DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/470,700 filed on November 10, 2025 in which claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 were amended; claims 6-10 and 13 were cancelled; and claims 16-20 were added.
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
Claims 1-5, 11, 12, and 14-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al., WO 2019131980 A1 (hereinafter Tsukamoto), as evidenced by the attached translation, in view of Kovach et al., US Publication 2018/0310466 (hereinafter Kovach).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukamoto discloses a shovel, comprising “a hardware processor configured to receive an operation to instruct the shovel to travel” (Tsukamoto 70, 761) where a CPU (i.e., a processor) is used (Tsukamoto 70) to control the shovel based in information acquired from input device 42. (Tsukamoto 76). Additionally, Tsukamoto discloses “cause a working portion of an end attachment of the shovel to be pressed against a ground in response to receiving the operation to instruct the shovel to travel” (Tsukamoto 76-77) where a position is calculated based on the acquired information, including that acquired from input device 42 (i.e., “in response to receiving the operation”), (Tsukamoto 76) and giving an example of one such position being against the ground. (Tsukamoto 77). Finally, Tsukamoto discloses “cause the shovel to travel by a second predetermined distance on the ground against which the working portion is pressed, in response to determining the absence of the soft ground region” Tsukamoto 80-81) where the bucket is moved to point Pa (i.e., a second predetermined distance) in response to the determination that the slope has a standard hardness (i.e., an absence of the soft ground).
Although Tsukamoto discloses determining if the ground is soft or hard and determining whether a working portions sinks more than a predetermined distance, it does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine whether the working portion sinks by a first predetermined distance or more when the working portion is pressed against the ground; determine absence of a soft ground region in the ground in response to determining that the working portion does not sink by the first predetermined distance or more.”
However, Kovach discloses a work machine configured to “determine whether the working portion sinks by a first predetermined distance or more when the working portion is pressed against the ground; determine absence of a soft ground region in the ground in response to determining that the working portion does not sink by the first predetermined distance or more” (Kovach ¶ 73) by determining that the ground is soft if the working portion of the tool sinks more than a displacement threshold.
Tsukamoto and Kovach are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of working equipment capable of determining if the ground is soft or hard.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tsukamoto and Kovach before him or her to modify the soft ground determination of Tsukamoto to include the displacement threshold based determination of Kovach.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Tsukamoto teaches the “base device” for controlling a working machine based on the detection of soft ground. Further, Kovach teaches the “known technique” for determining soft ground that is applicable to the base device of Tsukamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because the addition of the ground determination method of Kovach would provide redundancy and, therefore, increased accuracy to the method of Tsukamoto.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the second predetermined distance is a distance from a current position of the shovel to a region against which the working portion is pressed on the ground” (Tsukamoto 80 and Fig. 9) where the shovel is moved from the current position Pa to one of Pa1, Pa2, or Pa3, which is the region against the shovel is pressed.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “a storage part configured to store determination result information in which a determination result as to presence or absence of the soft ground region obtained by the hardware processor is associated with position information indicating a position of a region against which the working portion is pressed” (Tsukamoto 70) where storage device 47 stores the various information output during operation.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to obtain route information indicating a traveling route of the shovel traveling from a current position of the shovel to a destination based on the obtained determination result” (Tsukamoto 81) where machine guidance unit 50 moves the bucket 6, which would necessarily require obtaining a route to move the bucket. Further, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “to store the route information in the storage” (Tsukamoto 70) where storage device 47 stores the various information output during operation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the hardware processor is configured to obtain the route information obtained by another shovel, and cause the shovel to travel based on the route information.” Specifically, Tsukamoto discloses that the process may include “shovels” (Tsukamoto 84), indicating that a shovel and “another shovel” may be used in the system. Additionally, Tsukamoto discloses that a management system may be connected to each shovel in the system and that the management system manages those shovels, (Tsukamoto 84-85), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would include the previously discussed “obtain[ing]” step. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Tsukamoto at least suggests that the obtained travel route could be obtained from another shovel within the shovel management system and, therefore, the claimed limitation “wherein the hardware processor is configured to obtain the route information obtained by another shovel, and cause the shovel to travel based on the route information” is obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to transmit information indicating the current position and information indicating the destination to a construction management device including a construction management storage part storing the determination result information and the traveling route, and receive the route information indicating the traveling route from the current position to the destination, from the construction management device” (Tsukamoto 84-85) by disclosing a management system that includes these features.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the shovel to start traveling based on the route information received by the communication part (Tsukamoto 84-85) where the management system controls the shovel 100, which would include the route information.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine presence of the soft ground region in the ground in response to determining that the working portion sinks by the first predetermined distance or more” (Kovach ¶ 73) by determining that the ground is soft if the working portion of the tool sinks more than a displacement threshold. Further, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “cause an upper swiveling body to rotate to change a region against which the working portion is to be pressed in response to determining the presence of the soft ground region” (Tsukamoto 77) where the location of a point, which is calculated according to the detection of soft ground as discussed above, includes determining the rotation angle of the body.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, in response to determining that all surrounding regions of the shovel are the soft ground region, cause a display device to display that all the surrounding regions of the shovel are the soft ground region and the shovel to stop traveling” (Tsukamoto 81) by outputting an alarm, such as displaying a text message, and stopping movement of the attachment when soft ground is reached.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine that a ground region in contact with the working portion is the soft ground region in response to determining that the working portion sinks relative to a ground surface in contact with crawlers of the shovel by the first predetermined distance or more when the working portion is pressed against the ground at a predetermined pressing force” (Tsukamoto 80-81) by determining that the ground is a soft ground region when the bucket presses at a predetermined force value F1 and the bucket moves deeper than the target construction surface.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine that a ground region in contact with the working portion is the soft ground region in response to determining that the working portion reaches a ground situation determination surface when the working portion is pressed against the ground, the ground situation determination surface being a position under a ground surface in contact with crawlers by a predetermined distance” (Tsukamoto 80-81) by determining that the ground is a soft ground region when the bucket presses at a predetermined force value F1 and the bucket moves deeper (i.e., to a position under a ground surface) than the target construction surface.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “a construction management system comprising: a plurality of shovels including the shovel as set forth in claim 1” (Tsukamoto 84) by indicating “shovels.” Further, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “a system hardware processor” (Tsukamoto 70, 76) where a CPU (i.e., a processor) is used (Tsukamoto 70) to control the shovel based in information acquired from input device 42. (Tsukamoto 76). Moreover, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the shovel is further configured to output route information indicating a traveling route of the shovel traveling from a current position of the shovel to a destination based on a determination result as to presence or absence of the soft ground region obtained by the hardware processor” (Tsukamoto 80) where a “pressing force,” indicating that a pressing is occurring, and determining whether to move the shovel to a shallower portion is based on whether or not the slope is soft, which must necessarily be determined in order to perform an action based on this data. Finally, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the system hardware processor is configured to transmit the route information output from the shovel to another shovel among the plurality of shovels.” Specifically, Tsukamoto discloses that the process may include “shovels” (Tsukamoto 84), indicating that a shovel and “another shovel” may be used in the system. Additionally, Tsukamoto discloses that a management system may be connected to each shovel in the system and that the management system manages those shovels, (Tsukamoto 84-85), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would include the previously discussed “output[ing]” step. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Tsukamoto at least suggests that the obtained travel route could be obtained from another shovel within the shovel management system and, therefore, the claimed limitation “wherein the system hardware processor is configured to transmit the route information output from the shovel to another shovel among the plurality of shovels” is obvious.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “wherein the system hardware processor is further configured to collect, from the shovel, determination result information in which the determination result obtained by the hardware processor is associated with position information indicating a position of a region against which the working portion is pressed, store the collected determination result information in a construction management storage” (Tsukamoto 70) where storage device 47 stores the various information output (i.e., collected) during operation. Further, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “create a traveling route that avoids the soft ground region, referring to the stored determination result information, and transmit the created traveling route to another shovel among the plurality of shovels” (Tsukamoto 81) by creating a route where the movement of the attachment stops (i.e., avoids) when soft ground is reached.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto in view of Kovach, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kurosawa et al., WO 2020091002 A1, as evidenced by the attached translation.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach discloses “a camera configured to take an image including an image of a track” (Tsukamoto 70) where imaging device S6 performs this function.
The combination of Tsukamoto and Kovach does not appear to explicitly disclose “a camera configured to take an image including an image of a track, the track being formed in the ground by another shovel traveling in response to determining the absence of the soft ground region, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the shovel to travel following the track.”
However, Kurosawa discloses an excavator including “a camera configured to take an image including an image of a track, the track being formed in the ground by another shovel traveling … wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the shovel to travel following the track” (Kurosawa Translation ¶ 107) where images of other shovels are fed into a machine learning system in order to determine a traveling path of a shovel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Kurosawa was combined with Tsukamoto, the determination of a path in response to determining the absences of the soft ground region of Tsukamoto would use the AI based method of Kurosawa. Therefore, the combination of Tsukamoto and Kurosawa at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “a camera configured to take an image including an image of a track, the track being formed in the ground by another shovel traveling in response to determining the absence of the soft ground region, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the shovel to travel following the track,” rendering them obvious.
Tsukamoto and Kurosawa are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of excavator systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tsukamoto and Kurosawa before him or her to modify the path determination of Tsukamoto to include the machine learning method of Kurosawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the system. (Kurosawa Translation ¶ 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the objections 11, 13, and 14; the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 7-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections 11, 13, and 14; the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Remarks 10-12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Tsukamoto and Kovach.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 All citations to Tsukamoto shall be to the page number of the combined WIPO publication and translation.
Prosecution Insights