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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on June 11, 2026. Claims 1-4 & 6-8 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims on June 11, 2026 have overcome the specification objection, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, and the prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 1-4, filed June 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 & 6-8 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2022/0010519 A1 to Izumikawa.
In the interview filed July 27, 2026, the applicant requested the examiner to propose potential allowable subject matter in the specification. However, the examiner is unable to find any potential allowable subject matter after looking at the specification and drawings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2023-044478, filed on March 20, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0010519 A1, to Izumikawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Izumikawa discloses An excavator ([0027] & Fig. 1, Izumikawa discloses an excavation machine (i.e. excavator)) comprising: a lower traveling body ([0028], Izumikawa discloses a lower traveling body);
an upper rotating body that is rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body ([0029], Izumikawa discloses an upper revolving body which installed on the lower traveling body);
an attachment that is attached to the upper rotating body, and includes a boom, an arm, and a bucket ([0030], Izumikawa discloses an attachment with a boom, arm, and a bucket); and
a controller configured to generate a target surface, based on a current value of an angle of the bucket, each time the angle of the bucket changes as the bucket moves ([0144] & Fig. 8A, Izumikawa discloses a target surface TS which changes from the horizontal part HS to the tilt part SL (i.e. based on current value of an angle of the bucket) as the bucket changes angle (i.e. change as the bucket moves)), and
derive, based on data on the generated target surface, a target trajectory that the bucket follows to move along the generated target surface ([0113], Izumikawa discloses deriving the target trajectory based on target surface data).
Regarding Claim 2, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a primary command value for moving a primary element among the boom, the arm, and the bucket included in the attachment, in accordance with an operation by an operator (0115]- [0119], Izumikawa discloses an operator performing an operation (i.e. primary command) allowing the boom, arm and bucket to move); and
generate a secondary command value for moving a secondary element among the boom, the arm, and the bucket included in the attachment, in accordance with movement of the primary element, such that a working part of the bucket moves along the target surface ([0148] & Fig. 8b, Izumikawa discloses a series of control values (i.e. secondary command) of the teeth (i.e. working part) of the bucket moving along the target surface).
Regarding Claim 3, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the target surface is a plane having a certain angle relative to a back surface of the bucket that serves as a reference plane ([0122] & [0144], Izumikawa discloses reference points, Pa & Pb, which is the back face of the bucket used to determine the position (i.e. angle) relative to the target surface (i.e. plane)wherein the target surfaces are generated from the control reference points Pa & Pb).
Regarding Claim 4, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to set the target surface based on the certain angle and the angle of the bucket that is observed when an operation that commands setting of the target surface is received ([0124], Izumikawa discloses when the switch NS is being pressed and the left operation level, 26L, is being operated, the target surface is derived from point Pa on the teeth of the bucket).
Regarding Claim 7, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to move a working part of the bucket along a preset design surface in response to determining that the working part of the bucket is within a certain distance from the preset design surface, the preset design surface being different form the target surface ([0144] & Fig. 8A, Izumikawa discloses that when a bucket is moving along the target surface, HS, and senses a new surface (i.e. target working surface), SL, the bucket changes its course to move along the new target working surface).
Regarding Claim 8, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to generate a plane having a certain angle relative to a reference plane of the bucket and set the generated plane as the target surface ([0152], When determining the target surface, Izumikawa discloses positioning a shovel on a horizontal plane and calculates control values, PaL and PbL which are used to determine if the shovel is on a tilted plane (i.e. having a certain angle to the reference plane of the bucket)).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0010519 A1, to Izumikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0315120 A1, to Hyder.
Regarding Claim 6, as shown above, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 3,
However, Izumikawa does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to acquire the certain angle entered from a touch panel.
Hyder, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the controller is further configured to acquire the certain angle entered from a touch panel ([0057], Hyder teaches a touch display which an angle of a bucket can be manually input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the target surface setting excavator of Izumikawa with the angle input display of Hyder in order to control the bucket angle on any plane (Hyder [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights