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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the following limitations which are unclear:
“as a downward gradient of the excavation surface is smaller or an upward gradient of the excavation surface is greater” in lines 4-6 and 12-13; and
“as the upward gradient of the excavation surface is smaller or the downward gradient of the excavation surface is greater” in lines 8-10 and 15-16.
More specifically, the Examiner is unable to determine the comparison point for the excavation surface. Since the claim states that the excavation surface is smaller or greater, but the claim does not further define what it is smaller or greater than, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fully understood. The corresponding portion of Applicant’s disclosure can be found in at least para. [0076]. However, this portion of the disclosure appears to closely restate the instant claim limitations without providing further understanding.
Claim 8 recites the following limitation which is unclear: “so as to make a distance from the excavation starting position to the excavation finishing position smaller as an upward gradient of the excavation surface is smaller or a downward gradient of the excavation surface is greater” in lines 3-6.
More specifically, the Examiner is unable to determine the comparison point for the excavation surface and distance. Since the claim states that the excavation surface is smaller or greater and the distance is smaller, but the claim does not further define what it is smaller or greater than, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fully understood. The corresponding portion of Applicant’s disclosure can be found in at least para. [0077]. However, this portion of the disclosure appears to closely restate the instant claim limitations without providing further understanding.
Claim 11 recites the following limitation which is unclear: “as the hardness of the excavation object is larger” in line 4.
More specifically, the Examiner is unable to determine the comparison point for the excavation object hardness. Since the claim states that the excavation surface hardness is larger, but the claim does not further define what it is larger than, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fully understood. The corresponding portion of Applicant’s disclosure can be found in at least para. [00101]. However, this portion of the disclosure appears to closely restate the instant claim limitations without providing further understanding.
Claim 12 recites the following limitations which are unclear:
“as a downward gradient of the excavation surface is smaller or an upward gradient of the excavation surface is greater” in lines 6-8 and 18-19;
“as the upward gradient of the excavation surface is smaller or the downward gradient of the excavation surface is greater” in lines 10-12 and 21-22; and
“as the hardness of the excavation object is larger/smaller” in lines 14/16 respectively.
More specifically, the Examiner is unable to determine the comparison point for the excavation surface. Since the claim states that the excavation surface is smaller or greater and the excavation object hardness is larger/smaller, but the claim does not further define what it is smaller or greater than, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fully understood. As discussed above, the corresponding portions of Applicant’s appear to closely restate the instant claim limitations without providing further understanding.
Due to the clarity issues discussed above with claims 7-8 and 11-12, and the great deal of speculation required by the examiner when interpreting the claims, no art rejections are being presented in this action for these claims. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano (Pub. No.: 2021/0017738).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sano discloses a work machine (100) comprising:
a work device (4,5,6) having a work implement (See Fig. 1);
hydraulic actuators (7,8,9) for driving the work device;
a hydraulic pump (14);
a control valve (17) for controlling a flow rate of a hydraulic fluid supplied from the hydraulic pump to the hydraulic actuators; and
a controller (30) configured to calculate a target locus for a control point on the work implement and control the control valve such that the control point moves on the target locus (See para. [0073] where it discloses the controller is “configured to set a target trajectory, which is a trajectory to be followed by a predetermined part of the bucket. The predetermined part of the bucket is, for example, the teeth end of the bucket”, note that the disclosed “target trajectory” and “the teeth end of the bucket” generally correspond to the claimed “target locus” and “control point” respectively),
wherein the controller is configured to
calculate a target locus (G13) passing through an excavation starting position (G13A) where the control point is positioned when an excavation is started (See Fig. 8 below and para. [0115] where it discloses “The figure G13 is a line presenting the target trajectory…The figure G13A presents the excavation start portion which is the start point of the target trajectory”),
an excavation-in-progress position (G14) where the control point is positioned when the excavation is in progress (See Fig. 8 below and para. [0115] where it discloses “the figure G14 presents the bucket moving along the target trajectory”), and
an excavation finishing position (G13B) where the control point is positioned when the excavation is finished (See Fig. 8 below and para. [0115] where it discloses “The figure G13B presents the excavation end position, which is the end point of the target trajectory”), and
a target posture (F3) for the work implement at a time where the control point moves on the target locus, on a basis of information on a gradient of an excavation surface (FA, See Fig. 7 where F3 is determined from FA; See para. [0098] and [0113] for corresponding disclosure of FA, and See para. [0121] for corresponding disclosure of F3), and
control the control valve (17) such that the control point moves on the target locus and that a posture of the work implement at the time where the control point moves on the target locus matches the target posture (See F4, F5, and F6 in Fig. 7 and Fig. 9).
Figures 7-8 of Sano has been reproduced below for immediate reference to the above claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
766
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the excavation-in-progress position (G14) is a maximum excavation depth position (at G16 as seen in Fig. 8) that is deepest from a ground surface on the target locus (G13).
Regarding claim 3, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 2, and also discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the target locus such that the target locus passes through an operation finishing position (G12) where the control point is positioned when an excavation operation is finished (See para. [0115] where it discloses “the figure G12 presents a future state of the excavation attachment after the excavation operation is completed”), in addition to the excavation starting position (G13A) , the maximum excavation depth position (at G16), and the excavation finishing position (G13B).
Regarding claim 4, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 3, and also discloses wherein the controller (30) is configured to calculate the target posture in the operation finishing position (G12) on a basis of a gravitational direction (See Fig. 8 where G12 is depicted as perpendicular to the gravitational direction), not depending on the gradient of the excavation surface as the information on the gradient of the excavation surface.
Regarding claim 5, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 2, and also discloses wherein the work machine includes an externally connected device for inputting the gradient of the excavation surface as the information on the gradient of the excavation surface to the controller (See para. [0059] where it discloses a LIDAR or stereo camera which corresponds to the claimed externally connected device), and the controller is configured to set the excavation starting position (G13A), the maximum excavation depth position (at G16), and the excavation finishing position (G13B), depending on the gradient of the excavation surface (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 5, and also discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the target posture in the excavation starting position (G13A), the target posture in the maximum excavation depth position (at G16), and the target posture in the excavation finishing position (G13B), depending on the gradient of the excavation surface (FA; See Fig. 7 for depicting the controller configurations for calculating target posture, i.e., the teeth end position).
Regarding claim 9, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 2, and also discloses wherein the work machine includes an externally connected device for inputting hardness of an excavation object to the controller, and the controller is configured to set the maximum excavation depth position depending on the hardness of the excavation object (See para. [0059] where it discloses that the controller calculates “the excavation weight by multiplying the excavation volume by a density. The density may be a value set in advance, or may be a value dynamically set via the input device or the like.” Note that the disclosed density corresponds to the claimed hardness as it is well known that denser materials tend to be harder. Further See para. [0072] where it discloses the controller “calculates the target excavation volume based on the remaining loadable weight and soil information. The soil information is, for example, information on the density type, hardness, or the like of excavated matter.”).
Regarding claim 10, Sano discloses the work machine of claim 2, and also discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the target posture in the excavation starting position (G13A), the target posture in the maximum excavation depth position (at G16), and the target posture in the excavation finishing position (G13B), depending on the hardness of the excavation object (FK; See Fig. 7 for depicting the controller configurations for calculating target posture, i.e., the teeth end position, note that FK in Fig. 7 states “calculate target excavation volume” which corresponds to the claimed “depending on the hardness of the excavation object” as discussed above in claim 9).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanamoto et al. (Pat. No.: 5,178,510; hereinafter Hanamoto).
Regarding independent claim 1, HanaHanamoto discloses a work machine comprising:
a work device (3,4,5) having a work implement (See Fig. 2);
hydraulic actuators (6,7,8) for driving the work device;
a hydraulic pump;
a control valve (44) for controlling a flow rate of a hydraulic fluid supplied from the hydraulic pump to the hydraulic actuators (as disclosed in col. 14, lns. 4-14); and
a controller (20) configured to calculate a target locus for a control point on the work implement and control the control valve such that the control point moves on the target locus (See col. 8, lns. 51-52 where it discloses “a locus of excavation for the front edge of the bucket as shown in Fig. 4 is set” the disclosed locus of excavation and the bucket front edge corresponding to the claimed target locus and control point respectively),
wherein the controller is configured to
calculate a target locus passing through an excavation starting position (P1 as seen in Fig. 8) where the control point is positioned when an excavation is started,
an excavation-in-progress position (P8 as seen in Fig. 9) where the control point is positioned when the excavation is in progress, and
an excavation finishing position (P20 as seen in Fig. 9) where the control point is positioned when the excavation is finished, and
a target posture for the work implement at a time where the control point moves on the target locus, on a basis of information on a gradient of an excavation surface (See Fig. 6 and col. 9, lns. 51-62 where it discloses “a tilt angle of topography is estimated from the position relationship between the detected position to start excavation and predetermined point which has been previously been set, the above-described circular-arc locus is rotated in accordance with the tilt angle, and automatic excavation in according with the rotated circular-art locus is performed”), and
control the control valve (44) such that the control point moves on the target locus and that a posture of the work implement at the time where the control point moves on the target locus matches the target posture (See step 110 in Fig. 13 and col. 14, lns. 43-54 for corresponding disclosure of step 110).
Figures 6 and 9 of Hanamoto has been reproduced below for immediate reference to the above claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image3.png
752
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hanamoto discloses the work machine of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the excavation-in-progress position (P8) is a maximum excavation depth position that is deepest from a ground surface on the target locus (See Fig. 9 where P8 is at a maximum depth position).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ono (Pat. No.: 6,209,232); Tsukamoto (Pub. No.: 2018/0313062); Kamada (Pat. No.: 5,446,982); and, Kami (Pub. No.: 2016/0244950). Additional references cited can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights