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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 5 June 2026 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1, and 3 – 7 are amended.
Claims 2, 8 – 9 and 12 – 13 are cancelled.
Claims 14 – 18 are newly introduced.
Currently, claims 1, 3 – 7 and 14 - 18 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 – 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 14 – 18 are newly introduced and rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 3 – 7 and 14 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa et al. (Hereinafter Izumikawa) (WO 2019112059 A1) in view of Narikawa et al. (Hereinafter Narikawa) (US 2020/0141091 A1).
As per claim 1, Izumikawa teaches limitations of:
a shovel (See at least abstract), comprising:
a lower traveling body (See at least abstract; This excavator (100) comprises a lower-part traveling body);
a swiveling actuator configured to rotate the upper swivel body (See at least abstract; an upper turning body (3) that is turnably mounted to the lower traveling body (1));
an upper swiveling body mounted to the lower traveling body (See at least abstract);
an attachment including a boom attached to the upper swiveling body, an arm attached to an end of the boom, and an end attachment attached to an end of the arm (See at least paragraph 8 and 9; An upper swing body 3 is rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel 100 via a swing mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. The boom 4, the arm 5 and the bucket 6 constitute a digging attachment as an example of the attachment. The boom 4 is driven by the boom cylinder 7, the arm 5 is driven by the arm cylinder 8, and the bucket 6 is driven by the bucket cylinder 9.);
a hardware processor configured to
select, from among a plurality of surfaces forming a predetermined construction surface, a surface that is below the end attachment when detecting a predetermined switch being operated and a swiveling operation lever configured to operate the swiveling actuator being operated, as a first surface which is to be faced by the upper swiveling body such that a virtual plane crossing the attachment in a longitudinal direction and perpendicular to a swiveling plane includes a normal to the first surface and upon which an operation is to be performed by the shovel, the first surface being inclined relative to a plane in which the lower traveling body is positioned (See at least paragraph 86 – 89; the machine guidance device 50 will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing another configuration example of the drive system of the shovel 100, and corresponds to FIG. The drive system of FIG. 5 is different from the drive system of FIG. 2 in that the machine guidance device 50 includes the turning angle calculation unit 55 and the relative angle calculation unit 56, but is common in other points. Therefore, the description of the common part is omitted, and the different part will be described in detail. The turning angle calculation unit 55 calculates the turning angle of the upper swing body 3. This is to identify the current orientation of the upper swing body 3. In the present embodiment, based on the output of the GNSS compass as the positioning device P1, the turning angle calculation unit 55 calculates the angle of the longitudinal axis of the upper swing body 3 with respect to the reference direction as the turning angle. The turning angle calculation unit 55 may calculate the turning angle based on the output of the turning angular velocity sensor S5. In addition, when the reference point is set at the construction site, the turning angle calculation unit 55 may use the direction viewed from the turning axis as the reference direction. The turning angle indicates the direction in which the attachment operating surface extends. The attachment operation surface is, for example, a virtual plane which longitudinally cuts the attachment, and is disposed to be perpendicular to the turning plane. The pivot plane is, for example, a virtual plane that includes the bottom of the pivot frame perpendicular to the pivot axis. The machine guidance device 50 determines that the upper swing body 3 faces the target construction surface, for example, when it is determined that the attachment operation surface AF (see FIG. 8A) includes the normal of the target construction surface. The relative angle calculation unit 56 calculates a relative angle as a turning angle required to make the upper swing body 3 face the target construction surface. The relative angle is formed, for example, between the direction of the longitudinal axis of the upper revolving body 3 when the upper revolving body 3 is made to face the target construction surface and the current direction of the longitudinal axis of the upper revolving body 3 Relative angle. In the present embodiment, the relative angle calculation unit 56 calculates the relative angle based on the information on the target construction surface stored in the storage device 47 and the turning angle calculated by the turning angle calculation unit 55); and
and in response to selecting the surface as the first surface, cause the upper swiveling body to face the selected surface by automatically operating the swiveling actuator and automatically stopping the swiveling actuator (See at least paragraph 90; Then, when it is determined that the turning operation lever is operated in the direction in which the upper swing body 3 is made to face the target construction surface, the automatic control unit 54 sets the relative angle calculated by the relative angle calculation unit 56 as the target angle. Then, when the change of the turning angle after the turning operation lever is operated reaches the target angle, it is determined that the upper swing body 3 has faced the target construction surface, and the movement of the turning hydraulic motor 2A is stopped).
Izumikawa is silent regarding the limitation of: a surface that is directly below the end attachment.
Narikawa teaches the limitations of:
a surface that is directly below the end attachment (See at least paragraph 76 – 77; The target surface comparison section 62 compares the position of the target surface 700 in the excavator reference coordinates with positions of the straight lines 802 expressing the current terrain profile to determine the position relationship. In the present embodiment, comparison methods (1) to (3) are used as follows. The comparison methods will be described in a situation in which the target surface 700 includes target surfaces 700A, 700B, and 700C and the segments 802 include segments 802A, 802B, and 802C. In the present embodiment, in principle, a normal of one segment of the target surface 700, on the basis of which the MG and the MC is performed, passing through a given point on one segment of the current terrain profile 800 is created, and the target surface comparison section 62 determines the vertical position relationship between the target surface 700 and the current terrain profile 800 from a direction (sign) of a Z-direction component of the normal. In FIG. 8, for example, among normals of the target surface 700A, a normal passing through a given point on the segment 802A can be calculated as a normal 701A. Since the Z-direction component of the normal 701A is in a positive direction, the target surface comparison section 62 can determine that the segment 802A is located above the target surface 700A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a surface that is directly below the end attachment as taught by Narikawa in the system of Izumikawa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to select, as the first surface, the surface whose vertical distance to the end attachment is shortest, among surfaces that are directly below the end attachment (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 93).
As per claim 4, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to select, as the first surface, the surface crossing a vertical line drawn from a predetermined part of the end attachment among surfaces that are directly below the end attachment (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 49).
As per claim 5, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein upon leftward swiveling, a surface crossing a vertical line drawn from a left end of the end attachment is selected as the first surface, and upon rightward swiveling, a surface crossing a vertical line drawn from a right end of the end attachment is selected as the first surface (Narikawa, see at least paragraph 82 and 85).
As per claim 7, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the positional relationship is a distance between the end attachment and the predetermined construction surface, the distance being calculated based on information obtained from a boom angle sensor, an arm angle sensor, a bucket angle sensor, a machine body tilt sensor, a swivel angular velocity sensor, a space recognition device, a position measurement device, a communication device, an input device, or any combination thereof (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 43).
As per claim 14, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to select, as the first surface, the surface crossing a vertical line drawn from a left end of the end attachment among surfaces that are directly below the end attachment when detecting the predetermined switch being operated and the swiveling operation lever being operated to turn the upper swiveling body counterclockwise, and select, as the first surface, the surface crossing a vertical line drawn from a right end of the end attachment among surfaces that are directly below the end attachment when detecting the predetermined switch being operated and the swiveling operation lever being operated to turn the upper swiveling body clockwise (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 51 – 52 and Narikawa, see at least paragraph 41).
As per claim 15, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to generate a target track on the selected surface upon the upper swiveling body facing the selected surface, and control the attachment such that the end attachment follows the generated target track, in response to an arm operation lever configured to operate the arm being operated (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 93 - 94).
As per claim 16, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine that the upper swiveling body faces the selected surface in response to determining that a difference between a left end vertical distance and a right end vertical distance is zero or less than or equal to a predetermined value, the left end vertical distance being a vertical distance between a left end of the end attachment and the selected surface, the right end vertical distance being a vertical distance between a right end of the end attachment and the selected surface (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 46).
As per claim 17, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the predetermined switch is provided at an end of the swiveling operation lever (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 50 – 51).
As per claim 18, the combination of Izumikawa, and Narikawa teaches limitations of:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to inform the operator which of the plurality of surfaces is selected as the first surface in response to selecting the surface (Izumikawa, see at least paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 1 above, respectively.
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 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights