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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP23150251 has been filed on 7 February, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “the predefined position” should read – a predefined position – . Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “A computer program product comprising program code” which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software (software per se). The court has found that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment, does not fall within any statutory category. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itai (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0009702.
Regarding claim 1, Itai teaches a computer system comprising a processor device (Paragraph 0033 As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CCU 35 has a storage section 35A and a down assist control section 35B. The storage section 35A stores data that are needed for down assist control of the vessel 3.) configured to: initiate a dumping procedure of a load by tilting a dump body of a working machine (Paragraph 0064 After stopping at an unloading site, the dump truck 1 tilts the vessel 3 to the highest point (with the tilt angle theta thereof being an upper limit angle thetamax), the control valve device 16 is placed in the hold position, and the dump truck 1 begins ejection (S101) (Phase 1 in FIG. 6).) by activating at least one tilting actuator connecting a working machine frame with the dump body (Paragraph 0019 The vessel 3 pivots (rises and lowers) in an up-down direction on the side of a front section thereof about the positions of the connecting pins 5 as fulcrums by extending or retracting the hoist cylinders 10.), determine that the dumping procedure has reached a pre-defined state at which a sub-part of the load is maintained in the dump body (Paragraph 0065 As earth is ejected, earth gradually accumulates in a lower edge part of the vessel 3 so that the lower edge part is filled up with earth and no further ejection of earth becomes feasible.), instruct the working machine to move in a forward direction to discharge at least a portion of said sub-part of the load maintained in the dump body (Paragraph 0065 Then, the dump truck 1 begins to move forward at a low speed, and ejects earth while traveling.).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the claims are commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that the claims are directed to a method and a dumping arrangement for a working machine respectively. Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claims 2 and 11 as was applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches stopping, by the processor device, tilting of the dump body by bringing the tilting actuator to a predefined position prior to, or when, reaching the predefined state of the dumping procedure (Paragraph 0064 After stopping at an unloading site, the dump truck 1 tilts the vessel 3 to the highest point (with the tilt angle theta thereof being an upper limit angle thetamax), the control valve device 16 is placed in the hold position, and the dump truck 1 begins ejection (S101) (Phase 1 in FIG. 6).).
Regarding claim 4, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches identifying, by the processor device, a dump body condition as belonging to a group of predefined dump body conditions defined as load dumping restrictive, the load dumping being defined as restrictive by that said sub-part of the load is maintained in the dump body as the tilting actuator is arranged in the predefined position, and in response of identifying a dump body condition as load dumping restrictive, determining, by the processor device, that the dumping procedure has reached the predefined state (Paragraph 0065 As earth is ejected, earth gradually accumulates in a lower edge part of the vessel 3 so that the lower edge part is filled up with earth and no further ejection of earth becomes feasible.).
Regarding claim 5, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches wherein the tilting actuator is arranged in the predefined position during instructing the working machine to move in a forward direction to discharge said sub-part of the load maintained in the dump body (Paragraph 0064 After stopping at an unloading site, the dump truck 1 tilts the vessel 3 to the highest point (with the tilt angle theta thereof being an upper limit angle thetamax), the control valve device 16 is placed in the hold position, and the dump truck 1 begins ejection (S101) (Phase 1 in FIG. 6).).
Regarding claim 6, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches ending, by the processor device, the dumping procedure by re-tilting the dump body by de-activating the tilting actuator (Paragraph 0067 If the travel speed is equal to or higher than the stop determination speed stationary state determination speed (S102/Yes), the CCU 35 determines whether the tilt angle theta is equal to or greater than a down assist performing angle. If affirmative (S103/Yes), the CCU 35 sets the down solenoid valve output according to the below-described formula (1), and performs down assist operation by forcible lowering operation in addition to tare weight lowering (S104; Phase 2 in FIG. 6).).
Regarding claim 7, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches determining, by the processor device, that the load has been dumped from the dump body during moving of the working machine in the forward direction (Paragraph 0068 The dump truck continues ejection while moving forward at a low speed. If the earth remaining in the vessel 3 has decreased, the operator performs operation for allowing the vessel 3 to rest, and the tilt angle 8 decreases gradually.).
Regarding claim 8, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches ending, by the processor device, the dumping procedure in response of determining that the load has been dumped from the dump body (Paragraph 0068 The dump truck continues ejection while moving forward at a low speed. If the earth remaining in the vessel 3 has decreased, the operator performs operation for allowing the vessel 3 to rest, and the tilt angle 8 decreases gradually.).
Regarding claim 10, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches wherein the predefined state of the dumping procedure is defined by the angle of inclination of the dump body, or of the weight of the load in the dump body (Paragraph 0064 After stopping at an unloading site, the dump truck 1 tilts the vessel 3 to the highest point (with the tilt angle theta thereof being an upper limit angle thetamax), the control valve device 16 is placed in the hold position, and the dump truck 1 begins ejection (S101) (Phase 1 in FIG. 6).).
Regarding claim 12, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches a working machine comprising the processor device (Paragraph 0033 As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CCU 35 has a storage section 35A and a down assist control section 35B. The storage section 35A stores data that are needed for down assist control of the vessel 3.) to perform the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processor device (Paragraph 0033 As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CCU 35 has a storage section 35A and a down assist control section 35B. The storage section 35A stores data that are needed for down assist control of the vessel 3.), the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches a control system comprising one or more control units (Paragraph 0033 As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CCU 35 has a storage section 35A and a down assist control section 35B. The storage section 35A stores data that are needed for down assist control of the vessel 3.) configured to perform the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Itai further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device (Paragraph 0033 As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CCU 35 has a storage section 35A and a down assist control section 35B. The storage section 35A stores data that are needed for down assist control of the vessel 3.), cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai in view of Lacaze (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0401134).
Regarding claim 9, Itai teaches the method of claim 2 as set forth above. However, Itai does not teach instructing, by the processor device, the working machine to stop subsequent to that the working machine has moved in a forward direction a predetermined distance.
Lacaze, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for controlling a dumping vehicle. The system instructs the vehicle to perform a partial dump operation in which a partial load is dumped before instructing the vehicle to travel a predetermined interval to perform the next partial dump operation (Paragraph 0029 Dumping along a line. Similar as with the "dumping in an area" behavior, in this case, the operator defines a line of sequences of lines. This behavior is used for shoring roads, or for making embankments, as well as to create water features. This behavior is also used for distributing dirt along the road to simplify the job of a grader. The operator can choose to determine the line, as well as the intervals at which he/she will prefer the piles to accumulate. The behavior allows the system to also determine partial loads, if the dumping mechanism allows for this process.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Itai with the teachings of Lacaze which teaches instructing the vehicle to perform a partial dump operation in which a partial load is dumped before instructing the vehicle to travel a predetermined interval to perform the next partial dump operation in order to dump partial loads at predetermined intervals along a line when distributing dirt along a road (See Lacaze Paragraph 0029 This behavior is used for shoring roads, or for making embankments, as well as to create water features. This behavior is also used for distributing dirt along the road to simplify the job of a grader.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of the record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Hague – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0114519
Shakespeare – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0114509
Sherlock – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0392703
Teramoto – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0105852
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666