a heading of the vehicle. A human-machine interface (HMI) is operatively coupled with the vehicle. A controller is in electronic communication with the position sensor and the HMI. The controller is configured to access one or more databases to identify a first location, a first heading, and a first speed for the vehicle, and to identify a first aggregate heading value and a first aggregate speed value associated with the first location; determine that either the heading or the speed of the vehicle is outside of acceptable ranges; and issue a wave-off alert to the HMI when the vehicle is outside of acceptable ranges.
Morimoto (US 2018/0202130) discloses A shovel includes a traveling undercarriage configured to travel, an upper rotating structure swingably mounted on the traveling undercarriage, a cab mounted on the upper rotating structure, an attachment including a working part configured to perform work, and a display device provided in the cab. The display device is configured to display an image including a work guidance display part, the work guidance display part showing an attitude of the working part and a target surface, and is configured to change a content displayed in the work guidance display part in accordance with an operating condition of the attachment.
Nishi (EP 3572302) discloses A work vehicle includes a wheel supporting member that is supported by a vehicle body frame (1) that includes left and right side members; left and right steerable wheels that are supported by the wheel supporting member so as to be steerable; and a steering mechanism that includes a power steering unit and steers the left and right steerable wheels. The power steering unit is located near the wheel supporting member such that at least a portion of the power steering unit is located between the left and right side members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights