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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claim 1 is an independent claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for European Application No. 22215102.9 filed on December 20, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
FIGS. 1-9 are objected to because the text is too small. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that all numbers, letters, and reference characters measure at least 1/8 inches in height. The examiner asserts that at least some of the text in the drawings does not satisfy this requirement. Applicant is asked to print the drawings to measure and enlarge, where appropriate. Recall from 37 CFR 1.84(k) that drawings are reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. Hence, such small text will be difficult to read if not increased in size.
The drawings are also objected to because the shading of the figures and the quality of the lines and characters. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, shading, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 7, delete “, in particular”.
Claim 1, line 9, replace “more particularly” with “and”.
Claim 1, line 15, insert “a” before “moment”.
Claim 1, line 21, replace “an information” with “information”.
Claim 1, line 23, insert “the” before “control”.
Claim 2, line 6, delete “particularly”.
Claim 3, line 3, delete “particularly”.
Claim 3, line 7, insert “and” after “bucket,”.
Claim 5, line 1, insert “further” before “comprising”.
Claim 5, line 4, insert “in the” before “material”.
Claim 5, line 6, insert “and” before “using”.
Claim 5, line 6, insert “and” before “wherein”.
Claim 6, line 1, insert “further” before “comprising”.
Claim 7, line 2, replace “the set” with “a set”.
Claim 8, line 1, insert “the” before “impact”.
Claim 9, line 3, replace “the coordination” with “a coordination”.
Claim 9, line 4, replace “an end-effector” with “the end-effector”.
Claim 9, line 4, replace “that provides” with “provides”.
Claim 10, line 3, replace “the variations” with “variations”.
Claim 11, line 2, replace “the impingement” with “an impingement”.
Claim 11, line 2, replace “the lifting” with “a lifting”.
Claim 12, line 1, replace “an end effector” with “the end effector”.
Claim 12, line 1, replace “an excavator” with “the excavator”.
Claim 12, line 3, replace “for which it” with “and”.
Claim 12, line 4, insert “the” before “motion”.
Claim 12, line 6, insert “the” before “control”.
Claim 12, line 8, insert “the” after “access”.
Claim 12, line 8, insert “the” after “accessing”.
Claim 12, line 9, insert “the” after “access”.
Claim 12, line 9, insert “the” after “accessing”.
Claim 12, line 11, replace “an estimated” with “the estimated”.
Claim 12, lines 11-12, replace “an impact” with “the impact”.
Claim 12, line 13, insert “the” after “provide”.
Claim 12, line 13, insert “the” after “providing”.
Claim 12, line 14, replace “a movement” with “the movement”.
Claim 13, line 1, insert “further” before “comprising”.
Claim 13, line 2, replace “an excavator” with “the excavator”.
Claim 14, line 4, insert “the” before “motion”.
Claim 14, line 6, insert “the” before “control”.
Claim 14, line 7, insert “the” after “accessing”.
Claim 14, line 7, insert “the” after second instance of “accessing”.
Claim 14, line 8, insert “the” after “accessing”.
Claim 14, line 8, insert “the” after second instance of “accessing”.
Claim 14, line 10, replace “an estimated” with “the estimated”.
Claim 14, lines 10-11, replace “an impact” with “the impact”.
Claim 14, line 12, insert “the” after “providing”.
Claim 14, line 13, replace “a movement” with “the movement”.
Claim 15, line 3, replace “any step” with “the steps”.
Claim 16, line 3, replace “any step” with “the steps”.
Claim 17, line 3, replace “any step” with “the steps”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The last function of claim 12 recites “A system for controlling an excavation operation by an end effector of an excavator to obtain a design surface…”. (Emphasis added) How is it possible to obtain a design surface from a control of an excavation operation using an end effector of an excavator? It is unclear how such design of a surface can be obtained from the control function recited. Paragraph [0037] of the published Specification of the instant application describes “In a further embodiment, the material interaction criterion is selected from the set of switchable material interaction criterions defining different interaction modes, wherein the switching between the material interaction criterions is performed automatically based on a design surface, in particular wherein the design surface is derived from previous target trajectories, and/or a history of previous end-effector forces and/or loads, wherein from the previous end-effector forces and/or loads a (dig) material property is derived and assigned to an interaction mode, wherein based on the assignment of the (dig) material property to an interaction mode the associated material interaction criterion is selected.” However, no explanation is provided on how such design can be obtained from a control function. Paragraph [0054] of the published Specification simply repeats the recitations of claim 12 without offering a clear explanation of the design surface is obtained. For purposes of examination, “to obtain a design surface” will be construed as “to obtain an end-effector trajectory” as provided in Paragraph [0089] of the published Specification.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites “comprising a sensor unit configured to be mounted on an excavator and, in a state mounted to the excavator, to provide the movement sensor data,…” However, the clause “in a state mounted to the excavator” is not clear. The claim already recites that the sensor unit is “configured to be mounted on an excavator”. As such is the case, the meaning of “in a state mounted to the excavator” is confusing. The Specification does not offer clarification to this clause. For purposes of examination, the clause “in a state mounted to the excavator” will be disregarded.
In view of their dependencies to a rejected base claim, claim 14 is also rejected as being indefinite.
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 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0034265 A1) (“Renner”), in view of Koch (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0132618 A1) (“Koch”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0148085 A1) (“Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Renner teaches:
A method for controlling movement of an end-effector of an excavator, wherein the end-effector is attached to the excavator via an articulated component comprising multiple links, wherein the method comprises: Renner: Paragraph [0007] (“…a method is provided for monitoring and/or performing a movement of an item of machinery, such as an item of material handling or earth moving machinery and in particular an excavator, wherein the item of machinery has a movement device with a tool for picking up material, which comprises at least two components, each of which is movable via at least one actuator. Furthermore, the item of machinery comprises a control system by means of which the actuators of the movement device can be controlled by way of open-loop and/or closed-loop control.”) Renner: Paragraph [0008] (“The movement device can be a boom, in particular an excavator boom. The tool can be, for example, an excavator bucket or clamshell grab. The tool can be regarded as one of said at least two components of the movement device, although this does not necessarily have to be the case. Of course, more than two components can be provided, each with associated actuators, one of which components may be the tool. The other components may be, for example, a boom and an arm. The actuators may be hydraulic cylinders and/or motors (for example a slewing gear motor). A superstructure or slewing gear of the item of machinery may also be one of the components of the movement device.”)
…accessing movement sensor data configured to provide monitoring of a movement of the articulated component and the end-effector, Renner: Paragraph [0003] (“When performing excavation work or digging processes with the help of excavators, forces arise that are applied to the tool (e.g. excavator bucket).”) Renner: Paragraph [0037] (“Alternatively, or additionally, the item of machinery can have at least one inertial sensor for measuring a current speed and/or acceleration of a component, for example an acceleration sensor and/or a rotation rate sensor. The inertial sensor can be an inertial measurement unit (IMU). In some embodiments, an inertial sensor or IMU is provided on a plurality of components, in particular on each component of the movement device used to detect the force actually in effect, i.e. in the case of an excavator boom in particular on the boom and on the arm as well as possibly on the tool. In order to determine the position of the item of machinery, an IMU can also be installed on a rotatable superstructure of the item of machinery.”)
accessing impact sensor data comprising hydraulic pressure sensing data, which provide information on pressure applied to a hydraulic unit being configured to provide movement of the articulated component and/or the end-effector, and/or force sensor data, which provide a force and/or moment measured at one of the multiple links and/or at the end-effector, using the movement sensor data and the impact sensor data to determine an estimated value of an impact parameter for the articulated component, Renner: Paragraph [0032] (“For example, the item of machinery can have at least one pressure sensor for measuring a hydraulic pressure applied to an actuator. The movement device can have one or more hydraulic cylinders as actuators to move the individual components. In some embodiments, at least one pressure sensor is provided per hydraulic cylinder and in each case measures the prevailing or applied hydraulic pressure. Ideally, two pressure sensors are used per hydraulic cylinder, wherein both the rod side and the base side of each hydraulic cylinder are each equipped with a pressure sensor. The force acting on the actuator can be calculated via the pressure determined in this way and lastly can be defined as a vector via the known spatial position of the actuator or hydraulic cylinder. The force vectors of the actuators calculated from the geometric actuator parameters and the detected pressures are also referred to here as pressure vectors for simplification.”) Renner: Paragraph [0033] (“From the pressure vector of an actuator, a force acting on one of the joints of the component and thus the corresponding torque can be calculated, taking into account the corresponding component information of the component movable by the actuator and its current position or stance. The component information of the movement device may also include information relating to the various actuators, such as the articulation points of the cylinder and rod on the various components, the piston areas, friction values, the masses of the actuators, etc., in order to be able to determine the corresponding forces from the pressure measurements.”)
wherein the impact parameter provides information on an end-effector force exerted by a contact-component of the end-effector specifically foreseen for interaction with material to be moved by the end-effector and/or an information on a load exerted on one of the multiple links, and Renner: Paragraph [0089] (“To estimate the digging force, a model-based torque is required to obtain the necessary information relating to the digging force from the difference between the measured torques and the model-based torques. The calculation of the unloaded torque can be in any form. In this exemplary embodiment, a rigid-body system is assumed, for which purpose the calculation of the torques/forces τm applied at the joints can be performed, for example, in regressor form on the basis of the relation τm=Hb(q,{dot over (q)},{umlaut over (q)})β (1).”) Renner: Paragraph [0090] (“The vector β contains parameters such as the mass, the centre of gravity and the moments of inertia of the components (=component information), wherein these can occur in linear combinations. The matrix H describes the influence of the parameter vector β on the joints of the excavator as a function of the current positions q, speeds {dot over (q)} and accelerations {umlaut over (q)} of the degrees of freedom or components. These can be measured, for example, with angle sensors and IMUs located on the components of the excavator boom.”) Renner: Paragraph [0091] (“To estimate the current digging force, a model with high quality should be available, i.e. in the unloaded case approximately τm,mess≈τm (2)”.) Renner: Paragraph [0092] (“with the measured torque τm,mess should apply. The high quality of the model is necessary in order to be able to calculate the information relating to the one or more external forces and thus the digging force Fgrab via τgrab=τm,mess−τm (3).”) Renner: Paragraph [0093] (“The differential moment τgrab makes it possible to reconstruct the force vector or the digging force vector actually applied, with assumption of an application point.”) [Which read on “wherein the impact parameter provides … an information on a load exerted on one or more of the multiple links”.]
providing adapted control commands by using a movement model for the articulated component configured to provide coordination of control commands of the multiple links as a function of the estimated value of the impact parameter. Renner: Paragraphs [0007] and [0089]-[0093] [As described above.] Renner: Paragraph [0073] (“For automated digging, these individual work steps are linked one after the other and time-indexed with the help of a suitable trajectory generation method. These reference trajectories can be planned in, among other things, Cartesian coordinates or the joint or actuator coordinates. If the trajectories are planned in Cartesian coordinates, a suitable algorithm is used to transform them into joint or actuator coordinates. The actual control is usually performed in the coordinates of the actuators. The task of actuator control is to ensure that the measured states of the actuators follow the reference states with low errors.”)
Renner does not expressly teach “providing motion commands for moving the end-effector, using a motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands for moving the multiple links with respect to each other so that the end-effector moves with a target trajectory associated with the motion commands, in particular by taking into account hydraulic response to resistance against the articulated component, more particularly by taking into account spool shift in a hydraulic valve”. Koch describes controlling a work tool. Koch teaches:
… providing motion commands for moving the end-effector, using a motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands for moving the multiple links with respect to each other so that the end-effector moves with a target trajectory associated with the motion commands,… Koch: Paragraph [0022] (“The control module 208 may contain a processor 210 and a memory 212. The processor may be a microprocessor or other processor, and may be configured to execute computer readable code or computer programming to perform functions, as is known in the art. The memory 212 may be in communication with the processor 210, and may provide storage of computer programs and executable code, including algorithms and data corresponding to known specifications of the work implement assembly 102.”) Koch: Paragraph [0026] (“The control module 208 may also be adapted to receive and interpret control signals from the input device 206 that request movement of the work implement assembly 102. If the control signals are requests for a rate of motion, the control module 208 may be adapted to convert these rates to distances. Based on these control signals, the control module 208 may determine a requested motion vector for the work implement assembly 102 based on the control signal from the input device 206. Likewise, the control module 208 may be configured to translate the requested motion vector into a requested normal component and a requested parallel component. These components may be, respectively, normal to and parallel to the predefined digging boundary.”) Koch: Paragraph [0036] (“At a step 310, the control module 208 calculates a requested motion vector based on the control signal sent from the input device 206. The requested motion vector has a magnitude and direction indicated by the control signal. For example, a small movement of the input device 206 results in a requested motion vector having a small magnitude, while a relatively larger movement of the input device 206 results in a requested motion vector having a relatively larger magnitude. The control module 208 further processes the requested motion vector by translating it into a requested normal component and a requested parallel component, relative to the predefined digging boundary. The requested normal component is the component of the requested motion vector that points normal to the predefined digging boundary, while the requested parallel component is the component of the requested motion vector that points in the direction parallel to the predefined digging boundary.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Renner and Koch before them, for providing motion commands for moving the end-effector, using a motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands for moving the multiple links with respect to each other so that the end-effector moves with a target trajectory associated with the motion commands because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on monitoring and controlling machinery including an excavator.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve a determined force based on the requested motion vector and having a normal component that is scaled to prevent the work tool from crossing the predefined digging boundary. Koch Paragraph [0008].
Renner and Koch does not expressly teach that the motion commands “taking into account hydraulic response to resistance against the articulated component, more particularly by taking into account spool shift in a hydraulic valve”. However, Kim describes controlling construction machinery. Kim teaches:
… in particular by taking into account hydraulic response to resistance against the articulated component, more particularly by taking into account spool shift in a hydraulic valve,… Kim: Paragraph [0085] (“FIG. 9 represents a graph of the first excavation trajectory and a graph of the second excavation trajectory generated based on the estimated digging force. The second excavation trajectory may be generated to reduce the excavation speed and the excavation depth when the estimated digging force exceeds a preset value. The excavation operation according to the second excavation trajectory may prevent excessive pressure from being applied to the hydraulic pump 120 and the actuator 62, and may prevent the bucket 90 from being stuck in the ground during operation.”) Kim: Paragraph [0086] (“The output portion 230 may output a control signal for the second excavation trajectory. The output portion 230 may generate a control signal corresponding to the joint angle values of the boom, the arm and the bucket over time, for example, generate and apply a current to the spool displacement adjusting valves of the spool displacement adjusting portion 140. The spool displacement adjustment valves may supply a pilot signal pressure proportional to the intensity of the applied current to the spools of the corresponding control valve 130 to move the spools according to the intensity of the applied pilot signal pressure.”) Kim: Paragraph [0087] (“Thus, the actuators 62 such as the boom cylinder 72, the arm cylinder 82 and the bucket cylinder 92 may be driven by the control valve in response to the control signal, so that the tip of the bucket 90 moves along the second excavation trajectory to perform the excavation operation.”) Kim: Paragraph [0088] (“Additionally, the digging force estimator 210 may newly calculate a digging force applied to the bucket 90 in real time when the bucket 90 moves along the generated second excavation trajectory, and the trajectory generator 220 may generate a new third excavation trajectory in real time based on the newly calculated digging force and the terrain data of the work area. Thus, the tip of the bucket 90 may be moved along the third excavation trajectory to continue the excavation operation.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Renner, Koch, and Kim before them, for taking into account hydraulic response to resistance against the articulated component, more particularly by taking into account spool shift in a hydraulic valve because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on monitoring and controlling machinery including an excavator.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve fuel economy, durability and work efficiency of the construction machinery. Kim Paragraphs [0023] and [0073].
Regarding claim 12, Renner, Koch, and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Renner further teaches:
A system for controlling an excavation operation by an end effector of an excavator to obtain a design surface, wherein the system is configured to carry out the method of claim 1, for which it comprises a computing unit configured: … to use the movement sensor data and the impact sensor data of the step of using the movement sensor data and the impact sensor data to determine an estimated value of an impact parameter for the articulated component, and Renner: Paragraphs [0032] and [0033] [As described in claim 1.] Renner: Paragraph [0061] (“It is conceivable here that the respective method steps, in particular steps 2), 4) and 5) described above, can be performed by the control system or wholly or partially by means connected to the control system. Some of the method steps can be performed outside the item of machinery, for example by an external computer unit or cloud, and the corresponding data can be transmitted to the item of machinery. It is also conceivable that a separate electronic module or a separate computer unit is available on the item of machinery for performing certain method steps, such as estimating the digging force.”)
to provide adapted control commands of the step of providing adapted control commands by using a movement model for the articulated component, wherein the movement model is stored on the computing unit. Renner: Paragraphs [0007], [0073], and [0089]-[0093] [As described in claim 1.] Renner: Paragraph [0061] [As described above.]
Renner does not expressly teach “to receive the motion commands of the step of providing motion commands, to use the motion-control algorithm of the step of using the motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands, wherein the motion-control algorithm is stored on the computing unit, to access movement sensor data of the step of accessing movement sensor data, to access impact sensor data of the step of accessing impact sensor data”. However, Koch teaches:
…to receive the motion commands of the step of providing motion commands, to use the motion-control algorithm of the step of using the motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands, wherein the motion-control algorithm is stored on the computing unit, to access movement sensor data of the step of accessing movement sensor data, to access impact sensor data of the step of accessing impact sensor data,… Koch: Paragraph [0022], [0026] and [0036] [As described in claim 1.] [The control module reads on “a computing unit”. The memory in the control module reads on “stored on the computing unit”.]
The motivation to combined Renner and Koch as provided in independent claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Renner, Koch, and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 12, from which claim 13 depends. Renner further teaches:
The system according to claim 12, comprising a sensor unit configured to be mounted on an excavator and, in a state mounted to the excavator, to provide the movement sensor data, wherein the sensor unit is configured as a pressure sensor determining pressure data of the cylinder. Renner: Paragraph [0030] (“In another possible embodiment, it is provided that the status information is detected by means of sensors arranged on the movement device. Here, for example, a combination of position and/or speed and/or acceleration sensors can be provided.”) Renner: Paragraph [0031] (“The item of machinery may generally comprise a set of sensors to detect different variables.”) Renner: Paragraph [0032] (“For example, the item of machinery can have at least one pressure sensor for measuring a hydraulic pressure applied to an actuator. The movement device can have one or more hydraulic cylinders as actuators to move the individual components. In some embodiments, at least one pressure sensor is provided per hydraulic cylinder and in each case measures the prevailing or applied hydraulic pressure. Ideally, two pressure sensors are used per hydraulic cylinder, wherein both the rod side and the base side of each hydraulic cylinder are each equipped with a pressure sensor.”)
Regarding claim 14, Renner, Koch, and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 12, from which claim 14 depends. Renner further teaches:
A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and has computer-executable instructions for performing, when run on the computing unit of the system according to claim 12: Renner: Paragraph [0063] (“The present disclosure further relates to a computer program product comprising commands which, when the program is executed, cause the item of machinery according to the disclosure to execute the steps of the method according to the disclosure. The method steps can all be executed using means of the item of machinery.”)
…
accessing movement sensor data of the step of accessing movement sensor data, Renner: Paragraphs [0003] and [0037] [As described in claim 1 (incorporated in claim 12.)]
accessing impact sensor data of the step of accessing impact sensor data, using the movement sensor data and the impact sensor data of the step of using the movement sensor data and the impact sensor data to determine an estimated value of an impact parameter for the articulated component, and Renner: Paragraphs [0032] and [0033] [As described in claim 1 (incorporated in claim 12.)]
providing adapted control commands of the step of providing adapted control commands by using a movement model for the articulated component. Renner: Paragraphs [0007], [0073], and [0089]-[0093] [As described in claim 1 (incorporated in claim 12.)]
Renner does not expressly teach “accessing the motion commands of the step of providing motion commands, using the motion-control algorithm of the step of using the motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands”. However, Koch teaches:
accessing the motion commands of the step of providing motion commands, using the motion-control algorithm of the step of using the motion-control algorithm to translate the motion commands to control commands, Koch: Paragraphs [0022], [0026], and [0036] [As described in claim 1 (incorporated in claim 12.)]
The motivation to combined Renner and Koch as provided in independent claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Renner, Koch, and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. Renner further teaches:
A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the program code comprises computer-executable instructions for performing any step in the method according to claim 1. Renner: Paragraph [0063] (“The present disclosure further relates to a computer program product comprising commands which, when the program is executed, cause the item of machinery according to the disclosure to execute the steps of the method according to the disclosure. The method steps can all be executed using means of the item of machinery.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner, in view of Koch, in view of Kim, and further in view of Kjaergaard et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0318316 A1) (“Kjaergaard”).
Regarding claim 3, Renner, Koch, and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Renner further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein: the articulated component is configured as an excavator arm, Renner: Paragraph [0069] (“The control system is configured to move the item of machinery or the excavator arm automatically.”)
the multiple links are configured as a boom, Renner: Paragraph [0008] (“The movement device can be a boom, in particular an excavator boom.”) …
the hydraulic valve and/or the hydraulic unit is configured as a cylinder, and/or the contact-component of the end-effector is configured as a blade, a tooth, and/or a back of a bucket, Renner: Paragraph [0008] (“The actuators may be hydraulic cylinders and/or motors (for example a slewing gear motor).”)
wherein the end-effector is configured as a bucket, Renner: Paragraph [0038] (“Alternatively, or additionally, the item of machinery can have at least one sensor for detecting a current fill level and/or fill weight of the tool. This makes it possible, for example, to detect a current filling of an excavator bucket.”)
wherein the multiple links are movably connected to each other and/or the end effector is movably connected to at least one of the multiple links by means of joints. Renner: Paragraph [0028] (“The joints of the components of the movement device forming a kinematic chain define, in particular, position vectors which are used to characterise the current positions or movements of the components and to calculate the torques. For example, a boom articulated to a superstructure of the item of machinery via a first joint and pivotably connected to an arm via a second joint can thus be represented by a position vector running from the first to the second joint. A torque acting on the boom at the location of the first joint is then the cross product of said position vector and a force acting on the boom at the location of the second joint. The same applies to the other components interconnected in articulated fashion, such as the arm, tool, etc.”)
Renner, Koch, and Kim do not expressly teach that the multiple links are a stick and a tilt-rotor. However, Kjaergaard describes a control system and method for an excavator. Kjaergaard teaches:
the multiple links are configured as…a stick, and particularly a tilt-rotor, Kjaergaard: Paragraph [0054] (“In particular, some embodiments of the invention relates to a system for controlling movement of multiple links of an excavator, wherein the excavator comprises: a cab, which is rotatable about a cab swing axis; a boom, which is attached to the cab and can be swiveled with respect to the cab about a boom joint defining a boom axis; a stick, which is attached to the boom and can be swiveled with respect to the boom about a stick joint defining a stick axis; a tilt-rotator arrangement which is attached at the end of the stick; and the tool, which is attached to the tilt-rotator arrangement, wherein the tilt-rotator arrangement is configured that the tool can be rotated about a rotor axis, swiveled about a pitch axis perpendicular to the rotor axis, and swiveled about a tilt axis perpendicular to the rotor axis and the pitch axis.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Renner, Koch, Kim, and Kjaergaard before them, to include a stick and a tilt rotor because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on monitoring and controlling machinery including an excavator.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because excavators are construction machinery typically including a boom, a stick (also called dipper), a tool, e.g. a bucket, and a cab (also called house) on a rotating platform. The cab is typically rotatable about 360 degrees and arranged on a movable undercarriage having tracks or wheels, wherein the boom and the stick form a movable excavator arm carrying the tool. Kjaergaard Paragraph [0003].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner, in view of Koch, in view of Kim, in view of Kjaergaard, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0216519 A1) (“Peterson”).
Regarding claim 4, Renner, Koch, Kim, and Kjaergaard teach all the claimed features of claim 3, from which claim 4 depends. However, Renner, Koch, Kim, and Kjaergaard do not expressly teach the features of claim 4. Peterson describes a hydraulic control system having cylinder flow correction. Peterson teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the movement model is configured to provide a relationship between valve commands, determined cylinder forces, and determined joint velocities to estimate their impact on the end-effector force and/or the load. Peterson: Paragraph [0042] (“In the disclosed embodiment, the system response model may consist of three different portions, including a pump response portion, a cylinder response portion, and a valve behavior portion. Each portion of the system response model may include one or more equations, algorithms, maps, and/or subroutines that function to predict the physical response and/or behavior of the specified portion of hydraulic control system 48. Each of the equations, algorithms, maps, and/or subroutines may be developed during manufacture of machine 10 and periodically updated and/or uniquely tuned based on actual operating conditions of individual machines 10.”) Peterson: Paragraph [0044] (“Controller 58 may then use the valve behavior portion of the system response model to determine how movements of the corresponding valve arrangement 54, 56 may affect cylinder velocity after the time when the displacement adjustment of pump 52 has affected the cylinder velocity (i.e., after the cylinder response delay period). In other words, after the displacement of pump 52 has been adjusted to change the flow rate of fluid directed into the corresponding hydraulic cylinder 20, 26, the valve behavior portion may then be utilized by controller 58 to model how movements of the corresponding valve arrangement 54, 56 may affect that flow rate.”) Peterson: Paragraph [0046] (“When the requested movement is against the force of gravity (e.g., when work tool 14 is lifting or tilting upward), control may proceed through step 350, as described above. However, when the requested movement is in alignment with the force of gravity (e.g., when work tool 14 is lowering or tilting downward), controller 58 may be configured to maintain without change the correction flow rate determined during the immediately previous control cycle utilizing the system response model (Step 355) (i.e., the adjustment to the correction flow rate may not be integrated).”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Renner, Koch, Kim, Kjaergaard, and Peterson before them, for the model of Renner to provide a relationship between valve commands, determined cylinder forces, and determined joint velocities to estimate their impact on the end-effector force and/or the load because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on monitoring and controlling machinery including an excavator.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to help improve the control, productivity, and efficiency of machine 10. Specifically, hydraulic control system 48 may be configured to monitor actual flow rates of fluid supplied to hydraulic cylinders 20, 26, and tailor corresponding flow rate commands to better match actual velocities of hydraulic cylinders 20, 26 to velocities desired and requested by the operator of machine 10. In this manner, machine-to-machine variability may be reduced, allowing for enhanced control, productivity, and efficiency. Peterson Paragraph [0047].
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 16, and 17 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2022/0195689 A1 to Rajamani et al. describes in Paragraph [0068 (“(2) The moment arm (tilt inducing moment or torque) of the load carried by the end effector 810 is estimated in real time as a function of the position of the end effector 810 and of the weight carried. The weight carried may be estimated from the actuator hydraulic pressure using hydraulic pressure sensor 808, or by any other means of determining an estimated load weight 806.”)
Hodel et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0256036 A1) describes in Paragraph [0055] (“A calculated impeller clutch engagement value may be indicative of a fluidic pressure value and a quantitative fit between the fluidic pressure value and a correlated feature vector. For example, the force data may be indicative of one or more feature vectors that can include one or more of a lift cylinder velocity, a lift cylinder head-end pressure, a lift cylinder stalled status, a lift linkage angle, a work tool angle, and a tilt command valve position. Other features are contemplated. Accordingly, the determined impeller clutch engagement value may be one of a series of time-stepped impeller clutch engagement values associated with the force data, and best fit into the analytical model 314 using a fluidic pressure value.”) Hodel also provides in Paragraph [0079] (“In the mathematical model, the training examples obtained through the telemetric data may be represented by an array or vector, and the training data may be represented by a matrix. Through iterative optimization of an objective function, supervised learning algorithms may learn one or more functions associated with impeller clutch control and/or machine torque control that can be used to predict an output (e.g., torque engagement values and/or machine torque) associated with various inputs (e.g., force data that expresses values indicative of a lift cylinder velocity, lift cylinder head-end pressure, lift cylinder stalled status, bucket angles lift linkage angles, tilt command valve information, etc.). An optimization function can allow the algorithm to correctly determine an optimal clutch engagement and/or machine torque output for given force data inputs that were not a part of the training data. An algorithm that improves the accuracy of its outputs or predictions over time is said to have learned to perform that task.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117