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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The 12/12/2025 Amendments are entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 22 are amended. No claims are canceled. No new claims are added. Claims 1-30 remain pending.
Claim Objections
The objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22, noted as allowable in the prior 8/12/2025 Office Action, was rewritten in independent form to further include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the objection to claim 22 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim is withdrawn and the claim is allowed. Claims 23-24 are allowed on merit of their dependency upon claim 22.
The Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments made in the 12/12/2025 Remarks have been fully considered but are respectfully found unconvincing for the reasons below.
Applicant submits on pp. 15-16 of the Remarks that claim 1 of the present invention is distinct from Althoefer because the present invention calculates ground height from soil surface information comprising a soil mass shape as illustrated in for example FIG. 22 of the present invention, while Althoefer discloses ground height being calculated from an assumed-straight surface after bucket penetration of the ground.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “a ground height calculated from a shape of the soil mass constituted by a soil dammed by the bucket” includes a ground height calculated from an assumed shape of the soil mass (in Althoefer, assumed that the surface of the mass is flat) constituted by a soil dammed by the bucket, as depicted in for example Althoefer FIGS. 3-4. Therefore, the assumed shape of soil mass used to estimate soil qualities taught in Althoefer reads on claim 1 of the present invention as written.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Althoefer does not disclose acquiring soil surface information via sensors like LIDAR ([0136] of the present specification) or cameras ([0141] of the present specification). Amendment to further specify how the shape of the soil mass is acquired in for example the means mentioned above appears to overcome the art of record.
While not explicitly mentioned in the Remarks, the examiner wishes to further address the other amendments made to claim 1 and its dependents and explain why they do not overcome Althoefer. Firstly, amending the fifth clause to read:
“an orientation information acquisition unit that acquires orientation information that is information regarding an orientation of the bucket of the work attachment relative to the ground surface”
does not overcome the art of record because Althoefer depicts in for example FIGS 3-4 that the angle of the bucket (labeled in the figure) is indeed what is being measured for the soil quality calculation. The bucket position disclosed by Althoefer is used to calculate the angle α. Thus, the bucket position of Althoefer may be broadly interpreted as information regarding an orientation of the bucket of the work attachment. The amendments to claims 3-5 follow this reasoning as well.
Secondly, amending the eighth clause of claim 1 to additionally disclose:
“the soil pressure load is further based on wall surface angle of the soil mass acquired by the orientation information”
does not overcome the art of record because Althoefer teaches an angle α that constitutes a surface angle (the surface of the bucket taken as the wall) of the soil mass. As disclosed on for example p. 23 of Althoefer, α is used to calculate to soil quality using the Newton-Raphson method. In p. 14, α is estimated using the position encoders on the digging apparatus and sent to a memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, then, that α (which reads on the wall surface angle) represents the angle of the bucket. That angle is in based on a position of the bucket, which in turn is determined based on orientation information acquired by position encoders.
The rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents, therefore, is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2005/103396 to Althoefer, Kaspar et al. (hereinafter “Althoefer”).
Regarding claim 1, Althoefer discloses a construction machine (FIG. 1.) comprising:
a machine body including a travelling unit capable of travelling on a ground surface;
a work attachment (FIG. 1: Digging apparatus 18.) including a rising and falling body supported by the machine body so as to be rotatable in a rising and falling direction with respect to the machine body (p. 9: “The digging apparatus 18 is pivotally mounted . . . so as to enable movement of the digging apparatus in a substantially vertical plane.”), the work attachment including a bucket rotatably supported by a distal end of the rising and falling body (p. 9: “A bucket 32 is pivotally mounted to a second end 30 of the second arm 28.”);
a drive unit that allows driving of the work attachment such that the bucket excavates the ground surface (FIG. 1: Electro-hydraulic actuators 34.);
an orientation information acquisition unit that acquires orientation information that is information regarding an orientation of the bucket of the work attachment relative to the ground surface (p. 9: “The digging apparatus 18 is also provided with a number of position encoders (not shown) at each of its joints whereby the position of the bucket 32 may be known and monitored at all times by a control system.”; p. 14: “For both models, H and α can be determined from measurement by the position encoders on the digging apparatus 18 and bucket 32 as described above.” As discussed in the Arguments above, the position encoder positions taken as orientation information.);
a drive load information acquisition unit that acquires drive load information that is information regarding a load received by the drive unit as the bucket excavates the ground surface (p. 11: “The joint between the bucket 32 and second arm 28 is also provided with a one degree of freedom force (or pressure) sensor (not shown) that can measure the resistance of earth against the bucket.” Force measured between the ground and the digging apparatus, which is driven by the drive unit, taken as the load. Althoefer further teaches such force may be measured by hydraulic cylinder pressure, taken as part of the drive unit.);
a machine load calculator that calculates a machine load that is a load received by the bucket from earth and sand from the orientation information acquired by the orientation information acquisition unit and the drive load information acquired by the drive load information acquisition unit as the bucket excavates the ground surface (p. 15: “ . . . the digging apparatus 18 is operated to gradually increase the force applied by the bucket 32 to the soil. The force sensor output the measured force . . . [t]he result is three failure force readings for three bucket angles α stored in the memory 40.” Machine load taken as force at the bucket angle.);
a soil pressure load calculator that calculates a soil pressure load that is a load applied to the bucket by a soil mass (p. 11-12: “ . . . the difference between a measured failure force F1 and the failure force predicted by the chosen soil model should be minimised.”), based on a soil pressure theory from a ground height calculated from a shape of the soil mass constituted by a soil dammed by the bucket (p. 12: Wedge shape of soil assumed for the analysis. See the Arguments section above for more detail.), the orientation information acquired by the orientation information acquisition unit (FIG.3: α), and a shape of the bucket (FIG.3: See the Arguments above.), the soil pressure load is further based on wall surface angle of the soil mass acquired by the orientation information (See the Arguments above. α in Althoefer, taken as wall surface angle is calculated based on orientation information of the bucket.), a density of the soil (FIG. 3: γ), and a wall surface frictional angle between the soil and the bucket as the bucket excavates the ground surface (FIG. 3: δ); and
a soil quality estimator that estimates a soil quality of the soil at a work site (p. 23: “Here, four equations are generated based on the experiments at four different tool angles (α1, α2, α3 and α4) for four unknown soil parameters (φ, δ, γ, and c).” Unknown soil parameters taken as the soil quality.) based on the machine load calculated by the machine load calculator and the soil pressure load calculated by the soil pressure load calculator (FIG. 6: Iterative process used where machine force is measured, then error between estimated and machine force is minimized by feeding error back in, resulting in selection of the proper soil parameters.).
Regarding claim 2, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the soil quality estimator estimates an internal frictional angle of the soil and a cohesive force of the soil at the work site (p. 23: “The soil parameters to be identified are the soil density, γ, the soil-tool friction angle, δ, the soil-soil friction angle, φ, and the soil cohesion, c.” Soil-soil friction angle taken as the internal frictional angle. Soil cohesion taken as the cohesive force.) as the soil quality on an assumption that the machine load and the soil pressure load acting on the bucket coincide with each other (p. 23: “The estimation method of this further embodiment then works by incrementally improving the guess until the difference between the measured failure force and the modeled failure force is minimized and hence the soil parameters are identified . . ..” Understood that guesses of the above soil quality will be improved based on the amount of force measured and force estimated being substantially the same.).
Regarding claim 6, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein
the drive unit includes a rising and falling body cylinder that is hydraulic and expands and contracts so as to rotate the rising and falling body (FIG. 1), and
a bucket cylinder that is hydraulic and expands and contracts so as to rotate the bucket (FIG. 1),
the construction machine further includes a cylinder pressure detector that allows detection of a pressure of the bucket cylinder (p. 11: “Alternatively the force may be measured through pressure sensors in the hydraulic actuators of the digging apparatus 18.”), and
the drive load information acquisition unit acquires the drive load information by calculating the load received by the drive unit based on the pressure of the bucket cylinder detected by the cylinder pressure detector (p. 11: “Alternatively the force may be measured through pressure sensors in the hydraulic actuators of the digging apparatus 18.”).
Regarding claim 7, Althoefer discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, further comprising
a load sensor that is disposed at a distal end of the rising and falling body and allows detection of a load acting on the bucket (p. 11: “The joint between the bucket 32 and second arm 28 is also provided with a one degree of freedom force (or pressure) sensor (not shown) that can measure the resistance of the earth against the bucket.”),
wherein the drive load information acquisition unit acquires the drive load information by calculating the load received by the drive unit based on the load acting on the bucket detected by the load sensor (p. 11: “The force sensor generates an electronic signal representative of the force against the bucket during a digging operation that is sent back to the electronic control system 44.”).
Regarding claim 12, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein
the drive unit allows reception of a predetermined command signal and driving of the work attachment based on an output characteristic according to the command signal, and
the construction machine further includes an output characteristic setting unit that inputs a command signal to the drive unit so as to adjust the output characteristic in accordance with the soil quality acquired by the soil quality estimator (pp. 20-21: “Once the soil parameters . . . have been estimated to an acceptable tolerance they can be used . . . to determine the bucket angle α at which the failure force is minimum for that particular soil . . . This can then be used to ensure that the digger 10 operates more efficiently . . ..” Althoefer further discloses the method being used to control a fully autonomous excavator using the estimated force. Autonomous control based on the quality is taken as the output characteristic, which is disclosed as affected by the determined soil qualities. Furthermore, any signal recognizable by the excavator to be used for control is inherently a predetermined command signal, as any other signal not predetermined will not be understood to drive the excavator.).
Regarding claim 16, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the soil quality estimator determines the soil quality on condition that an angle of the bucket is included in an estimation angle set in advance (p. 23: “Here, four equations are generated based on the experiments at four different tool angles . . . for four unknown soil parameters . . ..” The estimation is made four these angles for comparison with the measured force at the same angles. The angles at which the force is measured, therefore, are taken as the angles included in an estimation angle set in advance.).
Regarding claim 17, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the soil quality estimator refers to a plurality of soil quality candidates prepared in advance (p. 24: Iteration through multiple values taken as a plurality. (p. 26: “ . . . it is necessary to seed the estimation with parameter values derived from a priori knowledge of likely soil conditions. Likely ranges of soil density, soil-soil friction angle and soil-tool friction angle were given previously, and which can still be used in the four parameter estimation.” The plurality of parameter candidates that are iterated through are within ranges prepared a priori, or in advance.), and determines one of the plurality of soil quality candidates as the soil quality at the work site based on the machine load calculated by the machine load calculator and the soil pressure load calculated by the soil pressure load calculator (Understood that the soil parameters at the point where the error between the measured/predicted forces is minimal are determined as the parameters that reflect on-site conditions.).
Regarding claim 18, Althoefer further discloses the construction machine according to claim 17, wherein the soil pressure load calculator calculates a plurality of the soil pressure loads by using each of the plurality of soil quality candidates (p. 3: Steps (2) and (3) give overview of how failure force is estimated using soil parameters. p. 4: “ . . . steps (2) and (3) are repeated until the difference between said predicted failure force and the failure force is substantially minimised.” The entirety of the document is dedicated to how the predicted vs. measured loads are calculated based on iterated soil parameters.), and
the soil quality estimator determines, as the soil quality at the work site, the soil quality candidate corresponding to the soil pressure load closest to the machine load calculated by the machine load calculator from among the plurality of soil pressure loads (. p. 4: “ . . . steps (2) and (3) are repeated until the difference between said predicted failure force and the failure force is substantially minimised.”).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180230671 A1 to Wu, Chunnan (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 3, Althoefer further teaches the construction machine according to claim 1, wherein
the drive unit includes
a rising and falling body cylinder that is hydraulic and expands and contracts so as to rotate the rising and falling body, and
a bucket cylinder that is hydraulic and expands and contracts so as to rotate the bucket (FIG. 1: Electro-hydraulic actuators 34 depicted as rotating the various parts of the digging apparatus and bucket, they must inherently expand and contract to do so.),
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach the construction machine further includes a cylinder length detector that allows detection of a length of the rising and falling body cylinder and a length of the bucket cylinder.
However, Wu teaches a cylinder length detector that allows detection of a length of the rising and falling body cylinder and a length of the bucket cylinder (Wu [0031]: “The boom angle sensor M3a is a sensor for acquiring the boom angle and includes . . . a stroke sensor for detecting the stroke amount of the boom cylinder 7 . . . the boom angle sensor M3a acquires a boom angle θ1.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that measures the angles of the digging apparatus joints on an excavator to acquire a bucket orientation with respect to the ground with the system that measures angles of a digging apparatus on an excavator using boom cylinder stroke taught by Wu. Doing so would have improved the measurement of the angle by allowing it to be measured from multiple sources. Doing so would have also improved the redundancy of the system by allowing the angles to be measured from another source where one type of sensor has failed.
APOSITA would have understood that the above combination of Althoefer and Wu further teaches the orientation information acquisition unit acquires the orientation information by calculating the orientation of the bucket of the work attachment based on the length of the rising and falling body cylinder and the length of the bucket cylinder detected by the cylinder length detector (APOSITA would have understood that in the above combination, the angles measured using the cylinder stroke of Wu would be used to calculate the orientation information (bucket position) in the manner taught by Althoefer.).
Regarding claim 4, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer further teaches encoders (taken as angle detectors) that detect the angles of joints of the digging apparatus (p. 9: “The digging apparatus 18 is also provided with a number of position encoders (not shown) at each of its joints whereby the position of the bucket 32 may be known and monitored at all times by a control system.”).
While it appears that the encoders of Althoefer must inherently comprise an angle detector that allows detection of each of a relative angle of the rising and falling body with respect to the machine body and a relative angle of the bucket with respect to the rising and falling body (p. 9: “The digging apparatus 18 is also provided with a number of position encoders (not shown) at each of its joints whereby the position of the bucket 32 may be known and monitored at all times by a control system.” APOSITA would have understood that the angles measured by the encoders are inherently relative to the machine body/with respect to the rising and falling body, as the encoders are disposed at joints.),
the Examiner has elected to bring in Wu, which more explicitly teaches an angle detector that allows detection of each of a relative angle of the rising and falling body with respect to the machine body (Wu [0031]: “For example, the boom angle sensor M3a acquires a boom angle θ1 . . . ” See FIGs 2 and 11. The angle of the boom is detected with respect to the XZ plane, factoring in θ4, the inclination angle of the ground. Thus, angle with respect to the machine body must inherently be captured in θ1 and converted to be with respect to the plane using in part θ4.) and a relative angle of the bucket with respect to the rising and falling body (Wu [0033]: “The bucket angle sensor M3c acquires, for example, a bucket angle θ3, The bucket angle θ3 is an angle of a line segment P3-P4 connecting the bucket connecting pin position P3 and the bucket toe position P4, with respect to the horizontal line, on the XE plane.” The Examiner believes that this passage contains a typo and that the bucket angle is also detected with respect to the XZ plane, considering the XE plane is not mentioned anywhere else in the reference, nor is it disclosed in the figure. The bucket angle, then, would also be detected with respect to the boom in order to factor in θ4 and the other boom angles affecting bucket angle with respect to the plane.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the excavator bucket and digging apparatus angle encoders taught by Althoefer with the excavator boom and bucket angle sensors that detect angles with respect to the machine body and the digging apparatus, respectively by converting all angles to be with respect to the XZ plane as taught by Wu. Doing so would have provided a common measurement reference for angle calculations, providing a user or programmer with an intuitive understanding of how each part of the excavator is oriented, improving the ease of use of the system and thus its operational efficiency.
The combination of Althoefer and Wu made above further teaches wherein the orientation information acquisition unit acquires the orientation information by calculating the orientation of the bucket of the work attachment based on at least the relative angle of the rising and falling body and the relative angle of the bucket detected by the angle detector (p. 14: “For both models, H and α can be determined from measurement by the position encoders on the digging apparatus 18 and bucket 32 as described above.” APOSITA would have understood in the above combination that the encoders of Althoefer would have been used to detect angles in the manner described by Wu, converting those angles into a bucket position with respect to the ground as further taught by Althoefer.).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Althoefer and Wu further teaches the construction machine according to claim 4, further comprising
a machine body inclination detector that allows detection of an inclination of the machine body with respect to a horizontal plane (Althoefer p. 14: “ . . . β is measured using an inclinometer sensor on the digger 10.”),
wherein the orientation information acquisition unit acquires the orientation information by calculating the orientation of the bucket of the work attachment based on the relative angle of the rising and falling body and the relative angle of the bucket detected by the angle detector and the inclination of the machine body detected by the machine body inclination detector (Wu FIG. 2, [0033]: APOSITA would have understood that in the above combination, the various angles calculated with respect to horizontal plane XZ taught in Wu would have been used to calculate angle α disclosed in Althoefer FIG. 3 because α is depicted as an angle of the bucket with respect to horizontal.).
Claims 8-9, 19-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210115643 A1 to Tanaka, Hiroaki et al. (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 8, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach a display unit that receives a predetermined display command signal and displays information to be notified to a worker in accordance with the display command signal,
wherein the soil quality estimator inputs, to the display unit, the display command signal corresponding to the soil quality having been estimated.
However, Tanaka teaches a display unit (Tanaka FIG. 14: Display 22.) that receives a predetermined display command signal (Tanaka inherently teaches receiving a predetermined display signal by teaching that the display is able to display information. This information must be received in a predetermined manner, otherwise, the display would be unable to display it.) and displays information to be notified to a worker in accordance with the display command signal (Tanaka FIGS. 13, 14: Display information being output to the display depicted.),
wherein the soil quality estimator inputs, to the display unit, the display command signal corresponding to the soil quality having been estimated (Tanaka FIG. 13: Soil load map, taken as a display command signal corresponding to soil quality, depicted as being output to the display 22.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that estimates a soil quality taught by Althoefer with the display system that displays information regarding soil quality taught by Tanaka. Doing so would have made it “possible for a work machine having a semi-automatic control function to maintain the construction precision of semi-automatic control irrespective of excavation depths and differences in soil nature” as taught in [0013] of Tanaka.
Regarding claim 9, the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka teaches the construction machine according to claim 8.
Tanaka further teaches wherein the display unit allows displaying of a latest soil quality and a past soil quality estimated by the soil quality estimator (Tanaka [0085]: “By configuring the soil-nature-map generating section 34 in this manner, in a case where the update flag is 1 (the bucket claw tip is located below the bucket claw tip at the last time of excavation), the ground-surface-height information and the unit-load information are updated, and in a case where the update flag is 0 (the bucket claw tip is located at the same height as or below the bucket claw tip at the last time of excavation), the ground-surface-height information and the unit-load information are not updated, but keep having previous values.” Previous values taken as past soil quality, updated value when the flag is set taken as a latest soil quality.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the soil display unit of Tanaka that updates soil quality with a present value from a past value when a flag is set with the system that records and displays soil quality information taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka. Doing so would have allowed the display to keep an up-to-date soil quality on the display screen, improving the operator or control system’s ability to adapt to different soil conditions, while also preserving a previously-measured soil quality in cases where the tool has not yet engaged with the ground again.
Regarding claim 19, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach an input unit that receives a command for switching between a valid state and an invalid state,
wherein the valid state is a state in which the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator is permitted, and
the invalid state is a state in which the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator is prohibited.
However, Tanaka teaches an input unit that receives a command for switching between a valid state and an invalid state (Tanaka [0043]: “ . . . the soil-nature-map update deciding section 33 decides whether or not it is necessary to update the soil-nature map, and outputs an update flag that indicates whether or not it is necessary to update the soil-nature map to the soil-nature-map generating section 34.”),
wherein the valid state is a state in which the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator is permitted (Tanaka [0044]: “The soil-nature-map generating section 34 keeps a soil-nature map unchanged (not updated) in a case where the update flag is OFF, and updates the soil-nature map with information about the nature of the soil at the bucket-claw-tip position in a case where the update flag is 1.”), and
the invalid state is a state in which the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator is prohibited (Tanaka [0044]: Updating the map taken as estimation of the soil quality. Thus, if the flag is OFF, the soil quality will not be updated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for measuring soil quality taught by Althoefer with the system that only measures soil quality when a flag is set to 1 taught by Tanaka. Doing so would have prevented inaccurate measurements from being taken and displayed when the bucket is not engaged with the soil, as suggested in for example [0066]-[0067] of Tanaka, improving the accuracy and usefulness of displayed data, resulting in improved excavator efficiency and accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka further the construction machine according to claim 19, wherein a soil quality storage unit that stores information regarding the soil quality estimated previously when the valid state and the invalid state are switched by the command input to the input unit (Tanaka [0085]: “ . . . in a case where the update flag is 0 (the bucket claw tip is located at the same height as or below the bucket claw tip at the last time of excavation), the ground-surface-height information and the unit-load information are not updated, but keep having previous values.” Understood that when the update flag is switched 0 (invalid state), the information storage sections 73-74 are not updated, thus storing the soil quality estimated previously (keeping the previous values).).
Regarding claim 21, the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka teaches the construction machine according to claim 19, further comprising a state display unit that allows displaying of the valid state and the invalid state.
This combination was made with respect to a first embodiment in Tanaka which does not appear to expressly teach a state display unit that allows displaying of the valid state and the invalid state.
However, a second embodiment of Tanaka teaches a state display unit that allows displaying of the valid state and the invalid state (Tanaka FIG. 12; [0108]-[0119]: In this embodiment, Tanaka further teaches a soil-nature-map display command section 37. Bucket-claw-tip position data in this embodiment bypasses the soil-nature-map generation section which only updates display of bucket tip position when the flag is set to 1. Therefore, APOSITA would have recognized that the display would have constantly shown the position of the bucket, regardless of the flag value. Since the flag value (valid/invalid state) is dependent upon bucket position, such a configuration at least allows both the valid state of the bucket being underground and the invalid state of the bucket being aboveground to be displayed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that only measures soil quality when the bucket is engaged with the ground taught by the above combination of Althoefer and the first embodiment of Tanaka with the display command section that allows the bucket position to be displayed regardless of flag setting taught by the second embodiment of Tanaka. Doing so would have allowed “an operator of the hydraulic excavator 200 . . . [to] perform excavation work while checking a positional relationship between the bucket-claw-tip position and the ground surface . . . on the display screen 120 . . . “ as taught in [0119] of Tanaka, improving the operator’s understanding of the excavator state and thereby increasing his operational accuracy of the excavator.
Regarding claim 26, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach a completion display unit that displays information regarding whether the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator has been completed.
However, Tanaka teaches a completion display unit that displays information regarding whether the estimation of the soil quality by the soil quality estimator has been completed (Tanaka [0085]: “ . . . in a case where the update flag is 1 (the bucket claw tip is located below the bucket claw tip at the last time of excavation), the ground-surface-height information and the unit-load information are updated, and in a case where the update flag is 0 (the bucket claw tip is located at the same height as or below the bucket claw tip at the last time of excavation), the ground-surface-height information and the unit-load information are not updated, but keep having previous values. That is, the soil-nature map is updated only when a ground is excavated further with the bucket 7 . . . ” Updating the maps taken as completing a round of soil quality estimation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the soil quality estimation system of Althoefer with the display that displays an updated soil quality when the soil quality has been measured again taught by Tanaka. Doing so would have provided the operator with up-to-date soil quality measurements that accurately reflect soil conditions, improving his ability to understand those conditions and therefore his accuracy and efficiency of operation.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer in view of US 20210115643 A1 to Tanaka, Hiroaki et al. (“Tanaka”) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of US 6041582 A to Tiede, Duane et al. (“Tiede”).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka teaches construction machine according to claim 8.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at the work site,
wherein the soil quality estimator inputs, to the display unit, the display command signal in which the soil quality having been estimated and the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit are associated with each other.
However, Tiede teaches a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at the work site (Tiede 6:29-31: “DPU 116 also communicates with a location signal generation circuit 138 which generates location signals representing the vehicle's location.”),
wherein the soil quality estimator inputs, to the display unit, the display command signal in which the soil quality having been estimated and the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit are associated with each other (Tiede 12:22-28: “DPU 116 and processor 200 use force data and correlated location data to perform various functions of site-specific farming system 100. For example, DPU 116 or processor 200 use the correlated farming data to generate display signals which cause electronic display 128 or 204, respectively, to plot a map of a field which includes visible indicia of the soil condition or force data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that measures soil quality taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Tanaka with the system that correlates soil quality measurements with locations and plots them on a display map taught by Tiede. Doing so would have provided an intuitive visualization of site conditions with respect to the excavator operator or site manager, improving the accuracy and efficiency of site planning and excavation operations.
Regarding claim 11, the above combination of Althoefer, Tanaka, and Tiede further teaches the construction machine according to claim 10, wherein
the display unit further allows displaying of map information at the work site, and displays the soil quality estimated by the soil quality estimator and the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit on the map information in association with each other (Tiede 12:22-28: “DPU 116 and processor 200 use force data and correlated location data to perform various functions of site-specific farming system 100. For example, DPU 116 or processor 200 use the correlated farming data to generate display signals which cause electronic display 128 or 204, respectively, to plot a map of a field which includes visible indicia of the soil condition or force data.”).
Claims 13-14, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180210454 A1 to Ready-Campbell, Noah Austen et al.. (“Ready-Campbell”).
Regarding claim 13, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach the soil quality estimator determines whether estimation of the soil quality is allowed based on a characteristic value related to a magnitude of the soil pressure load.
However, Ready-Campbell teaches the soil quality estimator determines whether estimation of the soil quality is allowed based on a characteristic value related to a magnitude of the soil pressure load (Ready-Campbell FIG. 8B; [0128]: The system only conducts the distinguishing (broadly interpreted as estimation of soil quality) when the volume of earth in the bucket (broadly interpreted as the characteristic value) is higher than the threshold. APOSITA would have understood that in this combination, the soil quality estimation of Althoefer would only occur once the volume exceeded the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that estimates soil quality taught by Althoefer with the system that only conducts estimation of the soil quality when there is a sufficient volume of earth in the tool taught by Ready-Campbell. Doing so would have “ . . . reduce[d] the cost of excavating a site . . . by obtaining actionable information that helps design and increase the efficiency of the excavation project . . . “ as taught in [0007] of Ready-Campbell.
Regarding claim 14, the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell further teaches the construction machine according to claim 13, wherein the characteristic value is a soil volume in the bucket (Ready-Campbell FIG. 8B: The volume in the bucket used to initiate the estimation.).
Regarding claim 27, Althoefer teaches a construction machine management system comprising:
the construction machine according to claim 1 (Althoefer FIG. 1: Digger 10.); and
a management device (Althoefer p. 10: “Referring to Fig. 2 the digger 10 further comprises computer-processing apparatus 36 in the form of a laptop (or notebook) computer or PC.”).
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach the management device is disposed at a position away from the construction machine and allows transmission and reception of information on the soil quality to and from the construction machine.
However, Ready-Campbell teaches a management device that is disposed at a position away from the construction machine (Ready-Campbell [0042]: “The sensor assembly 110 may be configured to communicate received data to any one of the controller 150 of the excavation vehicle 115, the on-unit computer 120a, as well as the off-unit computer 120b.”; [0050]: “Any operations or processing performed by the on-unit computer 120a may also be performed similarly by the off-unit computer 120b.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for estimating soil quality that sends data to an onboard computer processing apparatus taught by Althoefer with the system that sends data to an off-unit computer for processing taught by Ready-Campbell. Doing so would have enabled the excavator to be remotely controlled and monitored, improving safety by removing the operator from the excavation environment. Doing so would have also improved the durability of the system by removing the computer hardware from harsh worksite conditions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell further teaches allows transmission and reception of information on the soil quality to and from the construction machine (APOSITA would have understood that in the above combination, all data received by the excavator sensors during the quality measuring routine of Althoefer would have been sent to the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell.).
Regarding claim 30, the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell teaches the construction machine management system according to claim 27, wherein
the drive unit allows reception of a predetermined command signal and driving of the work attachment based on an output characteristic according to the command signal (Althoefer pp. 20-21: “Once the soil parameters γ ,δ ,φ have been estimated to an acceptable tolerance they can be used in either or both soil models to determine the bucket angle at which the failure force is minimum for that particular soil, for example. This can then be used to ensure that the digger 10 operates more efficiently (e.g. by applying force at best tool angle so that the soil fails at minimum or low force) and there is less wear on the parts of the digger 10.” Command to digger to apply force at the best tool angle taken as the output characteristic according to the command signal.),
the construction machine further includes
a machine body side transmitter that allows transmission of the information on the soil quality to the management device (APOSITA would have understood that in the above combination made in claim 27, all data received by the excavator sensors during the quality measuring routine of Althoefer would have been sent to the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell.), and
a machine body side receiver that allows reception of information transmitted from the management device (Ready-Campbell [0050]-[0051]: “The off-unit computer 120b includes a software architecture for supporting access and use of the excavation system 100 by many different excavation vehicles 115 through network 105, and thus at a high level can be generally characterized as a cloud-based system. Any operations or processing performed by the on-unit computer 120a may also be performed similarly by the off-unit computer 120b. In some instances, the operation of the excavation vehicle 115 is monitored by a human operator. Human operators, when necessary, may halt or override the automated excavation process and manually operate the excavation vehicle 115 in response to observations made regarding the features or the properties of the site.” APOSITA would have understood that in the above combination, the computer system of Althoefer would have been hosted on the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell such that information collected by the various excavator sensors would have been sent to the off-unit computer, and any control outputs of Althoefer would come from the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell.).
The above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell does not appear to expressly teach, but further combination with Ready-Campbell teaches that the management device includes
a management device side storage unit that stores the information on the soil quality and information on the output characteristic in association with each other (Ready-Campbell [0065], [0115]: “In advance of breakout occurring, the digging module 710 may also calculate the expected breakout angle based on the soil composition properties for the earth within the hole. . . . In one implementation, the breakout angle is established as inversely proportional to the soil cohesion measurement. In order to achieve the breakout angle as the tool is raised above the ground surface, the hydraulic distribution module 740 adjusts the distribution of hydraulic pressure between the drive system 210 and the tool 175 by monitoring engine load or line pressure sensors in the hydraulic system and dynamically adjusting power output commands to the drivetrain and to the tool actuators.” Soil cohesion taken as the soil quality information. The cohesion is understood as stored at least in association with the breakout angle (output characteristic) because the breakout angle is calculated from the soil cohesion. All of this information is inherently stored on a storage unit of the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell because data must inherently be stored on a computer to be used for computer operations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the off-unit system that calculates a soil quality and best tool angle for estimated soil qualities taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell with the storage unit that stores soil quality and breakout angle in association with one another on the off-unit computer taught by Ready-Campbell. Doing so would have facilitated calculation of the output characteristic from the soil quality, improving the accuracy of the characteristic estimation made by the excavator.
APOSITA would have understood that the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell further teaches a management device side output characteristic setting unit that sets a predetermined output characteristic from the management device side storage unit in accordance with the information on the soil quality received by the management device side receiver (Ready-Campbell [0115]: Establishment of the breakout angle due to the determination of the angle from the soil properties taken as the setting of the predetermined output characteristic.), and
a management device side transmitter that transmits, to the construction machine, the command signal corresponding to the output characteristic having been set (Ready-Campbell [0115]: Ready-Campbell teaches that any control signals can be sent from the off-unit computer. Understood that the breakout angle controls sent to the hydraulic cylinders would have been transmitted from the off-unit computer to the excavator.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer in view of US 20180210454 A1 to Ready-Campbell, Noah Austen et al. (“Ready-Campbell”) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of US 20190026914 A1 to Hageman, John et al. (“Hageman”).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell teaches the construction machine according to claim 14.
While Ready-Campbell teaches measuring the volume of soil in the bucket, it does not appear to expressly teach wherein the soil quality estimator calculates the soil volume based on the shape of the soil mass and the shape of the bucket.
However, Hageman teaches the soil quality estimator calculates the soil volume based on the shape of the soil mass and the shape of the bucket (Hageman [0048]: Hageman teaches generating a model of the bucket in the form of a 3D point cloud, taken as finding the shape of the bucket. This is stored in a configuration file.; Hageman FIG.4; [0051]: “Returning to FIG. 4, the image data representing material in the bucket can be provided to the volume computation module 420, which can compare that image data to the configuration file to output an estimate of the volume of the material in the bucket.” See also FIG. 9. Hageman further teaches using the bucket model with point cloud data of the soil to estimate the data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that estimates a volume and soil quality for excavation taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell with the system that estimates soil volume by generating a model of the bucket and using the model along with a point cloud describing the shape of soil to estimate a volume of soil scooped taught by Hageman. Doing so would have improved the accuracy of the volume estimation by allowing the system to adapt to various soil and bucket shapes.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer, further in view of US 6041582 A to Tiede, Duane et al. (“Tiede”).
Regarding claim 25, Althoefer teaches the construction machine according to claim 1.
Althoefer does not appear to expressly teach the soil quality estimator receives a predetermined estimation start signal, acquires a plurality of soil qualities by repeatedly estimating the soil qualities at predetermined time intervals, and estimates a final soil quality based on the plurality of soil qualities.
However, Tiede teaches the soil quality estimator receives a predetermined estimation start signal (Tiede 13:57-60: “DPU 116 may be configured to not calculate soil condition data based upon an indication that the tractor is not applying field inputs (e.g., plow position is above a threshold position).” Plow position being below threshold position, signal to start collecting data, taken as a predetermined estimation start signal.), acquires a plurality of soil qualities by repeatedly estimating the soil qualities at predetermined time intervals (Tiede 13:50-55: “Throughout the plowing process, DPU 116 gathers site-specific data sensed by hitch load pins 111 and other application sensors 150 and correlates the sensed data with the locations at which the sensed data was sampled using signals from location signal generation circuit 138. The data may be sampled, for example, at 1 second intervals.”), and estimates a final soil quality based on the plurality of soil qualities (Tiede 14:35-36: “Data within each block is automatically processed or filtered (e.g., averaged). ” Average data taken as final soil quality.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for measuring soil quality taught by Althoefer with the system that samples soil qualities when the tool engages the soil and generates an average soil quality for display based on the samples taught by Tiede. Doing so would have improved estimation accuracy by reducing the effects of outlier soil quality samples so that the system does not alter operation based on outliers. Doing so would have also improved the storage efficiency of the system by enabling samples to be taken only when the tool is engaged with the ground, allowing the storage to only be used for relevant sampling.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the above combination of Althoefer and Tiede further teaches the soil quality estimator does not estimate the final soil quality when a number of the plurality of soil qualities is less than a preset threshold value (Althoefer p. 23: “Here, four equations are generated based on the experiments at four different tool angles (α , and α ) for four unknown soil parameters (φ, δ, γ, and c).” Althoefer requires at least four samples of force to accurately estimate the soil quality. This is taken as the preset threshold value.) after the estimation start signal is input (APOSITA would have understood in the above combination that the estimation of Althoefer would not have started until the tool engaged the ground as taught in Tiede.).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer in view of US 20180210454 A1 to Ready-Campbell, Noah Austen et al. (“Ready-Campbell”) as applied to claim 27 above, further in view of US 6041582 A to Tiede, Duane et al. (“Tiede”).
Regarding claim 28, the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell teaches the construction machine management system according to claim 27.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the construction machine further includes
a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at a work site, and
a machine body side transmitter that allows transmission of the position information and the information on the soil quality to the management device, and
the management device includes a management device side receiver that allows reception of the position information and the information on the soil quality transmitted by the machine body side transmitter, and
a management device side storage unit that stores the position information and the information on the soil quality in association with each other.
However, Tiede teaches a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at a work site (Tiede 6:29-31: “DPU 116 also communicates with a location signal generation circuit 138 which generates location signals representing the vehicle's location.”), and
a machine body side transmitter that allows transmission of the position information and the information on the soil quality to the management device (Tiede 5:35-37: “A communication medium is employed to transfer site-specific data between core system 102 and computer 112.” Tiede inherently teaches a body side transmitter by teaching that that the core system aboard the machine and the computer can transmit information between one another.), and
the management device includes a management device side receiver that allows reception of the position information and the information on the soil quality transmitted by the machine body side transmitter (Tiede 5:35-37: “A communication medium is employed to transfer site-specific data between core system 102 and computer 112.” Tiede inherently teaches a management device side receiver by teaching that the core system and the computer can transmit information between one another.; Tiede 13:50-57: “DPU 116 gathers site-specific data . . . and correlates the sensed data with the locations at which the sensed data was sampled using signals from location signal generation circuit 138. The data may be sampled, for example, at 1 second intervals. The correlated data is stored in memory (e.g., memory card 114) for later analysis by office computer 112.”), and
a management device side storage unit that stores the position information and the information on the soil quality in association with each other (Tiede 13:50-57: “The correlated data is stored in memory (e.g., memory card 114) for later analysis by office computer 112.” Understood that RF communication can be used instead of memory card transfer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized this combination teaches any data sensed, stored, and correlated by the system of Tiede would have been sent to the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell and stored in correlation as taught by Tiede.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the remote system that receives sensed soil quality data taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell with the system that correlates location data with sensed soil conditions for transmission to a central computer taught by Tiede. Doing so would have improved site planning and management efficiency by providing an intuitive visualization of soil conditions at a work site, allowing operators and managers to choose tooling and excavation strategies based on each excavator location.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005103396 A1 to Althoefer in view of US 20180210454 A1 to Ready-Campbell, Noah Austen et al. (“Ready-Campbell”) and US 6041582 A to Tiede, Duane et al. (“Tiede”), further in view of US 20020165656 A1 to Adachi, Hiroyuki et al. (“Adachi”).
Regarding claim 29, the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell teaches the construction machine management system according to claim 27, wherein
the drive unit allows reception of a predetermined command signal and driving of the work attachment based on an output characteristic according to the command signal (pp. 20-21: “Once the soil parameters . . . have been estimated to an acceptable tolerance they can be used . . . to determine the bucket angle α at which the failure force is minimum for that particular soil . . . This can then be used to ensure that the digger 10 operates more efficiently . . ..”Using the soil parameters to ensure efficient operation taken as an output characteristic.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the construction machine further includes
a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at a work site,
a machine body side transmitter that allows transmission of the position information to the management device, and
a machine body side receiver that allows reception of information transmitted from the management device, and
the management device includes a management device side storage unit that stores the position information, the information on the soil quality, in association with each other.
However, Tiede teaches the construction machine further includes
a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of the machine body at a work site (Tiede 6:29-31: “DPU 116 also communicates with a location signal generation circuit 138 which generates location signals representing the vehicle's location.”),
a machine body side transmitter that allows transmission of the position information to the management device (Tiede 5:35-37: “A communication medium is employed to transfer site-specific data between core system 102 and computer 112.” Tiede inherently teaches a body side transmitter by teaching that that the core system aboard the machine and the computer can transmit information between one another.), and
a machine body side receiver that allows reception of information transmitted from the management device (Tiede 5:35-37: “A communication medium is employed to transfer site-specific data between core system 102 and computer 112.” Tiede inherently teaches a management device side receiver by teaching that the core system and the computer can transmit information between one another.; Tiede 13:50-57: “DPU 116 gathers site-specific data . . . and correlates the sensed data with the locations at which the sensed data was sampled using signals from location signal generation circuit 138. The data may be sampled, for example, at 1 second intervals. The correlated data is stored in memory (e.g., memory card 114) for later analysis by office computer 112.”), and
the management device includes a management device side storage unit that stores the position information, the information on the soil quality, in association with each other (Tiede 13:50-57: “The correlated data is stored in memory (e.g., memory card 114) for later analysis by office computer 112.” Understood that RF communication can be used instead of memory card transfer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized this combination teaches any data sensed, stored, and correlated by the system of Tiede would have been sent to the off-unit computer of Ready-Campbell and stored in correlation as taught by Tiede.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that receives sensed soil quality data at a remote location taught by the above combination of Althoefer and Ready-Campbell with the system that correlates location data with sensed soil conditions for transmission to a central computer taught by Tiede. Doing so would have improved site planning and management efficiency by providing an intuitive visualization of soil conditions at a work site, allowing operators and managers to choose tooling and excavation strategies based on each excavator location.
The above combination of Althoefer, Ready-Campbell, and Tiede does not appear to expressly teach also storing information on the output characteristic in association with the position and soil quality data.
However, Adachi teaches storing information on the output characteristic in association with position (Adachi [0047], [0049]: “n step S43, a soil quality table in the database 47 is searched using the current location signal, and the soil quality at the location where the hydraulic excavator is operating is calculated.”; “In the description given above, soil quality for the location where the hydraulic excavator is operating is read out and the most suitable bucket claw is selected, but it is also possible to select the shape of the bucket itself and the front attachment itself according to soil quality.” Selecting a suitable bucket claw taken as the output characteristic.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the remote system that estimates and stores soil qualities related to position taught by the above combination of Althoefer, Ready-Campbell, and Tiede with the system that stores soil quality and appropriate bucket type with location taught by Adachi. Doing so would have allowed for easy selection of a work attachment “appropriate for the operating location” as described in [0008] of Adachi, improving the efficiency and speed of excavation operations by aiding selection of the right equipment for excavating at a given location.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Althoefer, Ready-Campbell, Tiede, and Adachi would have taught storing position, output characteristic, and soil quality in association with one another by merit of both output characteristic selected by Adachi and soil quality recorded in Tiede being stored with respect to location as taught in each reference.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Althoefer, Ready-Campbell, Tiede, and Adachi further teaches a management device side receiver that allows reception of the position information transmitted by the machine body side transmitter (Tiede 5:35-37: “A communication medium is employed to transfer site-specific data between core system 102 and computer 112.” Tiede inherently teaches a management device side receiver by teaching that the core system and the computer can transmit information between one another.; Tiede 13:50-57: “DPU 116 gathers site-specific data . . . and correlates the sensed data with the locations at which the sensed data was sampled using signals from location signal generation circuit 138. The data may be sampled, for example, at 1 second intervals. The correlated data is stored in memory (e.g., memory card 114) for later analysis by office computer 112.” APOSITA would have recognized that the position data of Tiede, taught as being sent to the office computer, would have been sent to and received by the off-vehicle device of Ready-Campbell.),
a management device side output characteristic setting unit that sets a predetermined output characteristic from the management device side storage unit in accordance with the position information received by the management device side receiver (Adachi [0047], [0049]: “In step S43, a soil quality table in the database 47 is searched using the current location signal, and the soil quality at the location where the hydraulic excavator is operating is calculated.”; “In the description given above, soil quality for the location where the hydraulic excavator is operating is read out and the most suitable bucket claw is selected, but it is also possible to select the shape of the bucket itself and the front attachment itself according to soil quality.” Selecting a suitable bucket claw taken as the output characteristic, predetermined by merit of being suitable for the particular soil conditions, see for example [0047] of Adachi (database).), and
a management device side transmitter that transmits, to the construction machine, the command signal corresponding to the output characteristic having been set (Adachi [0047]: “In step S45, transmission data is created in order to transmit the bucket claw information via the communications satellite CS, and transmitted to the relevant hydraulic excavator from the modem 41.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 are allowed for the reasons presented in the Arguments section above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, “a state switching unit that inputs a command corresponding to the valid state to the input unit on condition that an angle of the bucket is included in an estimation angle set in advance.” The closest prior art, JP-2019163621-A to Ogawa, Masaki et al. (“Ogawa”) teaches a system that measures soil quality by dragging the bucket of the excavator through the ground at a predetermined angle. However, this system appears to be set in a soil quality testing mode first, which puts the bucket at the predetermined angle, then it begins testing. This is the opposite from the function of the present invention, which detects if the bucket angle is right first, then allows testing to be conducted.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665