DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-16 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 9/1/2023, 1/7/2025 and 10/1/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, it is unclear which component of the wheel loader is identified as the traveling device by reference character 4.
In figure 1, the reference characters for several components are enclosed in parenthesis. Reference characters must not be used in association with brackets (see CFR § 1.84(p)(1)).
In figures 1 and 5-7, it is unclear what the dashed leader lines are intended to indicate. Although dashed leaders are commonly used to indicate optional components, modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views (see CFR § 1.84(h)(5)).
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: 20/22, 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.
In the last row of figure 8, column 2, “ABSENCE OF DUMP TRUC” should read “ABSENCE OF DUMP TRUCK”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In figure 1, reference character 4B is used to designate two different components, however, paragraph 17 discloses a single braking device. It is unclear how a single braking device is located at two different positions.
In figure 7, it is unclear what the second instance of reference character 26, located at the ground surface, is intended to disclose.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: detection device 25 (para. 12, ll. 8-9), first camera 22A (para. 26, l. 1), and second camera 22B (para. 26, l. 2). 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 6, line 2, “a control system of a work machine, the system comprises” should read “a control system of a work machine comprises”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 9, line 11, “a view illustrating operation of raising” should read “a view illustrating an operation of raising”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 9, line 13, “a diagram illustrating operation of loading” should read “a diagram illustrating an operation of loading”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 9, line 16, “a view illustrating operation of lowering” should read “a view illustrating an operation of lowering”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 13, line 4, “bendably connected” should read “rotationally connected”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 14, lines 2-3, “a drive on the cab” should read “a driver in the cab”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 15, line 5, “the wheel 5 includes” should read “the wheels 5 include”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 15, lines 8-13, “The wheels 5 are equipped with tires 6. The tires 6 include a front tire 6F attached to the front wheel 5F and a rear tire 6R attached to the rear wheel 5R. The front wheel 5F and the front tire 6F are rotatable about a rotation axis FX. The rear wheel 5R and the rear tire 6R are rotatable about the rotation axis RX” should read “The wheels 5 are equipped with tires 6. The tires 6 include front tires 6F attached to the front wheels 5F and rear tires 6R attached to the rear wheels 5R. The front wheels 5F and the front tires 6F are rotatable about a rotation axis FX. The rear wheels 5R and the rear tires 6R are rotatable about the rotation axis RX”. These appear to be typographical errors.
In paragraph 16, lines 1-6, “a direction parallel to the rotation axis FX of the front wheel 5F is appropriately referred to as a vehicle width direction. A direction orthogonal to the ground contact surface of the front tire 6F in contact with the ground surface” should read “a direction parallel to the rotation axis FX of the front wheels 5F is appropriately referred to as a vehicle width direction. A direction orthogonal to the ground contact surface of the front tires 6F in contact with the ground surface”. These appear to be typographical errors.
In paragraph 17, line 14, “bends the vehicle” should read “articulates the vehicle”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 18, lines 9-14 , each usage of “Operation on” should read “Operation of”. These appear to be typographical errors.
In paragraph 29, line 9, “lamp 8 is turn to steady-on” should read “lamp 8 is turned to steady-on”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraphs 33 and 36, lines 5-6 and 4-5, respectively, the meaning of the phrase “move the wheel loader 1 forward with swing operation to approach the haul vehicle” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraphs 33, 37 and 76, lines 15, 4 and 4, respectively, “take a raising motion” should read “make a raising motion”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraphs 33 and 38, lines 17 and 2, respectively, “takes a raising motion” should read “makes a raising motion”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraphs 33 and 38, lines 20 and 4-5, respectively, “take a dumping motion” should read “make a dumping motion”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 33, lines 21-22, “taken the dumping motion” should read “made the dumping motion”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraphs 34 and 39, lines 5-6 and 2-3, respectively, the meaning of the phrase “move the wheel loader 1 backward with swing operation” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 52, lines 3-5, in the phrase “perform intervention control of controlling the motion of the working equipment 10 to load the excavated object into the work target” it is unclear whether the intervention control comprises loading the excavated object into the work target, or the intervention control is performed by controlling the motion of the working equipment while it is loading the excavated object into the work target.
In paragraph 55, lines 23-24, it is unclear how figures 5-7 disclose the non-contact sensor 26 is installed on a front axle.
In paragraph 69, the meaning of the phrase “controls to” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 71, line 3, the phrase “measure the front” is unclear because all of the drawings appear to disclose sensing the side of the loading target.
In paragraph 72, line 3, the phrase “scans the front” is unclear because all of the drawings appear to disclose sensing the side of the loading target.
In paragraph 76, line 14, “takes a dumping motion” should read “makes a dumping motion”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 79, the relationships between the steps of figures 9 and 10 are unclear. Lines 3-5 disclose the method of figure 10 is executed after execution of step S12 of figure 9, however, it is unclear if figure 10 is executed immediately after step S12, and/or whether any of the subsequent steps of figure 9 depend on the absence or presence of detection determined in steps S25 or S28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
In claims 1 and 10, lines 2 and 2-3, respectively, “a three-dimensional measurement device that measures a work target”. Paragraph 98 discloses the three-dimensional measurement device is a stereo camera or laser scanner, therefore, a three-dimensional measurement device will be interpreted as a stereo camera or laser scanner, and equivalents thereof.
In claims 1 and 10, lines 3 and 3-4, respectively, “a detection device that detects the work target”. Paragraph 99 discloses the detection device is a RADAR device, laser scanner, or ultrasonic sensor, therefore, a detection device will be interpreted as distance sensor such as a RADAR, laser scanner, or ultrasonic sensor, and equivalents thereof.
In claim 1, line 4, “an intervention control unit that performs intervention control”.
In claim 3, line 3, “an output unit that outputs a warning”.
In claim 4, line 3, “a target calculation unit that calculates a position of a loading target”.
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 § 112
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 1-16 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 4 and 2, respectively, the term “intervention control” is used by the claim to mean control of raising the bucket, loading the excavated object, and lowering the bucket (para. 54) while the accepted meaning is controlling the act of intervening, i.e., stopping or modifying a process. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the purposes of examination, intervention control will be assumed to include controlling raising, lowering, and tilting of an implement of a work machine.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 4-5 and 2-4, the limitation “when both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target” renders the claim indefinite because both devices detect the work target, therefore, it is unclear how the measurement device and detection device are different. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the work machine comprises a first detection device that is capable of both detecting and measuring a work target, and a second detection device that at least detects the presence of a work target.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the limitation “an intervention control unit that performs intervention control” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 40 discloses the intervention control unit is implemented by a working equipment control unit, no specific structure is disclosed for either unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the intervention control unit comprises software instructions, and equivalents thereof, executed by the control device.
Regarding claim 3, line 3, the limitation “an output unit that outputs a warning” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 40 discloses the output unit can be a buzzer or lamp, these implementations are merely exemplary. Paragraph 104 further discloses a monitor can be used in place of the lamp. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the output unit is either a lamp, buzzer, or monitor, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 4, line 3, the limitation “a target calculation unit that calculates a position of a loading target” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the target calculation unit comprises software instructions, and equivalents thereof, executed by the control device.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-7, lines 3, 4 and 4, respectively, the limitation “a loading target of the work machine” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the loading target is different than the work target of the work machine measured in claim 1, line 2. Paragraph 24 discloses the work target includes a loading target, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the loading target is the work target, or a portion thereof.
Regarding claim 4, line 4, the limitation “a measurement of the three-dimensional measurement device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same measurement by the three-dimensional measurement device recited in claim 1, line 2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same measurement.
Regarding claim 9, line 4, the limitation “the detection device is installed on a front axle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a RADAR device, laser scanner, or ultrasonic sensor is installed on a rotating axle of a vehicle. Figures 5-7 appear to disclose the non-contact sensor 26, which comprises the detection device 25, is located on the front of wheel loader 1, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the detection device is installed on the vehicle at a position that is forward of the front axle.
Regarding claims 13 and 15-16, lines 3, 4 and 4, respectively, the limitation “a loading target of the work machine” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the loading target is different than the work target of the work machine measured in claim 10, line 3. Paragraph 24 discloses the work target includes a loading target, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the loading target is the work target, or a portion thereof.
Regarding claim 13, lines 3-4, the limitation “a measurement result of the three-dimensional measurement device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the result of the measurement by the three-dimensional measurement device recited in claim 10, line 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same measurement.
Claim 2-9 and 11-16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US 2023/0323638) in view of Elliott (US 3,643,828).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, as best understood, Noda discloses a control system of a work machine, the system comprising: a three-dimensional measurement device that measures a work target of the work machine (Noda; para. 21: position detection unit 41 detects … three-dimensional shape information of the carrier; para. 23: The position detection unit 41 may include a device that detects three-dimensional information by using laser light, and may include, for example, a light detection and ranging or laser imaging detection and ranging (LiDAR) or a time of flight (TOF) sensor. The position detection unit 41 may include a device (for example, a millimeter wave radar) that detects three-dimensional information by using radio waves. The position detection unit 41 may include a stereo camera.); and an intervention control unit (Noda; para. 38: The automatic control performed by the controller 50 includes the standby control C1 (see step S12 shown in FIG. 3) and the loading control C2 (see step S32 shown in FIG. 3).) that performs intervention control of the work machine when the three-dimensional measurement device detects the work target (Noda; para. 40: At least a part of each operation (the releasing operation, the returning movement operation, the capturing operation, and the lifting movement operation) of the loading operation is performed based on the detection result of the position detection unit 41.).
Noda does not explicitly disclose a detection device that detects the work target; and performing intervention control when both the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target.
Elliott, in the same field of endeavor (heavy equipment controls), discloses a detection device that detects a work target; and performing intervention control when the detection device detects the work target (Elliott; col. 5, ll. 30-40: the operator drives the carrier up to the truck. This in turn actuates limit switch 57 mounted on the loader lift arm assembly when it touches the truck body … As soon as limit switch 57 is actuated, the circuit is completed to solenoid automatic dump valve 21 and hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied through valve 21 to the bucket dump ram 5 which tilts it to the dump position).
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, after detecting the three-dimensional position information of the dump truck, the releasing operation performed by the controller of Noda to be triggered when a limit switch on a lift arm makes contact with the dump truck, as disclosed by Elliott, to yield the predictable result of performing a dumping operation only when the dump truck is correctly positioned to receive the load.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the intervention control unit stops the intervention control when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target (Noda; fig. 3: S21) and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Elliott; col. 5, l. 72 to col. 6, l. 9: The carrier backs away from the truck closing limit switch 45 mounted on the lift arms which had previously been in contact with the truck body. As soon as limit switch 45 closes, a circuit is completed to the auxiliary relay 43, the contacts on the 43 relay close and hold the relay energized regardless of whether or not the transmission is now placed in reverse or forward gear. At the same time that the auxiliary relay 43 is energized, a circuit is completed through the solenoid 23a of the bucket automatic lower valve 23. Hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied via hydraulic line 50 at full volume through valve 23 to the bucket curl ram 5. This causes the bucket 3 to tilt from the dump position to the load position.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses an output unit that outputs a warning when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target (Noda; para. 50: when the position of the carrier 2 with respect to the work machine 20 is within a predetermined range (for example, when the distance is equal to or less than the threshold value) (YES in step S21 shown in FIG. 3), the controller 50 causes the instruction unit 42 (sec FIG. 2) to issue a stop instruction. The “stop instruction” is an instruction to stop the carrier 2 moving toward the work machine 20. For example, when the instruction unit 42 issues a stop instruction perceptible by a person, a driver in the carrier cab 3a who has perceived the stop instruction (for example, a sound of a horn) stops the carrier).
Noda, as modified, does not explicitly disclose outputting the warning when the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target.
However, 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 output the stop instruction before the lifting arms contact the dump truck to yield the predictable result of providing time for the vehicle to come to a stop to avoid a damaging collision.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses a target calculation unit that calculates a position of a loading target of the work machine based on a measurement result of the three-dimensional measurement device (Noda; para. 21: The position detection unit 41 detects the position of the carrier 2 with respect to the work machine 20.; para. 23: The position detection unit 41 may include a device that detects three-dimensional information by using laser light, and may include, for example, a light detection and ranging or laser imaging detection and ranging (LiDAR) or a time of flight (TOF) sensor. The position detection unit 41 may include a device (for example, a millimeter wave radar) that detects three-dimensional information by using radio waves. The position detection unit 41 may include a stereo camera.), wherein the intervention control unit performs intervention control based on the position of the loading target calculated by the target calculation unit (Noda; para. 40: At least a part of each operation (the releasing operation, the returning movement operation, the capturing operation, and the lifting movement operation) of the loading operation is performed based on the detection result of the position detection unit 41.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the intervention control unit performs intervention control when an angle of working equipment of the work machine (Noda; para. 20: orientation detection unit 33 detects a rotation angle (derricking angle) of the boom 25a with respect to the upper slewing body 23, a rotation angle of the arm 25b with respect to the boom 25a, and a rotation angle of the distal end attachment 25c with respect to the arm 25b) is equal to or greater than an angle threshold (Noda; para. 39: the standby orientation is an orientation in which the distal end attachment 25c (for example, a bucket containing earth and sand) capturing the conveyance object L stops at a position (in the air) where the releasing operation is scheduled to be performed (for example, a soil discharging standby orientation). The orientation of the work machine 20 shown in FIG. 1 is an example of the standby orientation.) and the work target is detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device (Noda; fig. 3: S21) and the detection device (Elliott; col. 5, ll. 30-40: the operator drives the carrier up to the truck. This in turn actuates limit switch 57 mounted on the loader lift arm assembly when it touches the truck body … As soon as limit switch 57 is actuated, the circuit is completed to solenoid automatic dump valve 21 and hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied through valve 21 to the bucket dump ram 5 which tilts it to the dump position).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the intervention control includes control of raising working equipment of the work machine toward a loading target of the work machine (Noda; para. 39: The standby control C1 (see step S12 shown in FIG. 3) is control that causes the work machine 20 shown in FIG. 1 to perform the capturing operation and then causes the work machine 20 to stand by in a standby orientation. Specifically, the standby control C1 is control that causes the work machine 20 to perform the capturing operation (for example, excavation), perform the lifting movement operation (for example, slewing), and stand by in the standby orientation. The “standby orientation” is an orientation for loading the captured conveyance object L on the carrier 2, and is an orientation for standing by for the releasing operation (preliminary preparation orientation). The standby orientation is such an orientation that the work machine 20 can immediately perform the releasing operation when the controller 50 outputs a command to perform the releasing operation. Specifically, for example, the standby orientation is an orientation in which the distal end attachment 25c (for example, a bucket containing earth and sand) capturing the conveyance object L stops at a position (in the air) where the releasing operation is scheduled to be performed (for example, a soil discharging standby orientation). The orientation of the work machine 20 shown in FIG. 1 is an example of the standby orientation.).
Noda, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the intervention control unit stops raising of the working equipment 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.
However, 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 complete the lifting movement operation before the lifting arms contact the dump truck to yield the predictable result of avoiding damaging the dump truck with the bucket.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the intervention control includes control of raising working equipment of the work machine toward a loading target of the work machine, control of loading an excavated object of the working equipment onto the loading target, and control of lowering the working equipment (Noda; para. 40: At least a part of each operation (the releasing operation, the returning movement operation, the capturing operation, and the lifting movement operation) of the loading operation is performed based on the detection result of the position detection unit 41.), and the intervention control unit stops at least one of the raising of the working equipment, the loading of the working equipment, and the lowering of the working equipment when one of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device detects the work target (Noda; fig. 3: S21) and the other of the three-dimensional measurement device and the detection device does not detect the work target (Elliott; col. 5, l. 72 to col. 6, l. 9: The carrier backs away from the truck closing limit switch 45 mounted on the lift arms which had previously been in contact with the truck body. As soon as limit switch 45 closes, a circuit is completed to the auxiliary relay 43, the contacts on the 43 relay close and hold the relay energized regardless of whether or not the transmission is now placed in reverse or forward gear. At the same time that the auxiliary relay 43 is energized, a circuit is completed through the solenoid 23a of the bucket automatic lower valve 23. Hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied via hydraulic line 50 at full volume through valve 23 to the bucket curl ram 5. This causes the bucket 3 to tilt from the dump position to the load position.).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the detection device is installed at a position (Elliott; col. 5, ll. 30-40: the operator drives the carrier up to the truck. This in turn actuates limit switch 57 mounted on the loader lift arm assembly when it touches the truck body … As soon as limit switch 57 is actuated, the circuit is completed to solenoid automatic dump valve 21 and hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied through valve 21 to the bucket dump ram 5 which tilts it to the dump position) different from a position of the three-dimensional measurement device (Noda; figure 1: position detection unit 41 located on top of vehicle cab).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Noda, as modified, discloses the detection device is installed [forward of the] front axle (Elliott; fig. 1), and the intervention control unit performs intervention control when the work target is detected by both the three-dimensional measurement device (Noda; fig. 3: S21) and the detection device (Elliott; col. 5, ll. 30-40: the operator drives the carrier up to the truck. This in turn actuates limit switch 57 mounted on the loader lift arm assembly when it touches the truck body … As soon as limit switch 57 is actuated, the circuit is completed to solenoid automatic dump valve 21 and hydraulic fluid under pressure is supplied through valve 21 to the bucket dump ram 5 which tilts it to the dump position) in a case where an angle of working equipment is equal to or greater than an angle threshold (Noda; para. 20: orientation detection unit 33 detects a rotation angle (derricking angle) of the boom 25a with respect to the upper slewing body 23, a rotation angle of the arm 25b with respect to the boom 25a, and a rotation angle of the distal end attachment 25c with respect to the arm 25b; para. 39: the standby orientation is an orientation in which the distal end attachment 25c (for example, a bucket containing earth and sand) capturing the conveyance object L stops at a position (in the air) where the releasing operation is scheduled to be performed (for example, a soil discharging standby orientation). The orientation of the work machine 20 shown in FIG. 1 is an example of the standby orientation.).
Noda, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the work machine is a wheel loader.
Elliott discloses an automatic control system for a front end loader (Elliott; fig. 1).
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 construction machine of Noda to be a front end loader, as disclosed by Elliott, to yield the predictable result of automatically loading material onto a dump truck at a work site.
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foltin, in US 2018/0105169, discloses a method for monitoring an area ahead of a vehicle that combines cameras with laser rangefinders to track an object when the pitch angle of the vehicle changes causes a detection target to leave the field of view of one of the sensors.
Watts et al., in US 2017/0308086, discloses a robot that combines stereo cameras with laser sensors to detect objects that are located at different distances in front of the robot.
Deines, in US 2015/0308070, discloses an automatic material loading vehicle that uses different sensing systems to distinguish between obstacles and a hauling vehicle in a working area.
Meyers; in US 2018/0080193, discloses an automatic dump control system that uses a three-dimensional sensor to determine the height and distance of a material receptacle to ensure that a loading operation is correctly performed.
Conclusion
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