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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments, arguments and a request for continued examination (RCE) received on February 13, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11-13, 15, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. This is the third Office Action on the Merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 20210010229 A1) herein Sano, in view of Nagao et al. (US 20240301651 A1), with a filing date of March 9, 2023, prior to Applicant’s filing date of September 29, 2023, herein Nagao.
In regards to Claim 1, Sano discloses the following:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by an electronic controller within a work machine, tool data indicative of characteristics for a work tool attached to a linkage of the work machine, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0032] “The boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 (each of which is an example of a link unit) are hydraulically driven by a boom cylinder 7, an arm cylinder 8, and a bucket cylinder 9, respectively, serving as hydraulic actuators”, see also [0063] “detection signal corresponding to the bucket angle detected by the bucket angle sensor S3 is input to the controller 30” and [0137] “position calculation unit 51 calculates the coordinates of the point of the teeth end of the bucket 6 from the elevation angles of the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 (i.e., the boom angle, the arm angle, and the bucket angle).” that is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of tool data indicative of characteristics for a work tool, as the bucket 6 qualifies as a work tool.)
the linkage including a boom pivotally joined to the work machine and a stick pivotally joined to the boom; (see at least Fig. 1 and [0032] “boom 4, the arm 5”)
receiving force data indicative of an acceptable range for down force delivered by the linkage on the work tool during a job, the down force being a force in a downward direction between the work tool and a work surface; (see at least [0157] “storage unit 55 stores (saves) a target compaction force in the compaction support control (hereinafter referred to as “target compaction force”).”, [0170] “The ground is pressed in the direction perpendicular to the excavation target surface with a force corresponding to the vertical component FR1 of the work reaction force FR.” and [0193] “target compaction force includes a lower limit value FLlim and an upper limit value Fulim”)
receiving, by the electronic controller and via an operator interface, one or more signals requesting movement by the work tool under manual control during the job; (see at least [0045] “operation input means allowing the operator to operate the operational elements (such as the lower traveling body 1, the upper turning body 3, the boom 4, the arm 5, the bucket 6, and the like).”, [0129] “manual operation”)
causing, in response to the one or more signals, action by the work tool under manual control as part of the job; (see at least [0147] “in a case where the operator manually performs the boom lowering operation, the automatic control unit 54 automatically extends or retracts at least one of the boom cylinder 7, the arm cylinder 8, and the bucket cylinder 9. Therefore, the automatic control unit 54 presses the back surface of the bucket 6 against the earth-placed ground (horizontal surface) with a predetermined pressing force to apply the predetermined pressing force to the ground.”)
receiving, from one or more sensors within the linkage, sensor data indicative of forces on at least the boom during the action; (see at least [0147] above, see also [0071] “boom bottom pressure detected by the boom rod pressure sensor S7R and the boom bottom pressure sensor S7B” and [0184] “DP between the boom rod pressure and the boom bottom pressure on the basis of the detected values of the boom rod pressure and the boom bottom pressure received from the boom rod pressure sensor S7R and the boom bottom pressure sensor S7B”)
calculating, based at least in part on the sensor data and the characteristics for the work tool, the down force during the action; (see at least [0178] “controller 30 can calculate the work reaction force FR by using the above formula and a calculation map based on the above formula. Also, the controller 30 can calculate, as the magnitude of the pressing force, the magnitude of the vertical component FR1 of the work reaction force FR by calculating the work reaction force FR during the compaction work of the shovel 100”, see also [0185] “pose state determination unit 542 calculates position information about the end portion of the bucket 6 determined by the pose state of the attachment, i.e., a predetermined point on the back surface of the bucket 6 that comes into contact with the ground. Specifically, the pose state determination unit 542 may calculate the longitudinal distance L of the bucket 6.” that is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of characteristics of the work tool, as claimed. This longitudinal distance is most explicitly demonstrated as being used during the calculation of the downforce in the kinematic demonstration of Sano, Fig. 6.)
determining that the down force during the action by the work tool under manual control is at or outside an outer bound of the acceptable range; (see at least [0197] “compaction force comparison unit 544 compares the compaction force Fd measured by the compaction force measurement unit 543 with the lower limit value FLlim and the upper limit value FUlim, and determines whether the measured compaction force Fd is in a range including the lower limit value FLlim and the upper limit value FUlim.”)
Sano suggests the following:
and at least in part in response to the determining, causing output of an alert via the operator interface relating to potential damage to the work tool, the alert prompting the user to increase the down force. (see at least [0270] “the compaction completion determination unit F206 makes a determination of “compaction force insufficient” in a case where… the compaction force at that moment is less than the target compaction force.”, [0271] “The compaction completion determination unit F206 displays the determination result on the display device 40… In a case where the display device 40 determines that the compaction force is insufficient, the operator can continue the compaction work to eliminate the state in which the compaction force is insufficient”)
Sano provides a display device causing display (i.e. operator interface) output (i.e. an alert) is provided when compaction force is insufficient. The alert prompts the user to increase the downforce by continuing the compaction work.
Sano does not disclose or suggest an alert via the operator interface relating to potential damage to the work tool.
However, this is more explicitly taught by Nagao. (see at least Fig. 3 and [0074] “hydraulic breaker 16C”, [0166] “In the case of crushing of a to-be-crushed object 17C… using the hydraulic breaker 16C… the “predetermined contact state” refers to the state in which the hydraulic breaker 16C applies a pressing force equal to or greater than a predetermined minimum required pressing force”, [0167] “when the hydraulic breaker 16C is spaced from the to-be-crushed object 17C or when the hydraulic breaker 16C is in contact with the to-be-crushed object 17C but only applies a pressure less than the minimum required pressure to the to-be-crushed object 17C, the chisel 16Cb makes idle strokes (idles) and directly receives a very strong hydraulic pressure, and may be damaged”, [0292] “the controller 20 determines that the hydraulic breaker 16C is… in the “insufficient contact state” (the chisel 16Cb is spaced above from the to-be-crushed object 17C, or the chisel 16Cb for example applies only a weak pressing force on the to-be-crushed object 17C and the hydraulic breaker 16C would be easily damaged if the chisel 16Cb starts being driven now) (step S60), and causes the display 22 to display a message indicating such (step S61).” and [0295] “in cases where the hydraulic breaker 16C is in the insufficient contact state, the controller 20 may cause the display 22 to issue an alert or a guidance indication… to prompt the worker to operate the working device 4 (lift arm cylinders 14 and the like) to bring the hydraulic breaker 16C into the predetermined contact state”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagao with the invention of Sano, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a breaker from being damaged from idle strokes. (Nagao, [0005]) Sano discloses component damage being a concern due to improper pressing force exerted on the ground (Sano, [0153]) and one of ordinary skill would clearly understand the risks of equipment damage when used improperly, causing motivation to combine the features of Nagao.
In regards to Claim 2, Sano suggest, but Nagao more explicitly teaches the following:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
at least in part in response to the alert, increasing the down force delivered by the linkage on the work tool to be within the acceptable range. (see at least [0295] “in cases where the hydraulic breaker 16C is in the insufficient contact state, the controller 20 may cause the display 22 to issue an alert or a guidance indication… to prompt the worker to operate the working device 4 (lift arm cylinders 14 and the like) to bring the hydraulic breaker 16C into the predetermined contact state”, see also [0294) “controller 20 causes the piston rods of the lift arm cylinders 14 to retract to lower the lift arms 10, to increase the cylinder thrust force Fc of the lift arm cylinders 14 (step S64). The lift arms 10 continue to be lowered until the contact degree C. calculated based on the results of detection by the lift arm cylinder fluid pressure detector 63 becomes the predetermined contact degree Cpc”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagao with the invention of Sano, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a breaker from being damaged from idle strokes. (Nagao, [0005]) Sano discloses component damage being a concern due to improper pressing force exerted on the ground (Sano, [0153]) and one of ordinary skill would clearly understand the risks of equipment damage when used improperly, causing motivation to combine the features of Nagao.
In regards to Claim 3, Sano discloses the following:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the action of the work tool is movement caused by one or more power sources within the work tool, (see at least [0032] “hydraulic actuators”) and wherein the down force is below the acceptable range, (see at least [0270] “the compaction completion determination unit F206 makes a determination of “compaction force insufficient” in a case where… the compaction force at that moment is less than the target compaction force.”) the method further comprising:
Sano is silent, but Nagao teaches the following:
causing the one or more power sources to inhibit the movement. (see at least [0287] “controller 20 first locks the AUX switch 18 in an OFF position (step S52). That is, the AUX switch 18 is prevented from being switched to an ON state even if the operator operates the AUX switch 18.”, [0293] “If the AUX switch 18 is in the ON position (YES in step S62), the controller 20 brings the AUX switch 18 into the OFF position and locks the AUX switch 18 in the OFF position (step S63)” and [0292] If the contact degree C. is less than the predetermined contact degree Cpc (about 10%) (NO in step S56), the controller 20 determines that the hydraulic breaker 16C is currently in contact with the to-be-crushed object 17C in the “insufficient contact state”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagao with the invention of Sano, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a breaker from being damaged from idle strokes. (Nagao, [0005]) Sano discloses component damage being a concern due to improper pressing force exerted on the ground (Sano, [0153]) and one of ordinary skill would clearly understand the risks of equipment damage when used improperly, causing motivation to combine the features of Nagao.
In regards to Claim 4, Sano is silent, but Nagao teaches the following:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the work tool contains a local power source (see at least [0076] “the hydraulic breaker 16C in FIG. 3… includes its own hydraulic actuator(s) such as hydraulic motor(s).”) and the outer bound is a minimum amount of the down force, (see at least [0166] “pressing force equal to or greater than a predetermined minimum required pressing force”) the method further comprising:
prohibiting actuation of the local power source until the down force is greater than the minimum amount of the down force. (see at least [0287] “controller 20 first locks the AUX switch 18 in an OFF position (step S52). That is, the AUX switch 18 is prevented from being switched to an ON state even if the operator operates the AUX switch 18.”, [0293] “If the AUX switch 18 is in the ON position (YES in step S62), the controller 20 brings the AUX switch 18 into the OFF position and locks the AUX switch 18 in the OFF position (step S63)” and [0292] If the contact degree C. is less than the predetermined contact degree Cpc (about 10%) (NO in step S56), the controller 20 determines that the hydraulic breaker 16C is currently in contact with the to-be-crushed object 17C in the “insufficient contact state”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagao with the invention of Sano, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a breaker from being damaged from idle strokes. (Nagao, [0005]) Sano discloses component damage being a concern due to improper pressing force exerted on the ground (Sano, [0153]) and one of ordinary skill would clearly understand the risks of equipment damage when used improperly, causing motivation to combine the features of Nagao.
In regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 is the control system (i.e. controller) within a work machine performing the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising the following features, disclosed by Sano:
one or more actuators positioned to impart forces on arms of the work machine; (see at least Fig. 1 and [0032] “The boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 (each of which is an example of a link unit) are hydraulically driven by a boom cylinder 7, an arm cylinder 8, and a bucket cylinder 9, respectively, serving as hydraulic actuators”)
one or more sensors positioned within the arms, the one or more sensors being configured to detect positions of the arms and the forces on the arms; (see at least [0063] “detection signal corresponding to the bucket angle detected by the bucket angle sensor S3 is input to the controller 30” and [0137] “position calculation unit 51 calculates the coordinates of the point of the teeth end of the bucket 6 from the elevation angles of the boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 (i.e., the boom angle, the arm angle, and the bucket angle).”)
a memory; (see at least [0048] “controller 30 is constituted by a microcomputer including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), ROM (Read Only Memory), RAM (Random Access Memory), a non-volatile auxiliary storage device, an I/O (Input-Output) interface, and the like.”)
a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more actuators, (see at least [0048] “controller 30” and [0213] “the controller 30 generates a boom raising operation signal (electric signal) or a boom lowering operation signal (electric signal) according to an operation signal (electric signal) output from the lever device 26A (operation signal generation unit). The operation signal (electric signal) that is output from the lever device 26A represents an operation content (for example, the amount of operation and operation direction) of the lever device 26A.”) the one or more sensors, (see at least [0063] “detection signal corresponding to the bucket angle detected by the bucket angle sensor S3 is input to the controller 30”) and the memory, (see [0048], as cited)
Claim 6 further claims performing the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
In regards to claims 7 and 11: Claims 7 and 11 are the control systems performing method steps of claim 4, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 4, above.
In regards to claims 8 and 9: Claims 8 and 9 are the control systems performing method steps of claim 3, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 3, above.
In regards to claim 10, Sano discloses the following:
10. (Original) The control system of claim 6, wherein the boundary value is a range of acceptable down force delivered by the linkage on the work tool. (see at least [0193] “target compaction force includes a lower limit value FLlim and an upper limit value Fulim” and [0162] “the thrust of the boom that occurs during the lowering movement of the boom 4 is transmitted to the ground surface as a compaction force. Hereinafter, the relationship of forces when the thrust of the boom is transmitted to the ground surface”)
In regards to claim 12: Claim 12 is the control systems performing method steps of claim 4, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 4, above.
In regards to claims 13 and 14: Claims 13 and 14 are the work machines comprising the control systems of claims 6 and 7, respectively, performing the methods of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1-2 and 6-7, above.
In regards to claims 15, 16 and 18: Claims 15, 16 and 18 are the work machines comprising the control systems of claims 8 and 9, performing the methods of claim 3, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 3, 8 and 9, above.
In regards to claim 17, Sano discloses the following:
17. (Original) The work machine of claim 14, further comprising one or more actuators, associated with the linkage, configured to move the linkage and the work tool, the one or more actuators being one of hydraulic or electric. (see at least [0032] “a boom cylinder 7, an arm cylinder 8, and a bucket cylinder 9, respectively, serving as hydraulic actuators”)
In regards to claims 19 and 20: Claims 19 and 20 are the work machine performing the methods of claims 2 and 4, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 2 and 4, above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Nagao as applied, in further view of Ueta et al. (US 20220364336 A1), hereinafter Ueta.
In regards to claim 5, Sano discloses the following:
5. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the electronic controller, linkage data indicative of characteristics for the linkage, the characteristics for the linkage including dimensions, (see at least Fig. 6 and [0177] “distances D2 to D5 are values, just like the work angle θ, that are determined according to the pose of the excavation attachment”)
Sano [0166] further discloses “in FIG. 6, a distance D1 denotes a horizontal distance between a rotation center RC about which the shovel body lifts up and the center-of-gravity GC of the shovel 100”. However, Sano does not explicitly disclose:
a boom center- of-gravity, and a stick center-of-gravity.
However, this is more explicitly taught by Ueta. (see at least [0039] “The data storage section stores in advance data related to the boom 14 including a size of the boom 14, a weight of the boom 14, and a gravity center position of the boom 14, and data related to the arm 15 including a size of the arm 15, a weight of the arm 15, and a gravity center position of the arm 15”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Sano invention to incorporate the teachings of Ueta by including features that allow characteristics of a linkage to be known. Particularly because Sano relates to performing calculations based on characteristics of a work machine and Ueta also relates to performing calculations based on characteristics of a work machine. In Ueta, the characteristics of a work machine includes the characteristics of a linkage. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Sano for the benefit of performing calculations based on linkage information (Ueta, Paragraph 0039)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. The Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this non-final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
September 28, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights