DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 4/15/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 argument, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the lead line for reference character 4 being clear (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of figure 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the reference characters 20/22 on a single lead line being clear (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10-11) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of figure 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the reference characters 40/41 on a single lead line being clear (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10-11) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Paragraph 18 discloses travel operation device 40 includes an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a steering lever, and a gear shift lever 41. Although gear shift level 41 is part of the travel operation device, it is unclear how the attached lead line indicates the accelerator pedal, brake pedal, or steering lever. See objection below.
Applicant’s argument with respect to reference character 50 generally pointing to an angle sensor while reference characters 51 and 52 refer to different embodiments of the angle sensor (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Paragraph 23 discloses the angle sensor is mounted on the working equipment and the angle sensor 50 includes a boom angle sensor 51 and a bucket angle sensor 52. Applicant appears to use the term sensor to mean a distributed- or multi-sensor system, however, the plain meaning of the term sensor is a single component. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the angle sensor to be two angle sensors located at different positions on the working equipment. See objection below.
Applicant’s argument with respect to applying a braking device to multiple wheels (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of figure 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the term intervention control has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 4/15/2026.
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, it is unclear if the following pairs of reference characters are the same part because they are indicated with a single leader line: 40/41, 50/51, and 50/52.
In figure 1, reference character 50 is used to designate two different components, however, paragraph 12 discloses a single angle sensor. It is unclear how a single angle sensor is located at two different positions.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 4/15/2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 71, line 3, the phrase “measures the front” is unclear because all of the drawings appear to disclose sensing the side of the loading target. The Examiner suggests the phrase should read “measure the area in front of the wheel loader 1” similar to amended paragraph 72.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 16-18, “the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target” should read “the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, “The control system of the work machine according to claim 1, processor is configured to perform” should read “The control system of the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 6, lines 3-4, “and processor is configured to stop” should read “and the processor is configured to stop”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 7, line 3, “loading an excavated object” should read “loading the excavated object” to make it clear that the excavated object is the same excavated object loaded in claim 1, lines 5-6.
In claim 10, line 6, “measures a work target” should read “measures the work target” to make it clear that the work target detected in line 2 is measured.
In claim 10, lines 5-7, “the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device … and the detection device that detects the work target detect the work target” should read “the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device … and the detection device”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 16, line 3, “loading an excavated object” should read “loading the excavated object” to make it clear that the excavated object is the same excavated object loaded in claim 10, lines 8-9.
Claim 18 should be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 2-5 and 2-8, respectively, the limitation “a three-dimensional measurement device that measures [a/the] work target … wherein the work target includes an excavation target and a loading target” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of measuring the excavation target. Paragraphs 11 and 30 disclose the work target includes an excavation target that is a terrain feature, such as a hill, from which material is removed. Paragraphs 31-33 disclose material is removed from the hill in the excavation work mode, then the loader moves away from the hill and switches to a loading work mode, then the driver drives toward the haul vehicle and raises the boom, and at this time the three-dimensional measurement device measures the haul vehicle. Paragraph 55 further discloses the measurement range may include both the haul vehicle and an object around the haul vehicle as a work target, however, paragraph 55 does not disclose the object around the haul vehicle is the excavation target.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 3-5 and 3-8, respectively, the limitation “a detection device that detects the work target … wherein the work target includes an excavation target and a loading target” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of detecting the excavation target. Paragraphs 11 and 30 disclose the work target includes an excavation target that is a terrain feature, such as a hill, from which material is removed. Although paragraph 27 generally discloses the detection device detects a detection target in front of the vehicle body, there does not appear to be explicit disclosure that the detection device detects the excavation target, and figure 8 appears to disclose the intervention control is based only on the presence of the loading target.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2-4, the limitation “determine whether the work target has been detected by … the three-dimensional measurement device … when a boom angle of the working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of basing the detection by the three-dimensional measurement device on the boom angle. Figure 10 discloses the boom angle threshold is used in the detection of step S25, however, paragraph 85 discloses step S25 is directed to confirming the haul vehicle is detected by the detection data acquisition unit. Paragraph 44 further discloses the detection data acquisition unit acquires detection data from the non-contact sensor, i.e., the detection device. There does not appear to be similar disclosure that the stereo camera detection in step S13 is based on the boom angle.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 5-6 and 8-9, respectively, the limitation “a loading target onto which the excavated object is loaded” renders each claim indefinite because the excavated object lacks sufficient antecedent basis in each claim which makes the relationship between the excavation target and the excavated object unclear. Paragraph 11 discloses the excavation target includes a hill, and the wheel loader excavates the excavation target and discharges excavated objects, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the excavated object is an object removed from the excavation target.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 13 and 2, respectively, the limitation “determin[e/ing] whether [a/the] work target has been detected” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how both the excavation target and loading target are detected by the three-dimensional measurement device and detection device. As discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of detecting the excavation target, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to determining whether the loading target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device.
Regarding claim 8, lines 1-2, the limitation “the detection device is installed at a position different from a position of the three-dimensional measurement device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how being installed at a different position than the three-dimensional measurement difference is different than being disposed at a position different from the position of the three-dimensional measurement device as recited in claim 1, lines 10-11. It is further unclear if the position of the three-dimensional measurement device is the same position recited in claim 1, lines 10-11. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same two installation locations of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device, and they are installed at different locations.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2-4, the limitation “determine whether the work target has been detected by … the three-dimensional measurement device … when a boom angle of the working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the three-dimensional measurement device uses the boom angle to determine whether the work target has been detected. As discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of basing the detection by the three-dimensional measurement device on the boom angle, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to determining the work target has been detected when it is detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device, and the boom angle is equal to or greater than an angle threshold.
Claim 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0042282), hereinafter Nakayama.
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama discloses a control system of a work machine (Nakayama; paras. 55-56: cabin 10 is a cab in which an operator is seated for operation of the shovel 100 … the controller 30 … and the like are provided in the cabin 10), the system comprising: an imaging device configured to capture photographic measurement data of a work target of the work machine (Nakayama; para. 98: image capturing device 40 is attached to the top surface of the upper turning body 3, and is configured to capture an image of an area surrounding the shovel 100, ranging from an area relatively close to the shovel 100 to an area relatively far from the shovel 100, and output the captured image. The image capturing device 40 includes cameras 40B, 40L, and 40R. The cameras 40B, 40L, and 40R may be hereinafter collectively referred to as a “camera 40X”); a sensor configured to detect the work target (Nakayama; para. 102: surrounding information obtaining device 45 (an example of a “sensor”) is attached to the top surface of the upper turning body 3, and is configured to obtain information on the situation around the shovel 100. The surrounding information obtaining device 45 includes sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R. The sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R may be hereinafter collectively referred to as a “sensor 45X”); and a processor (Nakayama; para. 94: controller 30 may be configured mainly by a computer including a CPU) configured to: determine whether the work target has been detected by both the imaging device and the sensor (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45), and perform intervention control of a working equipment of the work machine (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area) based on a determination that the work target has been detected (Nakayama; para. 141: safety function control part 305 (an example of a notification part) performs control related to the safety function and activates the safety function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304) by both the imaging device and the sensor (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Seki et al. (JP 2019-178598), hereinafter Seki.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, as best understood, Nakayama discloses a control system of a work machine (Nakayama; paras. 55-56: cabin 10 is a cab in which an operator is seated for operation of the shovel 100 … the controller 30 … and the like are provided in the cabin 10), the system comprising: a three-dimensional measurement device (Nakayama; para. 98: image capturing device 40 is attached to the top surface of the upper turning body 3, and is configured to capture an image of an area surrounding the shovel 100, ranging from an area relatively close to the shovel 100 to an area relatively far from the shovel 100, and output the captured image. The image capturing device 40 includes cameras 40B, 40L, and 40R. The cameras 40B, 40L, and 40R may be hereinafter collectively referred to as a “camera 40X”) that measures a work target of the work machine (Nakayama; para. 99: camera 40X captures an image within a vertical imaging range from the ground in the vicinity of the shovel 100; para. 91: a monitoring target may include any objects (obstacles) other than persons, such as … moving obstacles (such as vehicles including trucks)); a detection device that detects the work target (Nakayama; para. 102: surrounding information obtaining device 45 (an example of a “sensor”) is attached to the top surface of the upper turning body 3, and is configured to obtain information on the situation around the shovel 100. The surrounding information obtaining device 45 includes sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R. The sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R may be hereinafter collectively referred to as a “sensor 45X”); and a processor (Nakayama; para. 94: controller 30 may be configured mainly by a computer including a CPU), wherein the three-dimensional measurement device is a stereo camera (Nakayama; para. 99: camera 40X may be, for example, a stereo camera), wherein the detection device is disposed at a position different from the position of the three- dimensional measurement device (Nakayama; fig. 2), and is a non-contact sensor that scans a periphery of the work machine to detect a three-dimensional shape of an object (Nakayama; para. 104: sensor 45X obtains information indicating a situation around the shovel 100 by emitting infrared light in a direction and receiving reflected light (infrared light) from an object in the direction. Specifically, the sensor 45X obtains information related to the received reflected light (hereinafter referred to as “received light information”). The sensor 45X is, for example, scanning lidar, which is a three-dimensional laser scanner capable of scanning an infrared laser in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction with respect to an emission direction of the infrared laser. Further, the sensor 45X may also be, what is known as flash lidar that emits infrared light from a light emitting module over a wide three-dimensional area, and captures an image of reflected light (infrared light) with a three-dimensional range image device), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45), and wherein the processor is configured to perform intervention control of the work machine (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area) when the processor determines that the work target has been detected (Nakayama; para. 141: safety function control part 305 (an example of a notification part) performs control related to the safety function and activates the safety function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304) by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Nakayama’s disclosure is directed to safety control while an excavator or wheel loader is performing work, and a person of ordinary skill in the would have recognized that the work of an excavator or wheel loader typically involves transferring material from an excavation area into a dump truck. However, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose the work target includes an excavation target and a loading target onto which the excavated object is loaded.
Seki, in the same field of endeavor (heavy equipment safety systems), discloses a work target includes an excavation target and a loading target (Seki; para. 25: three-dimensional measuring device 20 measures the work object in front of the front part 2F of the vehicle body. The work area includes the area to be excavated by the work machine 10, and the area to which the excavated material from the work machine 10 is loaded) onto which an excavated object is loaded (Seki; para. 10: Wheel loader 1 performs excavation work to excavate the target to be excavated, and loading work to load the excavated material onto the loading target.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have explicitly included performing excavation work, and detecting an excavation area and on a loading target, as disclosed by Seki, within the image area surrounding the work machine that includes the ground and truck of Nakayama, to yield the predictable result of sensing the state of the work area around the work machine.
Although a conventional stereo camera is used to determine the relative depth of points within a pair of images, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose the stereo camera measures a relative position to each of a plurality of measurement points on a surface of the work target to measure a three-dimensional shape of the work target.
Seki further discloses a stereo camera measures a relative position to each of a plurality of measurement points on a surface of the work target to measure a three-dimensional shape of the work target (Seki; para. 25: three-dimensional measuring device 20 measures the relative position from the three-dimensional measuring device 20 to each of several measurement points on the surface of the workpiece, thereby measuring the three-dimensional shape of the workpiece. The control device 80 calculates parameters related to the work object based on the measured three-dimensional shape of the work object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the stereo camera of Nakayama, as modified, to measure the shape of objects by measuring the relative positions of points on the objects, as disclosed by Seki, with the motivation of accurately determining the geometry of objects surrounding the vehicle.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to stop the intervention control when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Nakayama; para. 154: safety function control part 305 stops the operation limiting function when the monitoring target detected by the detecting part 304 is no longer detected; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to output a warning (Nakayama; para. 142: safety function control part 305 activates the notification function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as a “notification area”) that is included in the monitoring area) when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to detect a monitoring target based on one of the outputs of the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to: calculate a position of the loading target of the work machine based on a measurement result measured by the three-dimensional measurement device (Nakayama; para. 135: detecting part 304A, for example, estimates the position of the identified monitoring target in the horizontal direction viewed from the shovel 100), wherein the intervention control unit performs intervention control based on the position of the loading target calculated by the target calculation unit (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the intervention control includes control of raising working equipment of the work machine toward the loading target of the work machine (Seki; para. 30: control device 80 controls the work implement 10 so that the boom 11 is raised when the wheel loader 1 is moving forward to approach the transport vehicle LS), and the processor is configured to stop raising of the working equipment (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area) when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to detect a monitoring target based on one of the outputs of the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the intervention control includes control of raising working equipment of the work machine toward the loading target of the work machine (Seki; para. 30: control device 80 controls the work implement 10 so that the boom 11 is raised when the wheel loader 1 is moving forward to approach the transport vehicle LS), control of loading an excavated object of the working equipment onto the loading target (Seki; para. 30: After the boom 11 is raised and the bucket 12 is positioned above the vessel BE, the control device 80 controls the work implement 10 so that the bucket 12 tilts. As a result, the excavated material is discharged from the bucket 12 and loaded onto the vessel BE.), and control of lowering the working equipment (Seki; para. 35: Based on the measurement data from the three-dimensional measuring device 20, the control device 80 lowers the boom 11), and the processor is configured to stop at least one of the raising of the working equipment, the loading of the working equipment, and the lowering of the working equipment (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area) when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to detect a monitoring target based on one of the outputs of the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the detection device is installed at a position different from a position of the three- dimensional measurement device (Nakayama; fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Seki as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bös et al. (DE 10 2018 131 220), hereinafter Bös.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Nakayama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to perform intervention control when an angle of working equipment of the work machine is equal to or greater than an angle threshold and the work target is detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device.
Bös, in the same field of endeavor (heavy equipment safety systems), discloses a processor is configured to perform intervention control (Bös; para. 46: The machine may have an evaluation unit. The signals from the sensor(s) are fed to this unit, wherein the evaluation unit is designed to initiate, stop or prevent one or more actions of the working machine, and wherein the evaluation unit is particularly designed to enable assistance functions or autonomous driving of the working machine.) when an angle of working equipment of a work machine is equal to or greater than an angle threshold and a work target is detected by both a three-dimensional measurement device and a detection device (Bös; para. 64: In an intermediate area not shown, where the work equipment is located between the uppermost and the lowermost position, the signals of both sensors at position S1 and S2 are preferably evaluated, i.e., both the first and the second sensors, with a weighting that depends on the position of the work equipment.; para. 45: The sensor(s) may, but are not limited to, be a stereo camera and/or a PMD camera and/or a radar sensor and/or an ultrasonic sensor and/or a laser scanner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have initiated, stopped or prevented one or more actions of the working machine when the work equipment is raised above a predetermined position and both sensors detect the target, as disclosed by Bös, in the CPU of Nakayama, as modified, with the motivation of dynamically selecting the most accurate sensors to detect objects based on which sensors are obstructed by the working tool of the vehicle (Bös, para. 26).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to determine whether the work target has been detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area).
Nakayama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining the work target has been detected when a boom angle of the working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold which is greater than a predetermined range.
Bös discloses determining a work target has been detected when a boom angle of working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold which is greater than a predetermined range (Bös; para. 64: In an intermediate area not shown, where the work equipment is located between the uppermost and the lowermost position, the signals of both sensors at position S1 and S2 are preferably evaluated, i.e., both the first and the second sensors, with a weighting that depends on the position of the work equipment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have initiated, stopped or prevented one or more actions of the working machine when the work equipment is raised above a predetermined position and both sensors detect the target, as disclosed by Bös, in the CPU of Nakayama, as modified, with the motivation of dynamically selecting the most accurate sensors to detect objects based on which sensors are obstructed by the working tool of the vehicle (Bös, para. 26).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Seki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bös and Imaizumi et al. (US 2018/0370432), hereinafter Imaizumi.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Nakayama, as modified, discloses the work machine is a wheel loader (Nakayama; para. 318: the surroundings monitoring apparatus 150 may be mounted on … a wheel loader), and the processor is configured to perform intervention control (Nakayama; para. 152: safety function control part 305 activates the operation limiting function when a monitoring target is detected by the detecting part 304 in a predetermined area (hereinafter referred to as an “operation limiting area”) included in the monitoring area) when the work target is detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device (Nakayama; para. 140: detecting part 304 may be configured to output one detection result related to a monitoring target by integrally using the outputs of both the image capturing device 40 and the surrounding information obtaining device 45).
Nakayama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the detection device is installed on the work machine at a position that is forward of a front axle.
Imaizumi, in the same field of endeavor (heavy equipment safety systems), discloses a detection device is installed on a work machine at a position that is forward of a front axle (Imaizumi; fig. 7: camera 20A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have installed the surrounding information obtaining device of Nakayama, as modified, at a position forward of the front axle, as disclosed by Imaizumi, to yield the predictable result of providing a clear view of the area directly in front of the vehicle.
Nakayama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose performing intervention control in a case where an angle of working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold.
Bös discloses performing intervention control (Bös; para. 46: The machine may have an evaluation unit. The signals from the sensor(s) are fed to this unit, wherein the evaluation unit is designed to initiate, stop or prevent one or more actions of the working machine, and wherein the evaluation unit is particularly designed to enable assistance functions or autonomous driving of the working machine.) in a case where an angle of working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold (Bös; para. 64: In an intermediate area not shown, where the work equipment is located between the uppermost and the lowermost position, the signals of both sensors at position S1 and S2 are preferably evaluated, i.e., both the first and the second sensors, with a weighting that depends on the position of the work equipment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have initiated, stopped or prevented one or more actions of the working machine when the work equipment is raised above a predetermined position and both sensors detect the target, as disclosed by Bös, in the CPU of Nakayama, as modified, with the motivation of dynamically selecting the most accurate sensors to detect objects based on which sensors are obstructed by the working tool of the vehicle (Bös, para. 26).
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights