DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/364,219, on August 2, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 2, 2023, August 22, 2023, March 18, 2025 and July 25, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84, as indicated below.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3-4 and 6 comprise informal drawings which are unclear and not suitable for reproduction. Additionally, Fig. 5 comprises an apparent computer generated image, which should be rendered as a drawing. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an action signal comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “action” in claim 1, “the action signal comprises” should be recited.
Claim 3 recites “a position of the blade comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “position” in claim 1, “the position of the blade comprises” should be recited.
Claim 4 recites “an action signal comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “action” in claim 1, “the action signal comprises” should be recited.
Claim 6 recites “an action signal comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “action” in claim 1, “the action signal comprises” should be recited.
Claim 8 recites “a separation value comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “separation” in claim 5, “the separation value comprises” should be recited.
Claim 9 recites “a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade comprises,” however, since this appears to be referring to the “position” of the dig component and the “position” of the blade recited in claim 8, “the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade comprises” should be recited.
Claim 10 recites “a position of the blade,” however, “a position of the blade” is previously introduced twice, both of which claim 10 depends, specifically claims 1 and 8. The Office notes that all other reference to “a position of the blade” should recite “the position of the blade.”
Claim 11 recites “a position of the blade,” however, “a position of the blade” is previously introduced twice, both of which claim 11 depends, specifically claims 1 and 8. The Office notes that all other reference to “a position of the blade” should recite “the position of the blade.”
Claim 13 recites “a separation value indicative of a distance,” however, since this appears to be in reference to claim 5, “the separation value indicative of the distance” should be recited.
Claim 15, line 11, recites “a first frame,” which has already been introduced. Accordingly, “the first frame” should be recited. Additionally, “the second” should be amended to recite “the second frame” frame properly reference “a second frame.”
Claim 17 recites “a position of the dig component” and “relative to a position of a blade.” Since “a position of the dig component” and a “position of a blade” have already been introduced, “the position of the dig component” and “relative to the position of the blade” should be recited.
Claim 18 recites “a position of the blade.” The Office notes “the position of the blade” should be recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
Claim 1: A method of controlling a work machine, comprising:
A) detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame to which a blade is attached;
B) detecting a position of the dig component;
C) identifying a position of the blade;
D) receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move the dig component;
E) determining whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and
F) if so, generating an action signal.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover an observation, analysis and final determination. For example, the step of “detecting” a rotary position and position of a frame and dig component, respectively, may be performed mentally by simple observation. Similarly, the step “identifying a blade position may also be performed mentally by simple observation. Finally, the step of determining, comprises yet another mental process of making a determination based upon the foregoing observations.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1: A method of controlling a work machine, comprising:
A) detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame to which a blade is attached;
B) detecting a position of the dig component;
C) identifying a position of the blade;
D) receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move the dig component;
E) determining whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and
F) if so, generating an action signal.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving,” the examiner submits that the step of receiving data for processing comprises an extra pre-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With respect to the limitation of “generating an action signal,” the examiner submits that merely generating a signal, which may or may not be performed, could merely comprise instructions to be stored for later us or analysis. As such, the feature merely comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of receiving data for computation comprises an extra pre-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP2106(d)(II). Finally, with respect to “generating an action signal,” the examiner submits the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 3 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. For example, an indication of capturing an image of the blade with a camera, comprises a pre-solution extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, performing image analyses for determining position of the blade merely comprises utilizing abstract processes (e.g., mental processes and/or mathematical computations) to identify the presence, and hence location, of the blade.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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: “a collision avoidance system,” as recited in claim 15, “a position identifying system,” as recited in claim 17, and “a blade position identification system,” as recited in claim 18.
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. In looking at the Written Description, “a collision avoidance system” is configured to receive data and generate an action signal which would require suitable processor, memory and software (e.g. see para 0059). Additionally, “a position identifying system” and “a blade position identification system” are part of the “collision avoidance system” and hence would also require suitable processor, memory and software (e.g. see Fig. 7).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0376260, to Sherlock, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0024829, to Fiser et al. (hereinafter Fiser).
As per claim 1, Sherlock discloses a method of controlling a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame… (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); detecting a position of the dig component (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, where the potentiometers further determine a boom106 angle); identifying a position of the [second component] (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the potentiometers detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move the dig component (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom); determining whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the [second component] (e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween); and if so, generating an action signal (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 2, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating an action signal comprises: controlling actuation of the actuator to limit movement of the dig component to maintain the threshold separation distance between the dig component and the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
As per claim 3, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein identifying a position of the blade comprises: capturing an image of the blade with an optical sensor; and performing image processing on the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 4, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating an action signal comprises: if execution of the command input will move the dig component to within the threshold separation distance of the blade, generating an operator alert output (e.g. see Figs. 3 and 5, and para 0033, wherein the system rejects or limits commands if they will cause a collision, as ascertained by the threshold 310).
As per claim 5, Sherlock discloses a computer implemented method of controlling a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame…(e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); identifying a separation value indicative of a distance and direction separating the dig component from the [second component] (e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween); receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move one of the dig component or the [second component]; and generating an action signal to control the work machine based on the command input, the rotary position, and the separation value (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 6, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating an action signal comprises: controlling actuation of the actuator based on the command input, the rotary position, and the separation value (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein based upon position of moveable elements of the excavator, line of sight threshold value 310 (i.e. separation value), and user command, the controller rejects or limits control).
As per claim 7, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 6, and Sherlock further discloses wherein controlling actuation of the actuator comprises: determining whether execution of the command input will reduce the separation value past a threshold separation distance; and if so, controlling actuation of the actuator to limit movement of the dig component or the blade to maintain the separation value at the threshold separation distance (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein based upon position of moveable elements of the excavator, line of sight threshold value 310 (i.e. separation value), and user command, the controller rejects or limits control).
As per claim 8, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 7, and Sherlock further discloses wherein identifying a separation value comprises: detecting a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade; and determining the separation value based on the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 9, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 7, and Sherlock and Fiser further teaches wherein detecting a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade comprises: detecting the position of the blade with a blade position sensor (e.g. see rejection of claim 1, wherein Sherlock teaches detecting a position of moveable elements, and Fiser wherein one of the moveable elements may comprise a blade attached to the tracks); detecting the position of the dig component with a dig component position sensor (e.g. see rejection of claim 1, wherein Sherlock teaches detecting a position of moveable elements using potentiometer); and determining the separation value based on the detected position of the blade and the detected position of the dig component (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions (i.e. separation value) of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 10, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 9, and Sherlock and Fiser further teaches wherein detecting a position of the blade comprises: capturing an image of the blade with an optical sensor; and performing image processing on the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 12, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating an action signal comprises: determining whether execution of the command input will reduce the separation value past a threshold separation distance; and if so, generating an operator alert output (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 220 and 250, wherein the system checks whether a command will cause collision (i.e. reduce a separation value past a threshold) and then issue an alert).
As per claim 13, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Fiser further teaches wherein identifying a separation value indicative of a distance and direction separating the dig component from the blade, comprises: detecting a location of the dig component on a vertical plane; detecting a location of the blade on the vertical plane; and calculating the separation value based on the location of the dig component on the vertical plane and the location of the blade on the vertical plane (e.g. see Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the boom and blade vertically meet to define a separation value of zero).
As per claim 14, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Fiser further teaches wherein identifying a separation value indicative of a distance and direction separating the dig component from the blade comprises: identifying the separation value as indicative of the distance and direction of separation between the blade and at least one of a boom, an arm, or an attachment on the work machine (e.g. see Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the boom and blade vertically meet to define a separation value of zero).
As per claim 15, Sherlock discloses a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: a first frame (e.g. see Fig. 5, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes a house 104 (i.e. first frame)); a house supported by the first frame (e.g. see Fig. 1, and para 0017, wherein a cab (house) is disposed on the first frame); a dig component attached to the first frame (e.g. see Fig. 5, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes a boom extending from the house (i.e. first frame)); a first actuator configured to drive movement of the dig component relative to the first frame (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom); a second frame (e.g. see Fig. 1, wherein a support structure (i.e. second frame) is provided for tracks 103);…a rotary actuator configured to drive rotation of the first frame relative to the second frame (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes actuators 152 to move the boom); a rotary position detector configured to detect a rotary position of a first frame relative to the second (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); and a collision avoidance system configured to identify a position of the dig component and a position of the [second frame], to receive a command input to actuate the first actuator to move the dig component, and to generate an action signal to control the work machine based on the command input, the rotary position, the position of the dig component and the position of the second position (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 16, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 15, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: an input command processor configured to determine whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and a control signal generator configured to generate a control signal to control actuation of the first actuator to limit movement of the dig component to maintain the threshold separation distance between the dig component and the blade (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
As per claim 17, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 16, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: a position identifying system configured to identify a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 18, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 17, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the position identifying system comprises: a dig component position detector configured to detect a position of the dig component; a second frame location system configured to identify a location of the second frame relative to the dig component; and a blade position identification system configured to identify a position of the blade relative to the second frame (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 19, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 18, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the blade position identification system comprises: a camera configured to capture an image of the blade; and an image processor configured to process the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 20, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 15, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: an input command processor configured to determine whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and an alert generator configured to generate an operator alert output (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0376260, to Sherlock, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0024829, to Fiser et al. (hereinafter Fiser), and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0298744, to Horii.
As per claim 11, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein detecting a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade comprises: obtaining a first blade position in which a distance between the blade and the dig component is least; and identifying the blade position based on the first blade position. However, Horii teaches determining a closest position L2 between a bucket and blade so as to position the bucket to perform a chipping operation (e.g. see Fig. 5 and para 0062).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B