DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to after final amendments filed 4/3/2026.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Due to the amendments filed 4/3/2026, the issues discussed in the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been resolved; however, new issues are presented in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the present Office Action.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Upon further consideration of the applied prior art, Nishi teaches the amendments filed 4/3/2026. See the updated rejections below.
Due to the amendments filed 4/3/2026 that incorporate the allowable subject matter indicated in the Office Action mailed 1/8/2026 into the independent claims, the finality has been withdrawn, and the present Office Action has been made Non-Final.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
perform, for each of the plurality of controlled objects, a determination of which of (i) a manual operation signal or (ii) an automatic operation signal to be output based on the manual operation signal;
select to output the manual operation signal for a controlled object among the plurality of controlled objects based on the manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the “select” step is a sub-step of the “perform” step, given that the “select” step dictates that the “manual operation signal” is output, and therefore, the “determination” step is unnecessary and unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of output the manual operation signal or the automatic operation signal for each of the plurality of controlled objects based on a result of the determination. In this limitation, the same “manual operation signal or automatic operation signal” is output for each of the controlled objects; however, a respective manual or automatic operation signal is determined for each of the plurality of controlled objects in the preceding “perform” step.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
generate automatic operation signals for driving the plurality of controlled objects;
perform, for each of the plurality of controlled objects, a determination of which of (i) a manual operation signal or (ii) an automatic operation signal to be output based on the manual operation signal;
select to output the manual operation signal for a controlled object among the plurality of controlled objects based on the manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal (emphasis added).
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal,” given that the “automatic operation signal” is not selected to be output for the controlled object. While a plurality of “automatic operation signals” are generated for the plurality of controlled objects, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of the “automatic operation signal” with respect to any operation.
Claim 7 is objected to for similar reasons.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Specifically, claim 3 recites when the manual operation signal is for a brake operation. However, claim 1 defines the manual operation signal being output for at least one link part among the plurality of link parts. There is no disclosure of the brake operation pertaining to a link part, defined in the claim as being associated with the “work equipment,” distinct from the “swing body.” Paragraph [0077] of the specification filed 11/6/2023 describes the “brake operation” as pertaining to depression of the swing brake pedal.
Due to the amendments filed 4/3/2026 of claim 1, the limitations of claim 3 have become inconsistent with the scope of the independent claim.
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 1-5 and 7 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.
Throughout claim 1, the limitation of the manual operation signal is used as a basis of a determination of itself, making the scope of the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitations of:
perform, for each of the plurality of controlled objects, a determination of which of (i) a manual operation signal or (ii) an automatic operation signal to be output based on the manual operation signal;
select to output the manual operation signal for a controlled object among the plurality of controlled objects based on the manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal;
output the manual operation signal or the automatic operation signal for each of the plurality of controlled objects based on a result of the determination (emphasis added).
The “perform” step creates a circular logic in which the determination of a manual operation signal is based upon itself, the “select” step creates a circular logic in which the output of the manual operation signal is based upon itself, and the “output” step creates a circular logic in which the output of the manual operation signal is based upon itself. Further, a “determination” implies a decision-making process where inputs are evaluated to generate a result. If the result is itself the input, the boundaries of when the system outputs the manual operation signal or automatic operation signal are not distinctly claimed. The Examiner recommends providing limitations that reference the input manual operation signals as the basis for the manual operation signals that are output, so as to clearly distinguish between the states of manual operation signals.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of based on the manual operation signal being output for at least one link part among the plurality of link parts, generate the automatic operation signal for another link part other than the at least one link part, among the plurality of link parts, such that an operation amount of the automatic operation signal approaches an operation amount of the manual operation signal related to the another link part (emphasis added). This limitation presents many issues with clarity and antecedent basis, in light of the overall claim, as discussed in the following paragraphs:
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine how to interpret the “manual operation signal related to the another link part,” given that the manual operation signal is being output for the at least one link part, defined as distinct from the “another link part.” In case the limitation of the manual operation signal related to the another link part of claim 1 is intended to be interpreted as distinct from the “manual operation signal being output for at least one link part,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to the limitation of the automatic operation signal, with respect to the limitation of “the automatic operation approaches an operation amount...,” it cannot be reasonably determined if the “automatic operation signal” is referencing the “automatic operation signal for another link part” or the “automatic operation signal” for a controlled object in the preceding limitations.
In the preceding limitations, the “manual operation signal” and the “automatic operation signal” are “for a controlled object,” defined as either the swing body or the work equipment. While the “work equipment” has been further defined as being “provided with a plurality of link parts,” neither the “manual operation signal” nor the “automatic operation signal” has been further limited to a particular link of the controlled object and is merely redefined as being output to a particular link. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of the manual operation signal being output for at least one link part, the automatic operation signal for another link part, and the manual operation signal related to the another link part.
Further, the preceding limitation that recites output the manual operation signal or the automatic operation signal for each of the plurality of controlled objects based on a result of the determination limits each controlled object as receiving one of the manual or automatic operation signal, whereas the limitation of based on the manual operation signal being output for at least one link part among the plurality of link parts, generate the automatic operation signal for another link part other than the at least one link part, among the plurality of link parts, such that an operation amount of the automatic operation signal approaches an operation amount of the manual operation signal related to the another link part requires both of the automatic operation signal and manual operation signal to be output to a controlled object, thus creating a logical inconsistency.
The term “approaches” in claims 1 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approaches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claim, given that no objective standard for determining the required proximity between the “operation amount of the automatic signal” and the “operation amount of the manual operation signal” is claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 2-5 recite the limitations of the manual operation signal and the automatic operation signal. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine what these limitations are referencing in light of the issues discussed above, with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishi (US 2020/0354921 A1), hereinafter Nishi.
Claim 1
Due to the lack of clear antecedent basis and resulting ambiguity discussed in the objection and rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the scope of the limitations of claim 1 has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
Nishi discloses the claimed control system (see Figure 12) for a loading machine (i.e. shovel 100), the loading machine including a swing body (i.e. turning body 3) configured to swing around a swing center (see ¶0043, regarding that the upper turning body 3 changes orientation with respect to an azimuth angle), a support part (i.e. lower traveling body 1) supporting the swing body (see ¶0025, regarding that turning body 3 is turnably mounted on lower traveling body 1), and work equipment (i.e. excavation attachment) having a bucket (i.e. bucket 6) and attached to the swing body (see ¶0025-0026, regarding the excavation attachment is defined as the boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6, where the boom 4 is attached to the upper turning body 3), the control system comprising a processor configured to:
receive inputs of manual operation signals for a plurality of controlled objects of the loading machine based on operations of an operation device (i.e. operating apparatus 26) configured to operate the plurality of controlled objects, the plurality of controlled objects including the swing body and the work equipment (see ¶0055, regarding that controller 30 receives operational data detected from operating pressure sensor 29 as the direction and amount of operation of the operating apparatus 26 corresponding to each actuator, including the boom cylinder 7, arm cylinder 8, bucket cylinder 9, and turning hydraulic motor 2A, as described in ¶0052, where the boom 4 is driven by boom cylinder 7, arm 5 is driven by arm cylinder 8, bucket 6 is driven by bucket cylinder 9, and the upper turning body 3 is driven by turning hydraulic motor 2A, as described in ¶0025-0027);
generate automatic operation signals for driving the plurality of controlled objects (see ¶0157, with respect to Figure 12, regarding that in automatic control mode, boom, arm, bucket, and turning command values are calculated by functional element F6 of controller 30 in order to move the current teeth tips position to the intended teeth tips position; Figure 13, depicting the calculated command values as being used to control boom cylinder 7, arm cylinder 8, bucket cylinder 9, and turning hydraulic motor 2A).
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to perform, for each of the plurality of controlled objects, a determination of which of (i) a manual operation signal or (ii) an automatic operation signal to be output based on the manual operation signal (see ¶0153, with respect to Figure 12, regarding functional elements F1 through F6 of controller 30 correspond to those of Figure 4, where functional element F6 calculates a boom command value α*, an arm command value β*, and a bucket command value γ*, depending on the selection of a manual control mode or an automatic control mode, as described in ¶0116-0119, and functional element F6 further calculates a turning command value δ*, as described in ¶0154; ¶0109-0111, regarding that functional element F3 selects either manual control mode or automatic control mode based on the analysis result of the operation tendency that is output from functional element F1, where the analysis result is based on operational data output by operating pressure sensor 29, as specifically described in ¶0109; ¶0055, regarding that the operating pressure sensor 29 detects the operator’s operation using the operating apparatus 26). Only one of a “manual operation signal” or an “automatic operation signal” is required to be taught by prior art. The separate and distinct command values (i.e. boom command value α*, an arm command value β*, a bucket command value γ*, and a turning command value δ*) may reasonably pertain to either a “manual operation signal” or an “automatic operation signal” for each of a boom, arm, bucket, and upper turning body, depending on the selected control mode. As depicted in Figure 12, the control mode is selected based on the “manual operation signal” (i.e. operational data obtained from operating pressure sensor 29), and thus, the command values are determined based on the manual operation signal.
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to select to output the manual operation signal for a controlled object among the plurality of controlled objects based on the manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal (see ¶0153, with respect to Figure 12, regarding functional elements F1 through F6 of controller 30 correspond to those of Figure 4, described in ¶0109-0112, regarding that functional element F3 switches the operating mode from automatic control mode to manual control mode based on the analysis result of the operation tendency that is output from functional element F1, where the operating mode is switched to manual control mode in response to determining that the “information on the movement of the shovel 100 shows an unusual tendency” from the output of functional element F1; ¶0074-0077, regarding the embodiments of an “unusual tendency” include rapidly operating apparatus 26, operation of the turning operating lever to turn the upper turning body 3 in a direction opposite to that of turning performed by the automatic control, or when the emergency stop switch 48 defined as a foot switch is stepped on; ¶0109, regarding that the analysis result of the operation tendency is based on operational data output by operating pressure sensor 29, where the operating pressure sensor 29 detects the operator’s operation using the operating apparatus 26, as described in ¶0055). Various embodiments in Nishi may be applied to teach the claimed “operation resisting the automatic operation signal,” as discussed in the dependent claims. Due to the broadness of the claim language, the automatic control mode of Nishi may alternatively be applied to teach this limitation, such that an “output” of the command values is based on the operational data provided by operating pressure sensor 29 (i.e. “manual operation signal”), which may indicate an unusual operation tendency (i.e. “operation resisting the automatic operation signal”) (see ¶0115-0117; ¶0112). The “select” step is performed “based on the manual operation signal for the controlled object indicating an operation resisting the automatic operation signal;” therefore, the output is merely based on the absence or existence of an “unusual tendency” in Nishi.
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to output the manual operation signal or the automatic operation signal for each of the plurality of controlled objects based on a result of the determination (see ¶0153, with respect to Figure 12, regarding functional elements F1 through F6 of controller 30 correspond to those of Figure 4, described in ¶0116-0119, in which functional element F6 calculates boom, arm, and bucket command values according to a manual control mode or an automatic control mode; ¶0154, regarding that functional element F6 further calculates a turning command value). Only one of a “manual operation signal” or an “automatic operation signal” is output for each of the controlled objects.
Nishi further discloses that the work equipment is provided with a plurality of link parts including the bucket (see ¶0025-0026, regarding the excavation attachment is defined as the boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6), wherein the processor is configured to, based on the manual operation signal being output for at least one link part among the plurality of link parts, generate the automatic operation signal for another link part other than the at least one link part, among the plurality of link parts (see ¶0115-0117, regarding that functional element F5 calculates the next teeth tips position when the automatic control mode is selected based on the operational data and the analysis result of the operation tendency output by functional element F1, where at least one boom command value, arm command value, and bucket command value is calculated in order to move the current teeth tips position to the intended teeth tips position, e.g., in automatic control mode, functional element F6 calculates the boom command value even when the boom operating level 26A is not operated in order to automatically operate boom 4, as described in ¶0119). A next teeth tips position is representative of the position of the teeth tips of bucket 6 (see ¶0155). Given that operation of each “link part” is performed via respective operating levers (see ¶0027), and the next teeth tips position calculated in automatic control mode is based on the operational data and analysis result of the operation tendency output representative of manual operation (see ¶0115), Nishi teaches that in automatic control mode, the “automatic operation signal” for a link part may be based on the “manual operation signal” of a different link part.
The limitation of an operation amount of the automatic operation signal approaches an operation amount of the manual operation signal related to the another link part cannot be reasonably interpreted, as discussed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, this limitation has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection. Specifically, Nishi further discloses the step of “generating the automatic operation signal for another link part,” as discussed above, such that an operation amount of the automatic operation signal approaches an operation amount of the manual operation signal related to the another link part (see ¶0115-0117, regarding that functional element F5 calculates the next teeth tips position when the automatic control mode is selected based on the operational data and the analysis result of the operation tendency output by functional element F1, where at least one boom command value, arm command value, and bucket command value is calculated in order to move the current teeth tips position to the intended teeth tips position, e.g., in automatic control mode, functional element F6 calculates the boom command value even when the boom operating level 26A is not operated in order to automatically operate boom 4, as described in ¶0119). Any of the levers of Nishi may be manually operated to determine operation tendency in functional element F1 for the calculation of next teeth tips position (see ¶0055), and thus, in automatic control mode, the “automatic operation signal” of a link part may be reasonably based on its “manual operation signal.”
Claim 2
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to determine that the manual operation signal indicates the operation resisting the automatic operation signal when an operation direction of the manual operation signal and an operation direction of the automatic operation signal do not match (see ¶0153, with respect to Figure 12, regarding functional elements F1 through F6 correspond to those of Figure 4, described in ¶0109-0112, regarding that functional element F3 switches the operating mode from automatic control mode to manual control mode based on the analysis result of the operation tendency that is output from functional element F1, where the operating mode is switched to manual control mode in response to determining that the “information on the movement of the shovel 100 shows an unusual tendency” from the output of functional element F1; ¶0075, regarding the embodiments of an “unusual tendency” include an operation to turn the upper turning body 3 in a direction opposite to that of turning performed by the automatic control), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to determine that the manual operation signal indicates the operation resisting the automatic operation signal when the manual operation signal is for a brake operation (see ¶0153, with respect to Figure 12, regarding functional elements F1 and F3 correspond to those of Figure 4, described in ¶0109-0112, regarding that functional element F3 switches the operating mode from automatic control mode to manual control mode based on the analysis result of the operation tendency that is output from functional element F1, where the operating mode is switched to manual control mode in response to determining that the “information on the movement of the shovel 100 shows an unusual tendency” from the output of functional element F1; ¶0077, regarding the embodiments of an “unusual tendency” include when the emergency stop switch 48 defined as a foot switch is stepped on). While Nishi teaches the stop switch 48 is defined in ¶0038 as being separate from operating apparatus 26 (i.e. “operation device”), the “manual operation signal” may be reasonably received from a various input sources that collectively define the “operation device,” similar to the Applicant’s disclosure of a swing brake pedal 143TB as being separate from the operation levers 143L0, 143R0 (see Figure 2).
Claim 5
Nishi further discloses that the processor is configured to specify an interference avoidance angle, which is a swing angle of the swing body at which the bucket and a loading target do not overlap in a plan view from above, during an automatic control of moving the bucket from above the loading target to an excavation start point (see ¶0174, with respect to Figure 14, regarding that while in automatic control mode, when detecting movement of the dump truck during loading work and that the bucket 6 is within a region above the bed of the dump truck, controller 30 moves bucket 6 aside to a space between point P11 and dump truck DT, where a turning command value is generated to achieve a particular turning angle, as described in ¶0157-0161, with respect to Figure 13), and output the automatic operation signal for the work equipment regardless of the manual operation signal until the swing angle of the swing body reaches the interference avoidance angle (see ¶0174, with respect to Figure 14, regarding that when switching to avoidance mode from automatic control mode, controller 30 moves bucket 6 aside to a space between point P11 and the dump truck, irrespective of whether the operating apparatus 26 is operated). In light of the depiction of the rotation of the upper turning body 3 in combination with the bucket 6 work in Figure 14, the controlled movement of the bucket 6 in avoidance mode reasonably includes the controlled movement of the upper turning body 3, such that the position between point P11 and dump truck DT is associated with a “swing angle of the swing body.” As defined in ¶0164, Nishi teaches point P11 as the location of a completion of an excavation operation and point P13 as the location immediately before a dumping operation, and therefore, the “avoidance angle” is achieved “during an automatic control of moving the bucket from above the loading target to an excavation start point,” given that the bucket 6 is positioned within a region above the bed of the dump truck DT prior to avoidance mode (see ¶0174).
Claim 7
Nishi discloses the claimed control method (see Figure 12, with respect to the operations performed in Figures 14 and 15) for a loading machine (i.e. shovel 100) including a swing body (i.e. turning body 3) swinging around a swing center (see ¶0043, regarding that the upper turning body 3 changes orientation with respect to an azimuth angle), a support part (i.e. lower traveling body 1) supporting the swing body (see ¶0025, regarding that turning body 3 is turnably mounted on lower traveling body 1), and work equipment (i.e. excavation attachment) having a bucket (i.e. bucket 6) and attached to the swing body (see ¶0025-0026, regarding the excavation attachment is defined as the boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6, where the boom 4 is attached to the upper turning body 3), the control method for a loading machine comprising the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Lee (US 2015/0134209 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Claim 4
While Nishi teaches embodiments in which the automatic control is switched to manual control based on the analysis result of the operation tendency (see ¶0112), such as when the operating apparatus 26 is rapidly operated (see ¶0075), Nishi does not specifically disclose that the processor is configured to determine to output the manual operation signal when the manual operation signal does not indicate the operation resisting the automatic operation signal and an operation amount of the manual operation signal is larger than an operation amount of the automatic operation signal. However, this type of override operation is well known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into the analysis result of the operation tendency used to switch to manual control in Nishi, in light of Lee.
Specifically, Lee teaches an excavator depicted in Figure 1 (similar to the loading machine taught by Nishi) that includes an apparatus (similar to the control system taught by Nishi) that determines whether to output the automatic control signal or the manual control signal based on the detected operation of the joystick (see ¶0030, with respect to Figure 2). Similar to “when the manual operation signal indicates an operation resisting the automatic operation signal” taught by Nishi, Lee teaches that the automatic mode is switched to a manual control state when the command direction obtained from the operation angle of the joystick does not coincide with a predefined direction (see ¶0045, with respect to steps S301 and S303 of Figure 3), defined as being associated with the automatic control state in ¶0034.
Lee further teaches that manual (or ordinary) operation is performed (similar to the determin[ing] to output the manual operation signal taught by Nishi) when the command value of the joystick (similar to an operation amount of the manual operation signal taught by Nishi) is larger than a set value (similar to an operation amount of the automatic operation signal taught by Nishi), and the command direction coincides with the predefined direction (similar to when the manual operation signal does not indicate the operation resisting the automatic operation signal taught by Nishi) (see ¶0046; ¶0044-0045, with respect to Figure 3). The set value of Lee is further described as a value used in automatic operation, such that particular ranges below the set value associated with the command value of the joystick are used in automatic operation of the bucket (see ¶0036); therefore, the set value may be reasonably interpreted as an operation amount of the automatic operation.
In Nishi, the automatic control mode is directed to excavation and unloading operations that require controlled operations of the bucket, arm, boom, and upper turning body. In Lee, the automatic control mode is directed towards bucket movement that does not require controlled operations of the arm, boom, or upper turning body of the excavator depicted in Figure 1. However, it is the technique of switching to a manual control mode when a joystick moves in a direction compatible with an automatic control mode and by an amount that is larger than an amount required for the automatic control mode that is modified by Lee; therefore, the particular operations performed by the automatic control mode does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Nishi and Lee are directed to the same purpose, i.e. switching between manual and automatic operation modes of an excavator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method in which the processor is configured to determine to output the manual operation signal taught by Nishi, so as to be performed when the manual operation signal does not indicate the operation resisting the automatic operation signal and an operation amount of the manual operation signal is larger than an operation amount of the automatic operation signal, in the same manner that manual operation is performed in Lee when the command value of a joystick is larger than a set value and the command direction of the joystick coincides with a predefined direction, with the predictable result of providing an intuitive method of exiting an automatic mode designed to reduce operator fatigue (¶0053 of Lee) by requiring minimal input to the joystick (¶0031 of Lee), which would reasonably reflect an “unusual tendency” from the automatic mode for switching to a manual control mode (¶0112 of Nishi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishida et al. (US 5,088,020) teaches a boom-equipped working machine that is switched from automatic mode to a manual mode in response to determining that the detected angle of the control lever is opposite the target stop position B for automatic control (col. 7, line 61-col. 8, line 3, with respect to steps 13-15 and 24 of Figure 2), Suzuki et al. (US 2023/0332375 A1) teaches a work machine that is manually operated while automatically maintaining the bucket in a position with respect to actions of the arm and boom (see ¶0041), Meduna et al. (US 6,295,746 B1) teaches that if a manual operation exceeds a programmed value, the automatic control mode is reset to the manual mode (see col. 7, lines 34-53), and Hiroshi et al. (translation of JP 5-222745) teaches switching to manual control from automatic control in response to input from one of the operation levers (see ¶0007).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights