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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1-4 & 6-8 are currently pending. Claim 8 is new.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims on December 23, 2025 have overcome the claim objection, two of the three specification objections, However, one specification objection is unresolved and is maintained. The prior art rejection is also maintained for the reasons started in the Response to Arguments section below. A new 35 USC 112(a) new matter rejection is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that since the current value of an angle of the bucket is not disclosed in Izumikawa because [0124]-[0125] of Izumikawa discloses that the target surface is derived from design data rather than the real-time angle of the bucket. While this is true, in [0113] also states that “the trajectory obtaining unit 30B may derive the target trajectory, based on information on the landform in the surroundings of the shovel 100 recognized by the space recognition device 70. Alternatively, the trajectory obtaining unit 30B may derive information on trajectories of the teeth end of the bucket 6 in the past from the output of the position detection device in the past stored in the volatile storage device, and based on the information, derive the target trajectory. Alternatively, the trajectory obtaining unit 30B may derive the target trajectory, based on the current position of the predetermined part of the attachment and the design data”. For this reason, the 35 USC 102 rejection is maintained.
The applicant also argues that Izumikawa does not disclose “chang[ing] the generated target surface in accordance with a change in the angle of the bucket as the angle of the bucket changes while the bucket moves” due to Izumikawa disclosing that the angle of the bucket changes as a result of the target surface changing rather than the other way around required by claim 5 of the instant application. While this is true, in context of the [0144]-[0147], the examiner interprets it differently. Since the change in target surface from HS to SL does not occur until after the third point in time in both Fig. 8A & Fig. 8B, the invention of Izumikawa which creates a second control value (e.g. AR12b) to create a resultant value (e.g. AR12) based on the two reference points, Pa2 & Pb2. Therefore, when Fig. 8A and Fig. 8B are compared, the change of bucket angle which occurs happens prior to the change in target surface occurring. The examiner would like to point to the following sentence of “In a strict sense, the autonomous control unit 30C can change the position of the teeth end of the bucket 6 prior to the change in the target surface TS. As a result, immediately after the third point of time, the autonomous control unit 30C can prevent the teeth end of the bucket 6 from cutting into the target surface TS.” which seems to describe that the position of the teeth end of the bucket (i.e. angle) is changed before there is a change in the target surface to prevent cutting into the target surface. For this reason the rejection is maintained.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner believes the sentence “With reference to FIG. 9, a case will be described in which a plane G3 is set in advance as a design surface G3” should be referring to FIG. 10 rather than FIG. 9 since plane G3 is not in figure 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 & 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendments for Claim 1 filed on December 23, 2025 recites …the target surface being a flat surface… however, while there is mention of land levelling after the excavator has done work, there is no mention in the specification requiring the target surface to be flat.
The new Claim 8 recites …generate a flat surface having a certain angle relative to a reference plane of the bucket and set the generated flat surface as the target surface. However, while there is mention of land levelling after the excavator has done work, there is no mention of requiring a flat surface to have a certain angle to a reference plane
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 (Izumikawa [0027] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Izumikawa discloses an excavation machine (i.e. excavator)) comprising: a lower traveling body (Izumikawa [0028], Examiner Note: Izumikawa discloses a lower traveling body);
an upper rotating body that is rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body (Izumikawa [0029], Examiner Note: 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 (Izumikawa [0030], Examiner Note: 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, the target surface being a flat surface (Izumikawa [0124]-[0125], Examiner Note: Izumikawa discloses determining a target surface by using the angle of the bucket, γt1. [0152] discloses the target surface being flat),
and change the generated target surface in accordance with a change in the angle of the bucket as the angle of the bucket changes while the bucket moves (Izumikawa [0148] & Fig. 8b, Examiner Note: Izumikawa discloses a the control surface changing when the angle of the bucket changes (i.e. Pa2 Pb2 compared to Pa3 Pb3).
Regarding Claim 2, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is 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 (Izumikawa [0115]- [0119], Examiner Note: 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 (Izumikawa [0148] & Fig. 8b, Examiner Note: 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 has a certain angle relative to a back surface of the bucket that serves as a reference plane (Izumikawa [0122], Examiner Note: 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Izumikawa discloses The excavator according to claim 3, wherein the controller is 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 (Izumikawa [0124], Examiner Note: 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 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 (Izumikawa [0144] & Fig. 8A, Examiner Note: 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 configured to generate a flat surface having a certain angle relative to a reference plane of the bucket and set the generated flat surface as the target surface (Izumikawa [0152], Examiner Note: When determining the target surface, Izumikawa discloses positioning a shovel on a flat ground and calculates control values, PaL and PbL which are used to determine if the shovel is tilted (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 configured to acquire the certain angle entered from a touch panel.
Hyder, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire the certain angle entered from a touch panel (Hyder [0057], Examiner Note: 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
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 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 3666
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669