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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 11/28/2023 and 06/14/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
processing circuitry configured to receive an input of a shape of a bucket provided at a tip of an attachment attached to a shovel, and
calculate a weight of an object in the bucket, based on the input shape of the bucket and an output of a sensor whose detection result changes according to the weight of the object in the bucket.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, the limitation of “calculate a weight of an object in the bucket, based on the input shape of the bucket and an output of a sensor whose detection result changes according to the weight of the object in the bucket (see Fig. 5 and page 54, line 33- 55, line 10: weight calculation part of instant application)” is mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a shovel control device (preamble); receive an input of a shape of a bucket provided at a tip of an attachment attached to a shovel.
The additional elements such as a shovel control device is recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, note that step of receive an input of a shape of a bucket provided at a tip of an attachment attached to a shovel is insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical calculations (i.e. calculate a weight of an object in the bucket, based on the input shape of the bucket) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to calculate a weight of an object in the bucket, based on the input shape of the bucket and an output of a sensor whose detection result changes according to the weight of the object in the bucket. Therefore, the claim have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematics based on the input shape of the bucket and an output of a sensor. Therefore, the claim 1 is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-3,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-3 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claim 1. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 2021/0017738 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sano”) in view of Kumakura et al. (US 2021/0017733 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kumakura”).
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches a shovel control device (Fig. 1, controller 30) comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) configured to receive an input of a bucket provided at a tip of an attachment attached to a shovel (para. [0023]: the bucket angle sensor S3 detects the angle of rotation of the bucket 6) and
calculate a weight of an object in the bucket (para. [0058]: The second information obtaining unit 32 is configured to obtain information on the excavation weight, which is the weight of matter excavated in an excavation operation using the excavation attachment; para. [0059]: calculates, as the excavation weight, the weight of excavated matter such as earth and sand excavated by an excavation attachment), based on the input of the bucket (para. [0023]: the bucket angle sensor S3 detects the angle of rotation of the bucket) and an output of a sensor whose detection result changes according to the weight of the object in the bucket (para. [0071]: the excavation weight may be calculated, for example, based on the outputs of the cylinder pressure sensors, or may be calculated based on the outputs of the position sensors and the outputs of the cylinder pressure sensors).
Sano does not specifically teach an input shape of a bucket.
However, Kumakura teaches an input shape of a bucket (para. [0068]: the bucket information storage unit 1552 stores a base-end portion length Lo that is a length between the front connection portion 1351 and the rear connection portion 1352 of the bucket 135, the bucket length L3 in the normal connection state, and relative positions of a plurality of contour points in the normal connection state in association with type information of the bucket 135; para. [0075]: the dimension information of the bucket 13; paras. [0076]-[0079]: bucket length; paras. [0086]-[0089]: bucket position; para. [0094]: the bucket selection unit 1511 outputs a display signal for displaying a selection screen for the bucket 135 to the input/output device 160 on the basis of the read information (step S02)), the above feature of paras. [0068], [0075]-[0079], [0086]-[0089] and para. [0094] reads on “input shape of a bucket”).
Sano and Kumakura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the input shape of a bucket such as is described in Kumakura into Sano, in order to provide a dimension-specifying device and a dimension-specifying method capable of specifying a dimension of a bucket regardless of a bucket attachment method (Kumakura, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Sano teaches a shovel (Fig. 1) comprising:
a lower traveling body (Fig. 1, 1);
an upper turning body turnably mounted (Fig. 1, 2) on the lower traveling body (Fig. 1, 1);
an attachment attached to the upper turning body (Fig. 1, 2);
a bucket provided at a tip of the attachment (Fig. 1, 6); and
processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) configured to receive an input of the bucket (para. [0023]: the bucket angle sensor S3 detects the angle of rotation of the bucket 6) and
calculate a weight of an object in the bucket, based on an input of the bucket (para. [0058]: The second information obtaining unit 32 is configured to obtain information on the excavation weight, which is the weight of matter excavated in an excavation operation using the excavation attachment; para. [0059]: calculates, as the excavation weight, the weight of excavated matter such as earth and sand excavated by an excavation attachment), based on the input of the bucket (para. [0023]: the bucket angle sensor S3 detects the angle of rotation of the bucket) and an output of a sensor whose detection result changes according to the weight of the object in the bucket (para. [0071]: the excavation weight may be calculated, for example, based on the outputs of the cylinder pressure sensors, or may be calculated based on the outputs of the position sensors and the outputs of the cylinder pressure sensors).
Sano does not specifically teach an input shape of a bucket.
However, Kumakura teaches an input shape of a bucket (para. [0068]: the bucket information storage unit 1552 stores a base-end portion length Lo that is a length between the front connection portion 1351 and the rear connection portion 1352 of the bucket 135, the bucket length L3 in the normal connection state, and relative positions of a plurality of contour points in the normal connection state in association with type information of the bucket 135; para. [0075]: the dimension information of the bucket 13; paras. [0076]-[0079]: bucket length; paras. [0086]-[0089]: bucket position; para. [0094]: the bucket selection unit 1511 outputs a display signal for displaying a selection screen for the bucket 135 to the input/output device 160 on the basis of the read information (step S02)), the above feature of paras. [0068], [0075]-[0079], [0086]-[0089] and para. [0094] reads on “input shape of a bucket”).
Sano and Kumakura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the input shape of a bucket such as is described in Kumakura into Sano, in order to provide a dimension-specifying device and a dimension-specifying method capable of specifying a dimension of a bucket regardless of a bucket attachment method (Kumakura, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Sano in view of Kumakura teaches all the limitation of claim 4, in addition, Sano teaches that the processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) is configured to receive an input from an operation device (para. [0051]: each of the operational pressure sensors 29 detects the operational direction and the operational amount of the operation device 26 corresponding to one of the actuators in the form of pressure and outputs the detected value to the controller), an input from an external device (para. [0090]: obtain information on the maximum loadable capacity of a dump track DT; para. [0139]: the arm spool displacement sensor S8 detects the displacement of the arm spool, and feeds the detection result back to the functional element F22 of the controller 30), or an input from an imaging device, as the input of the bucket (para. [0023]: the bucket angle sensor S3 detects the angle of rotation of the bucket 6).
Sano does not specifically teach an input shape of a bucket.
However, Kumakura teaches an input shape of a bucket (para. [0068]: the bucket information storage unit 1552 stores a base-end portion length Lo that is a length between the front connection portion 1351 and the rear connection portion 1352 of the bucket 135, the bucket length L3 in the normal connection state, and relative positions of a plurality of contour points in the normal connection state in association with type information of the bucket 135; para. [0075]: the dimension information of the bucket 13; paras. [0076]-[0079]: bucket length; paras. [0086]-[0089]: bucket position; para. [0094]: the bucket selection unit 1511 outputs a display signal for displaying a selection screen for the bucket 135 to the input/output device 160 on the basis of the read information (step S02)), the above feature of paras. [0068], [0075]-[0079], [0086]-[0089] and para. [0094] reads on “input shape of a bucket”).
Sano and Kumakura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the input shape of a bucket such as is described in Kumakura into Sano, in order to provide a dimension-specifying device and a dimension-specifying method capable of specifying a dimension of a bucket regardless of a bucket attachment method (Kumakura, para. [0007]).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Kumakura and Okada et al. (US 2021/0230829 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Okada”).
Regarding claim 2, Sano and Kumakura teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Sano teaches further comprising:
a storage device (Fig. 1, 47) configured to store table information in which the weight of the object (para. [0058]: the second information obtaining unit 32 calculates, as the excavation weight) and a position of a center of gravity of the object are associated with each other according to the shape of the bucket (para. [0035]: the positioning device P1 is configured to measure the position of the revolving upper body 3, note that since the positioning device P1 is configured to measure the position of the revolving upper body 3, a position of the object are associated with each other according to the shape of the bucket is inherent functional property of such method), and
wherein in response to the weight of the object in the bucket being calculated (para. [0059]: calculates, as the excavation weight, the weight of excavated matter such as earth and sand excavated by an excavation attachment, based on, for example, a depth image of the space in front of the shovel 100 captured by the three-dimensional depth image sensor S6A as the imaging device S6),
the processing circuitry is configured to refer to the table information to specify the position of the center of gravity of the object based on the calculated weight of the object (para. [0035]: the positioning device P1 is configured to measure the position of the revolving upper body 3), and recalculates a weight of the object in the bucket, based on the specified position of the object (para. [0062]: the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time, as a cumulative excavation weight over the predetermined period of time; para. [0063]: the second information obtaining unit 32 may calculate the excavation weight in an individual excavation operation, based on the outputs of the position sensors) and the output of the sensor (para. [0023]: bucket angle sensor S3; para. [0059]: image sensor S6A).
Sano and Kumakura do not specifically teach the position of the center of gravity.
However, Okada teaches the position of the center of gravity (paras. [0110]-[0111], [0114]: position of center of gravity).
Sano and Okada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the position of the center of gravity such as is described in Okada into Sano, in order to allow a shovel to include a lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment including a boom attached to the upper turning body, an arm attached to an end of the boom, and an end attachment attached to an end of the arm, wherein a motion of the arm or the end attachment is corrected according to a stability of a body of the shovel (Okada, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Sano and Kumakura teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Sano teaches the processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) is configured to alternately perform
calculation of the weight of the object based on the specified position of the center of gravity of the object (para. [0063]: the second information obtaining unit 32 may calculate the excavation weight in an individual excavation operation, based on the outputs of the position sensors) and the output of the sensor (paras. [0062]-[0063]: see above; para. [0023]: bucket angle sensor S3; para. [0059]: image sensor S6A), and specification of the position of the object based on the calculated weight of the object (para. [0061]: the position sensors include, for example, the boom angle sensor S1, the arm angle sensor S2, and the bucket angle sensor S3. The position sensors may be a combination of a boom cylinder stroke sensor, an arm cylinder stroke sensor, and a bucket cylinder stroke sensor; para. [0062]: With this configuration, the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time, note that the above feature of “position sensors” in para. [0061] and “With this configuration, the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter” in para. [0062] reads on “specification of the position of the object based on the calculated weight of the object”).
Sano and Kumakura do not specifically teach the position of the center of gravity.
However, Okada teaches the position of the center of gravity (paras. [0110]-[0111], [0114]: position of center of gravity).
Sano and Okada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the position of the center of gravity such as is described in Okada into Sano, in order to allow a shovel to include a lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment including a boom attached to the upper turning body, an arm attached to an end of the boom, and an end attachment attached to an end of the arm, wherein a motion of the arm or the end attachment is corrected according to a stability of a body of the shovel (Okada, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent on claim 4 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, it is dependent on claim 5 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, Sano and Kumakura teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Sano teaches that the processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) is configured to calculate the weight of the object in the bucket based on the position para. [0063]: the second information obtaining unit 32 may calculate the excavation weight in an individual excavation operation, based on the outputs of the position sensors, note that “the excavation weight in an individual excavation operation” reads on “weight of the object in the bucket”) and the output of the sensor (para. [0023]: bucket angle sensor S3; para. [0059]: image sensor S6A) when the lifting of the bucket is started (para. [0062]: the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time, as a cumulative excavation weight over the predetermined period of time, note that the above feature of “one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time” reads on “the lifting of the bucket is started”).
Sano and Kumakura do not specifically teach the position of the center of gravity.
However, Okada teaches the position of the center of gravity (paras. [0110]-[0111], [0114]: position of center of gravity).
Sano and Okada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the position of the center of gravity such as is described in Okada into Sano, in order to allow a shovel to include a lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment including a boom attached to the upper turning body, an arm attached to an end of the boom, and an end attachment attached to an end of the arm, wherein a motion of the arm or the end attachment is corrected according to a stability of a body of the shovel (Okada, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Sano and Kumakura teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Sano teaches that the processing circuitry (Fig. 1, controller 30) is configured to terminate the calculation of the weight of the object and the specification of the position of the object in response to a predetermined condition being satisfied (para. [0062]: with this configuration, the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time; para. [0063]: the second information obtaining unit 32 may calculate the excavation weight in an individual excavation operation, based on the outputs of the position sensors, note that the above feature of “the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time” in para. [0062] reads on “terminate the calculation of the calculation of the weight of the object” at least in the predetermined time ) while the bucket is being lifted (para. [0062]: the controller 30 can calculate an added-up value of the weight of the excavated matter related to one or more excavation operations performed within a predetermined period of time, as a cumulative excavation weight over the predetermined period of time).
Sano and Kumakura do not specifically teach the position of the center of gravity.
However, Okada teaches the position of the center of gravity (paras. [0110]-[0111], [0114]: position of center of gravity).
Sano and Okada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of shovel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the position of the center of gravity such as is described in Okada into Sano, in order to allow a shovel to include a lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment including a boom attached to the upper turning body, an arm attached to an end of the boom, and an end attachment attached to an end of the arm, wherein a motion of the arm or the end attachment is corrected according to a stability of a body of the shovel (Okada, para. [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Honda et al. (US 2021/0207340 A1) teaches that a shovel includes a lower traveling structure, an upper swing structure swingably mounted on the lower traveling structure, a work attachment attached to the upper swing structure and including a boom, an arm attached to the boom, and an end attachment attached to the arm, a first obtaining device configured to obtain data on the pose state of the work attachment, and a second obtaining device configured to obtain data on the pose state of the lower traveling structure or the upper swing structure.
Kamada et al. (US 5,446,981) teaches that even when a bucket is changed to an optional special bucket, path control as intended by an operator can be automatically performed without making a correction of the angle of the original bucket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights