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 .
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 amendments filed on 09/11/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 18-20 are currently amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, in light of the amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiners interpretation of “reception unit” and “external device” are inconsistent with the specification. The specification does not specifically define the “reception unit” beyond stating that it is capable of “receiving specific information” from the “reference station” and only defines the “external device” as being able to provide “specific information” to the reception unit. Therefore the examiner is not interpreting the limitations inconsistent with the specification. Applicant also argues that the ”reference points SP” of Hayakawa are not “external devices” and do not share “specific information”. Hayakawa discloses “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. Typically, a plurality of reference points SP1 to SP12 are installed such that they surround the work site as illustrated in FIG. 4. The reference points (SPn) may be attached to the ground or wall surfaces. In addition, objects that are installed as the reference points SPn are objects having features of a predetermined size, color, pattern, shape or property, and include stakes, nails, markers, and the like. In addition, markers mentioned here may be markers that reflect light having a particular wavelength, markers that reflect light in a particular direction, AR markers used in an AR (Augmented Reality) technology, and markers that include two-dimensional codes such as QR codes (registered trademark). [col 10, lines 31-46]”. This clearly shows that these devices each display unique information that the reception unit is able to read and interpret in order to allow the system to locate itself. Applicant’s arguments make it appear that their intent of the external device is to actively transmit some wireless signal that encodes the information. If that is the intended scope of the claims then the examiner invited the applicant to amend the claims to reflect the desired scope. Applicant additionally argues amended limitations which are addressed in the updated rejection below.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3-4 using the Dirt Ninja video, the examiner apologizes for not including the URL in the 892 form. The URL is “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GNqWikb0ZA” for that video. Only 1 screenshot was provided as it clearly illustrates the claimed sizing relationship between the cab and the treads.
All other arguments regarding the dependent claims appear to be due to their dependence upon claim 1 and are being maintained in light of the arguments pertaining to claim 1 supra and the updated rejection below in light of the amendments.
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 Yamada et. al. (US 2019/0027820), herein Yamada.
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]), and
a cabin disposed on one side of the turning body (see fig. 1 showing cabin on left side of machine.),
Yamada also teaches:
a cabin disposed on one side of the turning body (at least figs. 1-3, cab 5),
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach, however Yamada teaches:
wherein the reception unit (The pair of antennas 9 have a main antenna 9A and a sub-antenna 9B [0044]) is disposed at an opposite side of the turning body relative to the cabin (fig. 3, antenna 9B on the opposite side of the turning body as the cab) and at a rear portion of the cabin (fig. 4, antennas 9A and 9B are both mounted in line with the rear portion of the cabin.) so as to not overlap, in the front-rear direction (fig. 3, antenna 9B not overlapping rear window 48), with a plate member located at the back of the turning body (fig. 3, rear window 48).
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 Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. “main antenna 9A is attached to the rear portion of cab 5, and thus, main antenna 9A is arranged on the rear side of revolving unit 3. As a result, blockage of the radio signal to main antenna 9A by work implement 4 can be suppressed. An influence that work implement 4 has on the reception environment of main antenna 9A can be reduced, and thus, a reduction in accuracy of measurement of the current position of hydraulic excavator 1 can be suppressed [Yamada, 0075]” and “main antenna 9A and sub-antenna 9B can be arranged at positions separate from each other in the lateral direction of revolving unit 3. Therefore, the accuracy of measurement of the current position of hydraulic excavator 1 can be improved [Yamada, 0074]”. Additionally although Yamada teaches two antenna mounted in two locations, the instant claims simply incorporate the benefits of both locations into one mounting location. This would be an obvious choice provided the teachings of Yamada in view of MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B). “In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).”)
Regarding claim 5:
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada et. al. (US 2019/0027820), herein Yamada in further view of Dirt Ninja (NPL - Youtube), herein Ninja.
Regarding claim 3:
Hayakawa in view of Yamada teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada to include the teachings as taught by Ninja with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada to include the teachings as taught by Ninja with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada et. al. (US 2019/0027820), herein Yamada in further view of Hoshino et. al. (US 20200032479), herein Hoshino (from IDS).
Regarding claim 11:
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada et. al. (US 2019/0027820), herein Yamada in further view of Olsen et. al. (US 2019/0048559), herein Olsen.
Regarding claim 19:
Hayakawa in view of Yamada teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada et. al. (US 2019/0027820), herein Yamada in further view of Cebrian (WO 2012013838), herein Cebrian.
Regarding claim 21:
Hayakawa in view of Yamada 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 Yamada 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 Yamada 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.
Hanseder (US 6,253,160) discloses A method and apparatus for calibrating sensors of a tool positioning mechanism on a mobile machine are provided. The mobile machine includes a tool, a tool positioning mechanism having a plurality of sensors for providing signals indicative of the physical configuration of the mechanism, a satellite positioning system, and a plurality of positioning system antennas. One of the antennas is detachably mounted on the tool while an other antenna is mounted to a location on the machine other than on the tool. With the positioning mechanism configured so that the tool is at its maximum height, the satellite positioning system is operated to acquire real-time kinematic (RTK) data from the antennas and to process the RTK data to precisely determine the position of the tool. The sensors are then calibrated based on the precisely determined position of the tool.
Ohtomo (US 6,286,607) discloses a construction machine control system, which comprises a rotary laser irradiating system for irradiating a plurality of laser beams by separating in a vertical direction and for forming a plurality of laser beam reference planes by the plurality of laser beams, a construction machine having a ground leveling tool, a level sensor arranged on the ground leveling tool and for receiving and detecting the laser beams, a driving unit for driving the ground leveling tool to adjust height thereof, a control device for controlling the driving unit, and a GPS receiving system for detecting a position of the construction machine, wherein the control device detects the position of the construction machine by the GPS receiving system, the level sensor selects at least one of the plurality of laser beams and controls the driving unit based on a laser beam photodetecting position of the level sensor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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