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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7, and 13 and arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 48, 10-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Yamamoto and Tanaka individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in further detail in the rejections below, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teachings of Yamamoto and the teachings of Tanaka to result in the argued limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200199851 A1, with an earliest priority date of 09/07/2017 and a publication date of 06/25/2020, hereinafter “Yamamoto”, further in view of US 20190390436 A1, with an earliest priority date of 09/26/2017, hereinafter “Tanaka”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a method for recovering a posture of a work machine. See at least figure 8b.
the method comprising: setting a safe posture range based on a posture of a work machine before operation. See at least [0076]-[0078], [0088]-[0089], and figure 4, wherein a predetermined posture range Hth1 is set based on the height of the work machine. When the bucket exceeds the posture range Hth1, the work machine is determined to be unstable, i.e. unsafe.
acquiring posture information on the work machine in operation. See at least [0068], [0142]-[0143], [0159], and figure 8B, steps S810B-S812B, wherein posture information including boom angle, arm angle, turning angle, and bucket position are received.
in a case where, by reference to the posture information, it has been detected that the posture of the work machine in operation has deviated from the safe posture range for a first period. See at least [0160] and figure 8B, Step S814B-816B, wherein a determination is made as to whether the vehicle is in an unstable attitude (unsafe posture range) for a predetermined period of time T12. Additionally, see at least [0165], wherein predetermined time T12 represents a period of time without interruption where the machine remains in an unstable attitude.
carrying out a recovery operation of the work machine. See at least [0161] and figure 8B, step S818B, wherein a control command is output to reducing valve 54 of the work machine based on the determination made in steps S814B-S816B.
resuming an operation of the work machine in a case where it has been detected that the work machine has operated for a second period after the recovery operation. See at least [0157]-[0158] and figure 8, Step 806B-808B, wherein the method checks if the machine’s current stability conditions correspond to the conditions of the last warning output, and checks if a second predetermined time T11 has passed since the last warning output. Additionally, see at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation. In a situation where the machine has been operating normally and has already transitioned from recovery movement to unrestricted movement (S806B = no, current state = stable and preceding state = unstable), the machine’s unrestricted movement continues. In a case where the machine has been operating in an unstable mode, the second predetermined time T11 has passed, and the machine is now in a stable mode (S806B = yes, S808B = yes, and S814B = no), then the machine resumes normal operation.
wherein the safe posture range and the posture information include an orientation and a position of the work machine itself. See at least [0136]-[0138] and figure 7, steps S704a-706a, wherein one of the conditions for the machine being in a safe posture range is the machine being determined to not travel on sloping ground. See at least [0123]-[0124], wherein the determination of whether the vehicle is traveling on sloping ground consists of an inclination angle (orientation) of the work machine’s body and a position of the work machine’s body.
Yamamoto remains silent on remained within the safe posture range. As discussed above, Yamamoto teaches resuming operation of the machine after a second predetermined time T11 has passed and the machine is currently in the safe posture range, without checking if the machine has been in the safe posture range the entire time.
Tanaka teaches remained within the safe posture range. See at least [0039]-[0040], wherein the excavator is controlled to maintain a state wherein the bucket remains in the target ground contact range.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of maintaining a safe posture range. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto teaches a posture recovery system comprising: at least one processor. See at least [0042]-[0043] and figures 2-3, controller 30.
the at least one processor carrying out: a process of detecting posture information on a work machine. See at least [0068], [0142]-[0143], [0159], and figure 8B, steps S810B-S812B, wherein posture information including boom angle, arm angle, turning angle, and bucket position are received.
a process of setting a safe posture range based on a posture of the work machine before operation. See at least [0076]-[0078], [0088]-[0089], and figure 4, wherein a predetermined posture range Hth1 is set based on the height of the work machine. When the bucket exceeds the posture range Hth1, the work machine is determined to be unstable, i.e. unsafe.
a process of, in a case where, by reference to the acquired posture information, it has been detected that the posture of the work machine in operation, it has been detected that the posture of the work machine in operation has deviated from the safe posture range for a first period. See at least [0160] and figure 8B, Step S814B-816B, wherein a determination is made as to whether the vehicle is in an unstable attitude (unsafe posture range) for a predetermined period of time T12. Additionally, see at least [0165], wherein predetermined time T12 represents a period of time without interruption where the machine remains in an unstable attitude.
instructing the work machine to carry out a recovery operation. See at least [0161] and figure 8B, step S818B, wherein a control command is output to reducing valve 54 of the work machine based on the determination made in steps S814B-S816B.
and a process of resuming an operation of the work machine in a case where it has been detected that the work machine has operated for a second period after the recovery operation. See at least [0157]-[0158] and figure 8, Step 806B-808B, wherein the method checks if the machine’s current stability conditions correspond to the conditions of the last warning output, and checks if a second predetermined time T11 has passed since the last warning output. Additionally, see at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation. In a situation where the machine has been operating normally and has already transitioned from recovery movement to unrestricted movement (S806B = no, current state = stable and preceding state = unstable), the machine’s unrestricted movement continues. In a case where the machine has been operating in an unstable mode, the second predetermined time T11 has passed, and the machine is now in a stable mode (S806B = yes, S808B = yes, and S814B = no), then the machine resumes normal operation.
wherein the safe posture range and the posture information include an orientation and a position of the work machine itself. See at least [0136]-[0138] and figure 7, steps S704a-706a, wherein one of the conditions for the machine being in a safe posture range is the machine being determined to not travel on sloping ground. See at least [0123]-[0124], wherein the determination of whether the vehicle is traveling on sloping ground consists of an inclination angle (orientation) of the work machine’s body and a position of the work machine’s body.
Yamamoto remains silent on remained within the safe posture range. As discussed above, Yamamoto teaches resuming operation of the machine after a second predetermined time T11 has passed and the machine is currently in the safe posture range, without checking if the machine has been in the safe posture range the entire time.
Tanaka teaches remained within the safe posture range. See at least [0039]-[0040], wherein the excavator is controlled to maintain a state wherein the bucket remains in the target ground contact range.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of maintaining a safe posture range. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamoto teaches a posture recovery apparatus comprising: at least one processor. See at least [0042]-[0043] and figures 2-3, controller 30.
the at least one processor carrying out: a process of setting a safe posture range based on a posture of the work machine before operation. See at least [0076]-[0078], [0088]-[0089], and figure 4, wherein a predetermined posture range Hth1 is set based on the height of the work machine. When the bucket exceeds the posture range Hth1, the work machine is determined to be unstable, i.e. unsafe.
a process of detecting posture information on the work machine in operation. See at least [0068], [0142]-[0143], [0159], and figure 8B, steps S810B-S812B, wherein posture information including boom angle, arm angle, turning angle, and bucket position are received.
a process of, in a case where, by reference to the acquired posture information, it has been detected that the posture of the work machine in operation, it has been detected that the posture of the work machine in operation has deviated from the safe posture range for a first period. See at least [0160] and figure 8B, Step S814B-816B, wherein a determination is made as to whether the vehicle is in an unstable attitude (unsafe posture range) for a predetermined period of time T12. Additionally, see at least [0165], wherein predetermined time T12 represents a period of time without interruption where the machine remains in an unstable attitude.
causing the work machine to carry out a recovery operation. See at least [0161] and figure 8B, step S818B, wherein a control command is output to reducing valve 54 of the work machine based on the determination made in steps S814B-S816B.
and a process of resuming an operation of the work machine in a case where it has been detected that the work machine has operated for a second period after the recovery operation. See at least [0157]-[0158] and figure 8, Step 806B-808B, wherein the method checks if the machine’s current stability conditions correspond to the conditions of the last warning output, and checks if a second predetermined time T11 has passed since the last warning output. Additionally, see at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation. In a situation where the machine has been operating normally and has already transitioned from recovery movement to unrestricted movement (S806B = no, current state = stable and preceding state = unstable), the machine’s unrestricted movement continues. In a case where the machine has been operating in an unstable mode, the second predetermined time T11 has passed, and the machine is now in a stable mode (S806B = yes, S808B = yes, and S814B = no), then the machine resumes normal operation.
wherein the safe posture range and the posture information include an orientation and a position of the work machine itself. See at least [0136]-[0138] and figure 7, steps S704a-706a, wherein one of the conditions for the machine being in a safe posture range is the machine being determined to not travel on sloping ground. See at least [0123]-[0124], wherein the determination of whether the vehicle is traveling on sloping ground consists of an inclination angle (orientation) of the work machine’s body and a position of the work machine’s body.
Yamamoto remains silent on remained within the safe posture range. As discussed above, Yamamoto teaches resuming operation of the machine after a second predetermined time T11 has passed and the machine is currently in the safe posture range, without checking if the machine has been in the safe posture range the entire time.
Tanaka teaches remained within the safe posture range. See at least [0039]-[0040], wherein the excavator is controlled to maintain a state wherein the bucket remains in the target ground contact range.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of maintaining a safe posture range. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Tanaka as applied to claims above, further in view of US 20220170233 A1, with an earliest priority date of 07/31/2019, hereinafter “Ono”.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and remains silent on wherein in the carrying out of the recovery operation, the work machine is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation.
Ono teaches wherein in the carrying out of the recovery operation, the work machine is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on and in the carrying out of the recovery operation, the excavation apparatus is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches and in the carrying out of the recovery operation, the excavation apparatus is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. See at least [0055], [0059] and figure 6, wherein in a state b1, an offset in the height direction is applied to the trajectory of the excavator’s boom.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on the method further comprises detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, and in a process of carrying out the recovery operation, the excavation apparatus is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches and in a process of carrying out the recovery operation, the excavation apparatus is caused to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket. Additionally, see at least [0105], wherein the reaction force of the ground against the bucket indicates the geology of the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches the method further comprises detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory. See at least [0038], [0060], and figure 9, wherein an excess of earth and sand is detected near the bottom surface of the bucket. In response to detecting the excess earth and sand, an offset in the height direction is added to the trajectory of the work machine.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of detecting excess earth and sand, and offsetting the trajectory of the machine in response. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto, Tanaka, and Ono in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches in a case where the excavation carried out by the excavation apparatus is to be resumed. See at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation.
Yamamoto remains silent on causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Tanaka teaches causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0038], [0058] and figure 9, wherein in a state a, the excavator is operating successfully, and an offset is applied to the trajectory of the work machine in the height direction of the trajectory.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above, and remains silent on wherein in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out of the recovery operation, the at least one processor causes the work machine to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation.
Ono teaches wherein in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out of the recovery operation, the at least one processor causes the work machine to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on and in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches and in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. See at least [0055], [0059] and figure 6, wherein in a state b1, an offset in the height direction is applied to the trajectory of the excavator’s boom.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on the at least one processor carries out a process of detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, and in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches the at least one processor carries out a process of detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, and in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket. Additionally, see at least [0105], wherein the reaction force of the ground against the bucket indicates the geology of the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches the method further comprises detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory. See at least [0038], [0060], and figure 9, wherein an excess of earth and sand is detected near the bottom surface of the bucket. In response to detecting the excess earth and sand, an offset in the height direction is added to the trajectory of the work machine.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of detecting excess earth and sand, and offsetting the trajectory of the machine in response. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto, Tanaka, and Ono in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the at least one processor carries out a process of, in a case where the excavation carried out by the excavation apparatus is to be resumed. See at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation.
Yamamoto remains silent on causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Tanaka teaches causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0038], [0058] and figure 9, wherein in a state a, the excavator is operating successfully, and an offset is applied to the trajectory of the work machine in the height direction of the trajectory.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above, and remains silent on wherein in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out of the recovery operation, the at least one processor causes the work machine to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation.
Ono teaches wherein in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out of the recovery operation, the at least one processor causes the work machine to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on and in the process of causing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches and in the process of causing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. See at least [0055], [0059] and figure 6, wherein in a state b1, an offset in the height direction is applied to the trajectory of the excavator’s boom.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamamoto and Tanaka in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the work machine is an excavation apparatus. See at least [0026]-[0027] and figure 1.
Yamamoto remains silent on the at least one processor carries out a process of detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, and in the process of causing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Ono teaches the at least one processor carries out a process of detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, and in the process of instructing the work machine to carry out the recovery operation, the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to carry out an operation that follows an operation trajectory which is opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0114] and figure 7, step S212, wherein jack-up suppression control is performed. Additionally, see at least [0077] and [0109]-[0110], wherein, during jack-up suppression control, the machine is commanded to move along a return direction (in the lifting direction, which is opposite to the working direction) in response to the tilt sensor detecting unsafe conditions. The control command is generated in order to suppress, or oppose, the reaction force of the ground against the bucket. Additionally, see at least [0105], wherein the reaction force of the ground against the bucket indicates the geology of the ground.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto with Ono’s technique of a recovery operation that follows an operation trajectory opposite in direction to an operation trajectory of the work machine in operation. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables machine control of excavation operations, increasing work efficiency, as recognized by Ono (see at least [0003]-[0006]).
Tanaka teaches the method further comprises detecting earth and sand accumulated in a vicinity of an operation trajectory of a bucket of the excavation apparatus, obtained by, in accordance with a position where the earth and sand is accumulated, adding an offset to a trajectory. See at least [0038], [0060], and figure 9, wherein an excess of earth and sand is detected near the bottom surface of the bucket. In response to detecting the excess earth and sand, an offset in the height direction is added to the trajectory of the work machine.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of detecting excess earth and sand, and offsetting the trajectory of the machine in response. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamoto, Tanaka, and Ono in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, and Yamamoto additionally teaches wherein the at least one processor carries out a process of causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation. See at least [0163], wherein the recovery movement restrictions are removed and the work machine resumes operation.
Yamamoto remains silent on with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation.
Tanaka teaches causing the excavation apparatus to resume the excavation with use of a trajectory which is obtained by adding an offset in a height direction to the operation trajectory of the bucket of the excavation apparatus in excavation. See at least [0038], [0058] and figure 9, wherein in a state a, the excavator is operating successfully, and an offset is applied to the trajectory of the work machine in the height direction of the trajectory.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Yamamoto with Tanaka’s technique of adding an offset in a height direction to a trajectory. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables excavator operators to maintain control of the machine, as recognized by Tanaka (see at least [0006]-[0009] and [0012]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667