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 .
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) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa (PGPUB 2021/0310219) in view of Onuma (PGPUB 2013/0222573).
With respect to claim 1, Aizawa teaches a working machine comprising: a body (fig. 2, 11/13);
a ground engaging propulsion structure (paragraph 0026; 16) supporting the body;
a telescopic working arm (fig. 2, 12) mounted to the body to be pivotable about a substantially horizontal axis, wherein a working implement is mounted to a distal end of the working arm; and
a collision avoidance system (paragraph 0040-0044) comprising,
a control system (fig. 3, 27) configured to determine a height of the working implement at the distal end of the working arm and to define a first zone having an area (fig. 4, area covered by cameras) below the working implement,
at least one first sensor (paragraph 0038; 39, 34a-c) mounted on the working machine and configured to monitor the area defined by the first zone and to generate a sensor output signal,
a display (paragraph 0046; 401) configured to display the sensor output from the at least one first sensor, and
wherein the control system is configured to determine if an animate object is located within the first zone and to provide an output for alerting an operator of the working machine if it is determined that an animate object is in the first zone (paragraph 0074; warning produced when person in predetermined range).
Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone is based on the determined height of the working implement at the distal end of the working arm.
Onuma teaches wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone is based on the determined height of the working implement (paragraph 0065) at the distal end of the working arm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put sensor on distal end of working arm giving it height/further distance range, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With respect to claim 2, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone increases as the height of the working implement increases, optionally wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone is proportional to the height of the working implement.
Onuma teaches wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone increases as the height of the working implement increases, optionally wherein the control system is configured such that the area defined by the first zone is proportional to the height of the working implement (paragraph 00656).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for danger zone to increase with boom height/reach, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 3, Aizawa teaches wherein the collision avoidance system comprises a sensor (paragraph 0038; 39) configured to determine an angle of the working arm relative to the body and the control system is configured to determine the height of the working implement based on the angle of the working arm and/or wherein the collision avoidance system comprises a sensor configured to determine an extension of the working arm and the control system is configured to determine the height of the working implement based on the extension of the working arm.
With respect to claim 4, Aizawa does not teach wherein the collision avoidance system comprises a sensor configured to determine a position of the working implement relative to the body in three-dimensional space, and wherein the control system is configured such that the size and location of the area of the first zone is based on the position of the working implement relative to the body in three-dimensional space.
Onuma teaches wherein the collision avoidance system comprises a sensor configured to determine a position of the working implement relative to the body in three-dimensional space, and wherein the control system is configured such (paragraph 0061) that the size and location of the area of the first zone is based on the position of the working implement relative to the body in three-dimensional space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for danger zone be 3D space, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 5, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to determine a center of gravity of the working machine, and wherein the control system is configured such that the size and location of the area of the first zone is based on the determined center of gravity of the working machine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to track center of gravity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 6, Aizawa does not teach comprising an inclination sensor configured to determine an inclination of the working machine, wherein the control system is configured to adjust the location of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on the determined inclination of the working machine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to track machine incline, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 7, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to adjust the location of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on a speed of travel and/or direction of travel of the working machine.
Onuma teaches wherein the control system is configured to adjust the location of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on a speed of travel and/or direction of travel of the working machine (paragraph 0068; adjusts hazard zone according to speed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust zone location based on speed/direction, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 8, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to adjust the size of the area of the first zone and/or position of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on a rate of change of speed of travel of the working machine.
Onuma teaches wherein the control system is configured to adjust the size of the area of the first zone and/or position of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on a rate of change of speed of travel of the working machine (paragraph 0068; adjusts hazard zone according to speed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust size of zone, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 9, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to adjust the size of the area of the first zone relative to the working implement based on a load carried by the working implement, optionally wherein the control system is configured such that the size of the area of the first zone is proportional to the load carried by the working implement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for danger zone based relative to load, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 10, Aizawa does not teach comprising an override control such that an output generated in response to an animate object being detected in the first zone is able to be deactivated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for machine to have override, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 11, Aizawa teaches wherein the at least one sensor is configured to identify an animate object in the first zone, and wherein the control system is configured selectively provide an output for alerting an operator of the working machine based (paragraph 0074; warning produced when person in predetermined range) on the identification of the animate object, optionally wherein the at least one sensor is configured to identify an animate object based on one or more of: an active tag on an animate object; facial recognition; feature recognition; or a gait of the animate object.
With respect to claim 12, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to restrict operation of the working machine if it is determined that an animate object has been detected in the first zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for machine to restrict operation, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 13, Aizawa does not teach wherein the control system is configured to restrict operation of the working machine by one or more of: providing a rate of gradual stop of the working machine; preventing raising of the working implement; preventing further extension of the working arm; limiting a rate of change of speed of the working machine; limiting a speed of trave of the working machine; and/or limiting or preventing a change of direction of the working machine.
Onuma teaches wherein the control system is configured to restrict operation of the working machine by one or more of: providing a rate of gradual stop of the working machine; preventing raising of the working implement; preventing further extension of the working arm; limiting a rate of change of speed of the working machine (paragraph 0068; adjusts hazard zone according to speed); limiting a speed of trave of the working machine; and/or limiting or preventing a change of direction of the working machine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for danger zone to increase with boom height/reach, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 14, Aizawa teaches wherein the at least one first sensor comprises a plurality of cameras mounted on the body of the (paragraph 0038; 34a-c) working machine and configured to monitor an area in its field of view and to generate a camera output signal to the display.
Claims 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ERICK D GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights