DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/473,572 filed on December 12, 2025 in which claims 1-12 were amended and claims 13-20 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 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); claims 2-5, 8-13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 14, 15, and 20 are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizawa et al., US Publication 2020/0048871 (hereinafter Nishizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Nishizawa an excavator (Nishizawa ¶ 30) comprising “a traveling body” (Nishizawa ¶ 32) where vehicle body 130 is a travelling body. Additionally, Nishizawa discloses “a traveling hydraulic motor configured to drive the traveling body” (Nishizawa ¶¶ 32-33, see also ¶ 39) by including traveling motors 125 and 126. Further, Nishizawa discloses “a hardware processor configured to, during traveling of the excavator, automatically determine roughness of a traveling surface on which the traveling body travels” (Nishizawa ¶¶ 64, 114-116) by including hardware processor (Nishizawa ¶ 64), determines the roughness of the working region (Nishizawa ¶¶ 114-116), which is the area surrounding the excavator (i.e., traveling surface on which the traveling body travels, Nishizawa ¶ 58). Finally, Nishizawa discloses “control the traveling hydraulic motor according to the determined roughness” (Nishizawa ¶ 164) by controlling the excavator based on the disclosed system, including the roughness determination.
Regarding claim 6, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa discloses “a storage.” (Nishizawa ¶ 40). Further, Nishizawa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to obtain positional information that represents a position of the excavator at which hardware processor determines the roughness of the traveling surface” (Nishizawa ¶ 70) by obtaining the obstacle information, which includes the terrain data (i.e., the roughness, Nishizawa ¶ 60). Moreover, Nishizawa discloses “generate traveling surface information in which the obtained positional information and information that represents the determined roughness are associated with each other” (Nishizawa ¶ 70) by converting the obstacle information into coordinate values. Finally, Nishizawa discloses “store the generated traveling surface information in the storage” (Nishizawa ¶ 70) by storing the converted obstacle information.
Regarding claim 7, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to control the traveling hydraulic motor based on information that represents the position of the excavator and the traveling surface information stored in the storage.” (Nishizawa ¶ 164).
Regarding claim 17, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate the traveling surface information in which the obtained positional information, information that represents the determined roughness, and speed information that represents a traveling speed of the excavator after the traveling hydraulic motor is controlled are associated with each other” (Nishizawa ¶ 164) where the act of storing the data is a form of associating.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Niwa et al., US Patent 7,168,709 (hereinafter Niwa).
Regarding claim 2, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “an acceleration sensor, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the roughness of the traveling surface, based on an amplitude value of acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor.”
However, Niwa discloses a vehicle including “an acceleration sensor.” (Niwa claim 1). Additionally, Niwa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the roughness of the traveling surface, based on an amplitude value of acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor.” (Niwa claim 1).
Nishizawa and Niwa are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of rough ground detection.
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 Nishizawa and Uchino before him or her to modify the suspension system of Nishizawa to include the amplitude based rough ground detection of Niwa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve drivability of the vehicle. (Niwa col. 27, ll. 47-51).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to reduce a traveling speed in response to the amplitude value of acceleration becoming greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold.” (Niwa col. 17, ll. 43-64) where the traveling speed is set, which would include reduction in speed, based on the peaks (i.e., amplitude) of the vehicle as compared to the average value.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine that the traveling surface is rough, when the traveling hydraulic motor needs to be controlled by the hardware processor and be that the traveling surface is smooth when the traveling hydraulic motor does not need to be controlled by the hardware processor” (Niwa Abstract) where the use of vertical acceleration controls (i.e., the hydraulic motors are or are not needed) are used to determine road roughness.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Niwa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine that the traveling surface is rough where in response to determining that the amplitude value of acceleration is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold.” (Niwa claim 1).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Afrouzi et al., US Patent 11,199,853 (hereinafter Afrouzi).
Regarding claim 4, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the roughness of the traveling surface, based on image data obtained by imaging the traveling surface and hardness of the traveling surface.”
However, Afrouzi discloses an excavator management system (Afrouzi col. 174, ll. 36-41) “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the roughness of the traveling surface, based on image data obtained by imaging the traveling surface and hardness of the traveling surface.” (Afrouzi col. 136, ll. 40-63; col. 247, l. 50-col. 248, l. 34). Specifically, Afrouzi discloses that the presence of hard surfaces are detected using an image sensor (Afrouzi col. 247, l. 50-col. 248, l. 34) and that the traveling surface is determined to be rough, based on the presence of the hard surface. (Afrouzi col. 136, ll. 40-63).
Nishizawa and Afrouzi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting roughness of a surface area by an excavator.
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 Nishizawa and Afrouzi before him or her to modify the roughness detection system of Nishizawa to include the image sensor of Afrouzi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the disclosed management system is known to be advantageous. (Afrouzi col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 14).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to reduce a traveling speed in response to determining that an image of the traveling surface indicated by the image data and the hardness of the traveling surface satisfy a predetermined condition” (Afrouzi col. 136, ll. 40-63; col. 247, l. 50-col. 248, l. 34) where the predetermined condition is the surface type is that the surface is no hardwood, thus reducing the motor at lower speed.
Regarding claim 8, Nishizawa discloses an excavator support system, comprising “an excavator as set forth in claim 1.” (Nishizawa ¶ 30, See claim 1 above). Additionally, Nishizawa discloses “a management device of excavators, the management device including a hardware processor.” (Nishizawa ¶ 64). Further, Nishizawa discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the excavator is further configured to transmit, to the management device, traveling surface information in which positional information that represents a position of the excavator at which the hardware processor of the excavator determines the roughness of the traveling surface is associated with information that represents the determined roughness.” (Nishizawa ¶ 70). Finally, Nishizawa discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the management device is configured to …: store the traveling surface information received from the excavator.” (Nishizawa ¶ 70).
Although Nishizawa discloses determining a roughness of a traveling surface and transmitting controls, it does not appear to explicitly disclose the presence of “another excavator.” As a result, Nishizawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine roughness of a traveling surface on which another excavator is traveling, based on positional information received from said another excavator and the traveling surface information, and transmit a control command of a hydraulic motor for traveling to said another excavator according to a result of determination of the roughness.”
However, Afrouzi discloses an excavator support system comprising “an excavator.” (Afrouzi col. 174, ll. 36-41). Additionally, Afrouzi discloses “a management device of excavators, the management device including a memory and a processor.” (Afrouzi col. 13, l. 51-col. 14,l. 23). Further, Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the excavator is further configured to transmit, to the management device, traveling surface information in which positional information that represents a position of the excavator” (Afrouzi col. 158, ll. 10-40, col. 193, ll. 33-60 ) where smoothness scores are assigned to nodes (i.e., positional information, Afrouzi col. 158, ll. 10-40), which is shared between the VMP and the control system (Afrouzi col. 193, ll. 33-60).193, ll. 33-60). Moreover, Afrouzi discloses “at which the hardware processor of the excavator determines the roughness of the traveling surface is associated with information that represents the determined roughness” (Afrouzi col. 155, ll. 12-16, col. 156, ll. 33-57) where the VMP processor determines scores (Afrouzi col. 155, ll. 12-16) that include a surface smoothness score (Afrouzi col. 156, ll. 33-57). Likewise, Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the management device is configured to, during traveling of another excavator, automatically store the traveling surface information received from the excavator” (Afrouzi col. 191, l. 48-col. 192, l. 20) where the control systems stores information received from each VMP. Afrouzi also discloses “determine roughness of a traveling surface on which another excavator travels, based on positional information received from said another excavator and the stored traveling surface information” where a surface smoothness score is determined (Afrouzi col. 156, ll. 33-57) and any function may be distributed to the data center (i.e., the management devices) for performance (Afrouzi col. 255, l. 53-col. 256, l. 10). Finally, Afrouzi discloses “transmit a control command for a traveling hydraulic motor of said another excavator to said another excavator according to the determined roughness of the traveling surface on which said another excavator travels” (Afrouzi col. 143, l. 12-col. 144, l. 23) where the control system shares any of the obtained data between the VMPs.
Nishizawa and Afrouzi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting roughness of a surface area by an excavator.
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 Nishizawa and Afrouzi before him or her to modify the roughness detection system of Nishizawa to include the management system of Afrouzi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the ability to share data between machines is known to be advantageous. (Afrouzi col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 14).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine that the traveling surface is rough in response to determining that an image of the traveling surface indicated by the image data and the hardness of the traveling surface satisfy the predetermined condition” (Afrouzi col. 136, ll. 40-63; col. 247, l. 50-col. 248, l. 34) where the predetermined condition is the surface type is hardwood.
Regarding claim 13, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the traveling surface is rough based on the determined roughness of the traveling surface” (Nishizawa ¶ 70) by obtaining the obstacle information, which includes the terrain data (i.e., the roughness, Nishizawa ¶ 60).
Nishizawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “reduce a traveling speed of the excavator by controlling the traveling hydraulic motor, in response to determining that the traveling surface is rough.”
However, Afrouzi discloses an excavator configured to “reduce a traveling speed of the excavator by controlling the traveling hydraulic motor, in response to determining that the traveling surface is rough” (Afrouzi col. 138, l. 36-col. 139, l. 4) by giving an example of reducing the traveling speed when the surface is rough.
Nishizawa and Afrouzi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting roughness of a surface area by an excavator.
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 Nishizawa and Afrouzi before him or her to modify the roughness detection system of Nishizawa to include the image sensor of Afrouzi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the disclosed management system is known to be advantageous. (Afrouzi col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 14).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine that the image of the traveling surface indicated by the image data and the hardness of the traveling surface satisfy the predetermined condition when unevenness of the traveling surface is detected from the image and the hardness is greater than or equal to a predetermined hardness” (Afrouzi col. 57, l. 46-col. 47, l. 4, col. 66, ll. 16-41) where images of the traveling surface is used to detect the hardness in all circumstances.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor of the management device is configured to generate first map information in which the traveling surface information received from the excavator is associated with second map information identified from the positional information included in the received traveling surface information, and during traveling of said another excavator, automatically determine the roughness of the traveling surface on which said another excavator travels based on the positional information received from said another excavator and the generated first map information” (Afrouzi col. 90, ll. 1-15, col. 143, l. 12-col. 144, l. 23) where the control system shares any of the obtained data between the VMPs, which would include the maps generated with the position data.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nishizawa and Afrouzi discloses “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine that the image of the traveling surface indicated by the image data and the hardness of the traveling surface satisfy the predetermined condition when unevenness of the traveling surface is detected from the image and the hardness is greater than or equal to a predetermined hardness” (Afrouzi col. 66, ll. 16-41) by determining the hardness based on images in all circumstances.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa in view of Church et al., US Publication 2019/0135216 (hereinafter Church).
Regarding claim 12, Nishizawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nishizawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the roughness of the traveling surface is determined depending on sizes of stones present on a ground as the traveling surface.
However, Church discloses a vehicle capable of measuring the roughness of terrain “wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the roughness of the traveling surface according to sizes of stones present on a ground as the traveling surface” (Church ¶ 14) by detecting rough terrain based on the height of elements on the road, which include rocks.
Nishizawa and Church are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting roughness of a travelling surface.
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 Nishizawa and Church before him or her to modify the roughness detection of Nishizawa to include the use of stone size in the roughness detection of Church.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this is the method used by the human mind and, therefore, an intuitive way to measure roughness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the subject matter of claims 14, 15, and 20 are individually known, it is the examiner’s opinion that modifying the primary references in such a manner would require impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the objection to the title, the objection to the specification, the objections to claims 9-12, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 10-12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title, the objection to the specification, the objections to claims 9-12, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in view of the present amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in the updated rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Stanek et al., US Publication 2008/0133093, System and method for reducing speed on rough ground.
Fehr et al., US Publication 2014/0121908, System and method for reducing speed on rough ground.
Izumi et al., US Publication 2019/0063041, System and method for detecting the surface pressure in an excavator.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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