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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-16 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida, et al. (Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. 2021-042569) in view of Omote (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0002547), and further in view of Murata, et al. (WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/066083 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida teaches: An information processing device (Nishida, Para. 0001 – “an information processing system”) comprising:
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a plurality of images around a work machine (Nishida, Para. 0016, 0025, 0092, 0118 – “image information acquisition unit” which includes an “image sensor that captures an image of the working unit”, where the “working unit” is an implement of the “work machine”, such that the working unit is located in an area around the work machine; where the image may be “a plurality of images” acquired at different timings by a “plurality of image sensors”);
a recording unit configured to record the images acquired by the image acquisition unit (Nishida, Para. 0031 – an “image information receiving unit” which receives images from “the image information acquiring unit” for use during either “learning” or “non-learning” operations, such that the image is recorded for use);
a manipulation information acquisition unit configured to acquire manipulation information relating to a manipulation of the work machine (Nishida, Para. 0016-0020 – an “operating unit 54 for operating the working unit 40”, or “operation unit”, where the working unit is an implement of the “work machine”, and wherein the “operation unit” is operated, or manipulated, to receive an input by the operator);
a state detection unit (Nishida, Para. 0048-0050 – an “abnormality detection unit”) configured to
acquire state information relating to the detected operation state or the detected posture state (Nishida, Para. 0048-0050 – the “abnormality detection unit” which “detects a malfunction or failure state of the working unit”; where the “abnormality detection unit” determines an “estimated posture information”, or state, of the working unit “derived from the image data”);
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is a predetermined difference between the manipulation information acquired from the manipulation information acquisition unit and the state information acquired from the state detection unit (Nishida, Para. 0047-0050 – where “the abnormality determination unit 24c determines whether the working unit 40 is in a malfunction or failure state based on the difference dK between the estimated posture information Ke and the predicted posture information Ka”; where the “estimated posture information” is the output posture, or actual state, of the working unit, and the “predicted posture” is the derived from the “the attitude that the working unit 40 should have as a result of the control” input by the operator, or manipulation); and
where “the abnormality determination unit 24c determines whether the working unit 40 is in a malfunction or failure state based on the difference dK between the estimated posture information Ke and the predicted posture information Ka”), the recording unit (Nishida, Para. 0031 – an “image information receiving unit”)
While Nishida teaches a state detection unit, Nishida does not teach extract an image feature amount from the acquired images, detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted feature amount. Additionally, while Nishida teaches a case where the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information and the recording unit, Nishida does not fully teach a recording control unit that causes, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the acquired images including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference.
However, Omote teaches extract an image feature amount from the acquired images (Omote, Para. 0023, 0030-0031, 0043 – “a camera 10 as an image pickup device provided on the turning portion 3 to pick up an image of the excavating portion 5, a controller 20 that detects the operation state of the excavating portion 5 from the image picked up by the camera 10”, the controller including a “calculation portion” which “calculates a change amount when the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13 in images that are picked up by the camera 10 change with the operation of the excavating portion 5”, or image feature amount), detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted feature amount (Omote, Para. 0030-0031, 0043 – “the change amounts of the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13 which are provided on the excavating portion 5 are calculated from the image picked up by the camera 10, and the operation state of the excavating portion 5 is detected on the basis of the change amounts of the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device of Nishida to include extract an image feature amount from the acquired images, detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted feature amount, as taught by Omote, in order to “make detection of an operation state of a work machine possible with simple constitution” (Omote, Para. 0005, 0050).
Nishida in view of Omote does not teach a recording control unit that causes, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the acquired images including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference.
However, Matsuda teaches a recording control unit that causes, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the image including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference (Matsuda, Para. 0006 – a “vehicle recording control device” which includes a “a video data acquisition unit that acquires video data captured by a capture unit that captures at least the direction in which the vehicle is traveling”, wherein if “a difference detection unit that detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle”, a recording control unit “when the difference detection unit detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle, saves video data including at least the point in time at which the difference was detected as event recording data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote to include a recording control unit that causes, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the image including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference, as taught by Matsuda, in order to record a recorded image or video data when a difference occurs to better diagnose a failure for repair or adjustment.
In regards to Claim 3, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda further teaches wherein the recording unit includes a loop recording region on which overwrite recording is automatically performed, and the recording control unit is configured to cause, in a normal state, the images acquired by the image acquisition unit to be recorded in the loop recording region (Matsuda, Para. 0033 and 0064-0066 – where when “capacity of the recording unit 220 becomes full, the recording control unit 123 overwrites the oldest loop recorded video data and records new loop recorded video data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to further include wherein the recording unit includes a loop recording region on which overwrite recording is automatically performed, and the recording control unit causes, in a normal state, the images acquired by the image acquisition unit to be recorded in the loop recording region, as taught by Matsuda, in order to overwrite irrelevant images and reduce the space occupied by images.
In regards to Claim 4, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 3, and Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda further teaches wherein, in a case where the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, the recording control unit causes the recording of the acquired images into the loop recording region to be stopped (Matsuda, Para. 0064-0066 – where “if the event detection unit 127 detects an event (Yes in step S106), the vehicular recording control device 100 proceeds to step S107”, where the “vehicle recording control device 100 causes the recording control unit 123 to record and save the event record data in the recording unit 220” from the “loop recorded video data recorded in the recording unit 220” at “the time the event was detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to further include wherein, in a case where the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, the recording control unit causes the recording of the acquired images into the loop recording region to be stopped, as taught by Matsuda, in order to save the relevant recorded image at the time when the difference is detected.
In regards to Claim 7, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda further teaches wherein, in a case where the manipulation information includes a stop instruction of the work machine and the state information includes movement of the work machine, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information (Matsuda, Para. 0006 and 0013 – “a difference detection unit that detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle”, where the applying of brakes constitutes a stop instruction, and further wherein “behavior of the vehicle” includes, for example, “when the vehicle speed does not decrease despite the brakes being applied”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to further include wherein, wherein, in a case where the manipulation information includes a stop instruction of the work machine and the state information includes movement of the work machine, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information as taught by Matsuda, in order to determine a situation where the work machine does not obey a stop instruction and to determine the reasoning for the situation to prevent an accident or further malfunction.
In regards to Claim 9, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida further teaches wherein the work machine includes an undercarriage, a turning body (Nishida, Para. 0017 – a “lower running section”, having a “endless track or the like” to “run in a predetermined direction”, and an “upper body section” which is “configured to be rotatable about a rotation axis La relative to the lower running section 36”), and an attachment (Nishida, Para. 0016-0017 – a “working unit” which is an implement of the “work machine”; for example the “working unit” includes “an arm mechanism 48 , and a bucket 46”).
In regards to Claim 14, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida further teaches further comprising: a communication device, wherein the communication device is configured to mutually communicate with a remote external device or another work machine through a communication network (Nishida, Para. 0051 and 0107 – the “information processing system” includes “an information processing device” capable of communicating with a “network server” via “a communication network NW using wired or wireless communication”, where the network server may be “a cloud server, also known as a cloud computing system”; where the information is delivered to the operator by “communication means such as a network”, for example when the work machine is “remotely controlled” by the operator).
In regards to Claim 15, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 14, and Nishida further teaches wherein the communication network is selected from among a mobile communication network (Nishida, Para. 0051 and 0107 – the “information processing system” includes “an information processing device” capable of communicating with a “network server” via “a communication network NW” using “wireless communication”) including a base station as a terminal, a satellite communication network that uses a communication satellite in the sky, an Internet network (Nishida, Para. 0107 – the “communication network NW may be a general-purpose network such as the Internet”), and a short-range communication network.
Regarding Claim 16, Nishida teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program of an information processing device including (Nishida, Para. 0001 – “an information processing system”) including
an image acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of images around a work machine (Nishida, Para. 0016, 0025, 0092, 0118 – “image information acquisition unit” which includes an “image sensor that captures an image of the working unit”, where the “working unit” is an implement of the “work machine”, such that the working unit is located in an area around the work machine; where the image may be “a plurality of images” acquired at different timings by a “plurality of image sensors”), and
a recording unit that records the images acquired by the image acquisition unit (Nishida, Para. 0031 – an “image information receiving unit” which receives images from “the image information acquiring unit” for use during either “learning” or “non-learning” operations, such that the image is recorded for use),
the program when executed by a processor, causing the processor to:
acquire manipulation information relating to a manipulation of the work machine (Nishida, Para. 0016-0020 – an “operating unit 54 for operating the working unit 40”, or “operation unit”, where the working unit is an implement of the “work machine”, and wherein the “operation unit” is operated, or manipulated, to receive an input by the operator);
acquire state information relating to the state detected operation state or the detected posture state (Nishida, Para. 0048-0050 – an “abnormality detection unit” which “detects a malfunction or failure state of the working unit”; where the “abnormality detection unit” determines an “estimated posture information”, or state, of the working unit “derived from the image data”);
determine whether or not there is a predetermined difference between the acquired manipulation information and the acquired state information (Nishida, Para. 0047-0050 – where “the abnormality determination unit 24c determines whether the working unit 40 is in a malfunction or failure state based on the difference dK between the estimated posture information Ke and the predicted posture information Ka”; where the “estimated posture information” is the output posture, or actual state, of the working unit, and the “predicted posture” is the derived from the “the attitude that the working unit 40 should have as a result of the control” input by the operator, or manipulation); and
where “the abnormality determination unit 24c determines whether the working unit 40 is in a malfunction or failure state based on the difference dK between the estimated posture information Ke and the predicted posture information Ka”), the recording unit (Nishida, Para. 0031 – an “image information receiving unit”)
While Nishida teaches acquire state information relating to the state detected operation state or the detected posture state, Nishida does not teach extract an image feature amount from the acquired images; detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted image feature amount. Additionally, while Nishida teaches a case where the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information and the recording unit, Nishida does not fully teach cause, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the acquired images including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference.
However, Omote teaches extract an image feature amount from the acquired images (Omote, Para. 0023, 0030-0031, 0043 – “a camera 10 as an image pickup device provided on the turning portion 3 to pick up an image of the excavating portion 5, a controller 20 that detects the operation state of the excavating portion 5 from the image picked up by the camera 10”, the controller including a “calculation portion” which “calculates a change amount when the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13 in images that are picked up by the camera 10 change with the operation of the excavating portion 5”, or image feature amount); detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted image feature amount (Omote, Para. 0030-0031, 0043 – “the change amounts of the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13 which are provided on the excavating portion 5 are calculated from the image picked up by the camera 10, and the operation state of the excavating portion 5 is detected on the basis of the change amounts of the shapes of the recognition markers 11 to 13”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer readable medium of Nishida to include extract an image feature amount from the acquired images; detect an operation state or a posture state of the work machine based on the extracted image feature amount, as taught by Omote, in order to “make detection of an operation state of a work machine possible with simple constitution” (Omote, Para. 0005, 0050).
Nishida in view of Omote does not teach cause, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the acquired images including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference.
However, Matsuda teaches cause, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the acquired images including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference (Matsuda, Para. 0006 – a “vehicle recording control device” which includes a “a video data acquisition unit that acquires video data captured by a capture unit that captures at least the direction in which the vehicle is traveling”, wherein if “a difference detection unit that detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle”, a recording control unit “when the difference detection unit detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle, saves video data including at least the point in time at which the difference was detected as event recording data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer readable medium including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote to include cause, in a case where there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, a recording unit to record the image including at least an image at a point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference, as taught by Matsuda, in order to record a recorded image or video data when a difference occurs to better diagnose a failure for repair or adjustment.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda, and further in view of Omata (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0357484).
In regards to Claim 2, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda further teaches wherein the recording unit includes a protected region (Matsuda, Para. 0063 – where “vehicle recording control device 100 causes the recording control unit 123 to record and save the event record data in the recording unit 220”) where “the abnormality determination unit 24c determines whether the working unit 40 is in a malfunction or failure state based on the difference dK between the estimated posture information Ke and the predicted posture information Ka”), the recording control unit moves, to the protected region, the acquired images including at least the image at the point in time at which the determination is made that there is the difference (Matsuda, Para. 0006 – a “vehicle recording control device” which includes a “a video data acquisition unit that acquires video data captured by a capture unit that captures at least the direction in which the vehicle is traveling”, wherein if “a difference detection unit that detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle”, a recording control unit “when the difference detection unit detects a difference between braking caused by the vehicle applying the brakes and the behavior of the vehicle, saves video data including at least the point in time at which the difference was detected as event recording data”), but Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda does not fully teach a protected region in which overwrite recording is prohibited.
However, Omata teaches a protected region in which overwrite recording is prohibited (Omata, Para. 0003 and 0088 – “to save recording of an accident so as to prevent the recording from being overwritten” and “a method in which an overwrite protection section of a near miss video is specified for a storage device that performs constant recording”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to include a protected region in which overwrite recording is prohibited, as taught by Omata, in order to prevent accidental deletion of captured information relevant to an incident/situation of the work machine.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda, and further in view of Zhdanov, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0298743).
In regards to Claim 6, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida teaches wherein the work machine includes an undercarriage and a turning body (Nishida, Para. 0017 – a “lower running section”, having a “endless track or the like” to “run in a predetermined direction”, and an “upper body section” which is “configured to be rotatable about a rotation axis La relative to the lower running section 36”), but Nishida does not teach and in a case where an advancing direction or a turning direction of the work machine included in the manipulation information is different from an operation direction of the work machine included in the state information, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information.
However, Zhdanov teaches in a case where an advancing direction or a turning direction of the work machine included in the manipulation information is different from an operation direction of the work machine included in the state information, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information (Zhdanov, Para. 0034-0035, 0043-0051, 0061-0070 – determining a “an absolute value of the vector difference” between a “current excavator state vector” and a “dumping start point state vector”, where the “dumping start point state vector” represents the state vector of a “desired operation” controlled, or manipulated, by a “controller”, according to a “predefined threshold”; where the “state vector[s]” include “an angular attitude and an angular velocity of each of the body, boom, stick, and bucket”, or turning direction of the work machine, and may be determined using “video cameras”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to include in a case where an advancing direction or a turning direction of the work machine included in the manipulation information is different from an operation direction of the work machine included in the state information, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, as taught by Zhdanov, in order to adjust when a turning direction of the work machine is not the desired position, to improve operation accuracy.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida in view
of Omote and Matsuda, and further in view of Zhdanov and Moberg (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0001663).
In regards to Claim 8, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida teaches wherein the work machine includes a turning body that rotates in a predetermined turning direction (Nishida, Para. 0017 and 0020 – an “upper body section” which is “configured to be rotatable about a rotation axis La relative to the lower running section 36”; where “the work machine 100 can move the bucket 46 three-dimensionally by rotating the upper body section 34 and the working section 40”), but Nishida does not teach and in a case where the state information includes rotation in a direction different from the turning direction, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information.
However, Zhdanov teaches the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information (Zhdanov, Para. 0034-0035, 0043-0051, 0061-0070 – determining a “an absolute value of the vector difference” between a “current excavator state vector” and a “dumping start point state vector”, where the “dumping start point state vector” represents the state vector of a “desired operation” controlled, or manipulated, by a “controller”, according to a “predefined threshold”; where the “state vector[s]” include “an angular attitude and an angular velocity of each of the body, boom, stick, and bucket”, or turning direction of the work machine, and may be determined using “video cameras”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to include the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, as taught by Zhdanov, in order to adjust when a turning direction of the work machine is not the desired position, to improve operation accuracy.
However, Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Zhdanov does not specifically teach in a case where the state information includes rotation in a direction different from the turning direction, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information.
However, Moberg teaches in a case where the state information includes rotation in a direction different from the turning direction, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information (Moberg, Para. 0032-0033 – determining that steering motion, or turning, has exceeded “a prescribed steering error threshold between an expected position of the steering piston 74 and the actual steering piston position from the steering piston position sensor 104”, a “steering position error module” may determine the error, where for example the “the actual movement of the steering piston 74 is in the opposite direction”; where the steering piston controls right and left motion of the wheels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Zhdanov to include in a case where the state information includes rotation in a direction different from the turning direction, the determination unit determines that there is the difference between the manipulation information and the state information, as taught by Moberg, in order to diagnose and adjust when a turning direction of the work machine is abnormal, to prevent accident or further malfunction.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda, and further in view of Izumikawa (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0284782).
In regards to Claim 10, Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Nishida further teaches further comprising: a manipulation device (Nishida, Para. 0018 – an “operating unit 54 for operating the working unit 40”, or manipulation device); a display device (Nishida, Para. 0018 and 0051 – “a display unit 38d that displays information”); where the “operating unit” and the “display unit” are provided in the “cockpit” of the work machine).
Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda does not teach an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is provided near a cab seat of a cabin of the work machine.
However, Izumikawa teaches an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is provided near a cab seat of a cabin of the work machine (Tsukamoto, Para. 0046 and 0055 – “an audio output device 52” which is “provided around the operator seat in the cabin”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote and Matsuda to include an audio output device, wherein the audio output device is provided near a cab seat of a cabin of the work machine, as taught by Izumikawa, in order to provide a second method of informing or alerting an operator to increase the operator’s awareness of information or a notification.
In regards to Claim 11, Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Izumikawa teaches the information processing device of Claim 10, and Nishida further teaches wherein the manipulation device is a manipulation unit by which an operator manipulates a hydraulic actuator that drives an operation element of the work machine (Nishida, Para. 0018-0019 and 0045 – “an operating unit 54 for operating the working unit 40” provided to the operator within the “cockpit”, where when an “operation is input from the operation unit 54, a plurality of hydraulic valves 58 open and close in response to the operation”; and a “work machine control unit”), and the operation element is an undercarriage (Nishida, Para. 0017 – where the “lower running portion 36 is configured to be able to run in a predetermined direction by means of an endless track or the like”, such that it is driven when running), a turning body (Nishida, Para. 0018-0020 – where the “the work machine 100 can move the bucket 46 three-dimensionally by rotating the upper body section 34” in response to the “operation unit”), and an attachment (Nishida, Para. 0018 – where the operation unit controls the hydraulics to control an “arm mechanism” of the working unit“).
In regards to Claim 12, Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Izumikawa teaches the information processing device of Claim 10, and Nishida further teaches wherein the display device “a display unit 38d that displays information from the abnormality detection unit”, where the information is “the determination result of the abnormality determination unit”), but Nishida does not teach the audio output device outputs audio information to notify an operator.
However, Izumikawa teaches the audio output device outputs audio information to notify an operator (Tsukamoto, Para. 0046 and 0055 – “an audio output device 52” which is “provided around the operator seat in the cabin” which “outputs various kinds of audio information of which the operator is notified under the control of the controller”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda and Izumikawa to further include the audio output device outputs audio information to notify an operator, as taught by Izumikawa, in order to provide a second method of informing or alerting an operator to increase the operator’s awareness of information or a notification.
In regards to Claim 13, Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Izumikawa teaches the information processing device of Claim 12, and Nishida in view of Zhdanov, Matsuda and Izumikawa further teaches wherein the display device is a touch-panel type that also serves as at least a part of the manipulation device (Izumikawa, Para. 0091-0098 – “a software switch displayed on the operation screen of the display device 50 of a touchscreen type”, where the touchscreen may include “operation inputting means”, or manipulation means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device including the above limitations of Nishida in view of Omote, Matsuda, and Izumikawa to further include wherein the display device is a touch-panel type that also serves as at least a part of the manipulation device, as taught by Izumikawa, in order to provide to utilize a touchscreen manipulation device to provide more intuitive controls and improve input speed and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsukamoto (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0328003) teaches a front work machine orientation detection part configured to detect an orientation of the front work machine; and a control unit configured to control a power of the hydraulic pump according to the orientation of the front work machine within a work area, based on a value detected by the front work machine orientation detection part, where the front work machine orientation detection part may be a camera.
Tanizumi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0119589) teaches a camera attitude detection device including: a camera provided at a tip of a boom of a working machine; a monitor configured to display an image, captured by the camera, of a hook suspended from the tip of the boom; and an attitude angle calculation device configured to calculate, based on hook image position information on a screen displayed on the monitor and hook position information in a real space, an attitude angle of the camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights