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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed 10/13/2025 in which claims 2 and 12 have been canceled and Claims 1, 11 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 10/13/2025 have overcome both the previous double patenting rejection and the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
First, the Examiner apologies about the typographical error, as the applicant stated the 35 USC 103 rejections is in view of Wei (US 20230392346 A1)
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that:
“Steinlage also fails to disclose scanning data indicative of a work implement portion of the work implement and a body portion of the body. The Examiner refers to Fig. 1 as allegedly disclosing scanning data indicative of a work implement portion of the work implement and a body portion of the body. Applicant respectfully submits that this interpretation is not correct. Fig. 1 illustrates a sensor (40) positioned on the work machine to obtain a field of view (42) toward the work implement (par. [0019]). The field of view may include worksite terrain (par. [0020]), but there is no disclosure of the field of view including a body portion of the work machine. As Steinlage fails to disclose scanning data indicative of a work implement portion of the work implement and a body portion of the body, Steinlage also fails to disclose scanning data indicative of at least one position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body. As explained above, the scanning data in Steinlage does not include any scanning data indicative of a body portion of the body, and, therefore, cannot be indicative of at least position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body. Steinlage explicitly discloses that the sensor is configured to measure a length of each of the plurality of teeth (par. [0019]). Applicant points out that the grade control system of Steinlage relies on knowing the length of each tooth to determine a position of the work implement relative to the terrain of the work site. In other words, Steinlage teaches calibrating a position of the work implement relative to the terrain based on the received length of the cutting portion of the work implement (par. [0007], [0027]), but not in respect to the body portion.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Steinlage discloses a sensor fixed to the linkage assembly that obtains images of the work implement and the surrounding machine structure. Paragraph [0019] of Steinlage discloses that the sensor is positioned on the work machine “to obtain a field of view toward the work implement.” Paragraph [0020] further discloses that the imaging device’s field of view includes not only the work implement, but also the worksite terrain and portions of the machine environment. Paragraph [0018] identifies the work machine structure as including a frame, boom, stick, linkage, and work implement. Paragraphs [0024]-[0026] describe generation of a 3D point cloud map / disparity map from the stereo images, and expressly state that the system measures distances of objects with respect to the environment and to each other.
Thus, the scanning data in Steinlage is not limited solely to the implement itself. It is image-based data from which the system determines the position and geometry of the implement relative to the machine structure and other objects in the field of view.
Applicant’s assertion that Steinlage lacks any disclosure of a “body portion” is unsupported. Steinlage discloses the work machine’s structural components, including: frame 14 ([0017]), boom 24 ([0018]), stick 26 ([0018]), and related linkage components.
These components are parts of the machine body for purposes of the claim. The sensor is mounted on the machine and captures images while the work implement is positioned relative to the boom/stick/frame structure. Accordingly, the scanning data is indicative of a work implement portion and a body portion of the body. Applicant further argues that because Steinlage does not expressly recite a “body portion,” it cannot disclose scanning data indicative of a position of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion. That conclusion is incorrect. Steinlage teaches that: the sensor is fixed to the linkage assembly ([0019], [0021], [0025]), the system generates a 3D cloud map of the worksite, work implement, and objects within view ([0026]), and the grade control system calibrates the position of the work implement based on the measured length of the cutting portion ([0006], [0007], [0035]).
Because the work implement is being measured and calibrated in the context of its position relative to the machine structure and linkage assembly, the scanning data is necessarily indicative of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion.
For at least the reasons above, Steinlage does disclose scanning data indicative of a work implement portion of the work implement and a body portion of the body, as well as scanning data indicative of at least one position of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that:
“Steinlage fails to disclose calibration triggering data comprising a calibration triggering threshold indicative of at least one of a threshold difference between the body portion and the work implement portion controlled to a target position or a
threshold difference from a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion. Steinlage explicitly discloses that the sensors continuously scan the work implement, and when the bucket is considered aligned within the fields of view, the teeth measuring process is started (pars. [0030] and [0031]). However, the threshold relating to when the bucket is considered aligned within the fields of view is not to any threshold indicative of at least one of a threshold difference between the body portion and the work implement portion controlled to a target position or a threshold difference from a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion. Applicant submits that Steinlage further fails to disclose starting a calibration procedure to calibrate the work implement in respect to the body portion and/or cause a signal to a user interface to notify an operator of the mining vehicle of the need for the calibration upon detecting the need for the calibrating.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Steinlage discloses that the grade control calibration process does not begin until the work implement is in a sufficiently known and repeatable position. Specifically: Paragraph [0030] teaches that the work machine’s linkage kinematics are monitored until the values of the linkage kinematic data enter a predetermined threshold. Paragraph [0031] then states that once the threshold values are met, the bucket is considered aligned within the fields of view and the detection/calibration process begins.
This is a classic threshold-based triggering condition. The threshold is not merely arbitrary; it is used to determine when the bucket has reached a sufficiently known position relative to the machine structure so that the system may proceed with measurement and calibration operations. Steinlage’s disclosure of the bucket being “aligned within the fields of view” necessarily corresponds to a target positional condition between the work implement and the machine-mounted sensors, which are fixed relative to the linkage/body structure. The monitored linkage kinematics and sensor field-of-view alignment define the relative positional state used to trigger calibration. Applicant’s argument that Steinlage does not disclose a threshold difference from a target movement range is unpersuasive. Steinlage explicitly discloses that the system monitors the boom, stick, bucket, and positional sensors until the machine reaches a predetermined threshold before beginning the detection process. See [0030]-[0031]. That threshold reflects whether the work implement is within a known allowable positional window for performing measurement and calibration. In other words, the system waits until the implement’s movement and orientation are within the acceptable range necessary for reliable scanning and calibration. Accordingly, Steinlage teaches calibration triggering data that is based on whether the work implement is within an acceptable positional/movement threshold relative to the machine structure.
Applicant’s argument that Steinlage fails to disclose “starting a calibration procedure to calibrate the work implement in respect to the body portion” is also not persuasive.
Steinlage discloses that once the threshold is met:
the imaging devices begin their detection process ([0031]),
the images are analyzed to identify the teeth and other implement features ([0032]),
the detected implement features are compared against stored profile data ([0033]),
the measured lengths are transmitted to the grade controller and the profile is updated ([0034]),
and the grade control system then utilizes the updated length value to accurately position the work implement within the terrain of the worksite ([0035]).
This sequence constitutes a calibration procedure. The system detects when calibration conditions are satisfied, performs measurement of the implement relative to the machine structure, and updates the grade control system accordingly. Thus, Steinlage does disclose initiating a calibration procedure upon detecting the need for calibration.
While Steinlage may not use the exact phrase “user interface notify an operator,” it does disclose system-level action responsive to detected conditions. In particular: measured implement values are transmitted from the vision processing controller to the grade controller ([0034]), the grade control system updates its stored configuration ([0034]), and the system then uses the updated values for accurate positioning ([0035]). These disclosures are sufficient to teach responsive calibration action.
Finally, Applicant submits that there is no disclosure of any kind of calibration triggering data nor processing the scanning data and the calibration triggering data. The Examiner refers to par. [0028] of Wei as allegedly disclosing this feature.
The Examiner disagrees because this paragraph was relied on to teach the claimed “process the scanning data and the calibration triggering data to determine at least one of: if a deviation between the target position and a current position of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold, or if a deviation between the target movement range and a current range of movement of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold” and not the argued limitation.
Wei discloses calibration-triggering data in the form of threshold-based movement criteria: Paragraph [0028] of Wei discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to: detect that the work machine has moved beyond a linear or angular displacement allowed by a threshold boundary from a work location; and provide a compensation control signal responsive to that detection. This threshold boundary is precisely the type of triggering data recited by the claim. In other words, Wei teaches a condition used to determine whether the machine’s current movement state has deviated from an acceptable range. That is functionally the same as calibration-triggering data defining when corrective action should occur. Wei also discloses that the processing circuitry receives machine movement information from sensor circuitry and determines whether unwanted movement will occur based on that information. See, e.g., [0017], [0026], and [0028].
Thus, Wei teaches processing sensed operational data against a threshold condition to determine whether a response is required. Although Wei uses the terminology of “movement information” and “threshold boundary” rather than “scanning data” and “calibration triggering data,” the underlying functional relationship is the same: sensed data is received; the data is compared to a threshold; and responsive action is taken when the threshold condition is met.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Steinlage et al. (USPGPUB No. US 20230340755 A1) hereinafter “Steinlage” in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPUB No. US 20200086482 A1) hereinafter “Johnson”.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Steinlage teaches an apparatus for a mining vehicle comprising a body, an actuator, a work implement, and a scanner, wherein the actuator is connected to the work implement and the body and arranged to change a position of the work implement in respect to the body, and the scanning data is indicative of a work implement portion of the work implement and a body portion of the body (See Steinlage, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to (Steinlage, [0019]), with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive scanning data based on environment scanning performed by the scanner, wherein the scanning data is indicative of at least one position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body; (Steinlage, [0019]-[0020]; [0030], “the sensors 40 may continuously scan the work implement 22 and the environment around the work machine 10 as it moves about the worksite. To begin the calibration of the grade control system, and to properly measure the length L of the teeth 34 of the work implement 22…”)
receive calibration triggering data comprising a calibration triggering threshold indicative of at least one of a threshold difference between the body portion and the work implement portion controlled to a target position or a threshold difference from a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion; (Steinlage, [0021], “…the work machine 10 may further include a grade control calibration system 100 including a vision processing system 200 and a grade control system 300. … configured to detect positional and/or velocity information associated with these components. Such linkage kinematics may be used to assist with calibrating a position of the work implement 22…”)
and upon detecting the need for the calibrating, start a calibration procedure to calibrate the work implement in respect to the body portion and/or cause a signal to a user interface to notify an operator of the mining vehicle of the need for the calibration. (Steinlage, [0030] “As the work machine 10 operates, the sensors 40 may continuously scan the work implement 22 and the environment around the work machine 10 as it moves about the worksite. To begin the calibration of the grade control system, and to properly measure the length L of the teeth 34 of the work implement 22, the entire bucket 30 needs to be within the fields of view 42a, 42b of the left imaging device 40a and the right imaging device 40b. As illustrated in FIG. 5, for example, the bucket 30 is within the fields of view 42a, 42b of the imaging devices 40, with an area of overlap 72.”; [0031]; [0033], “an alert is generated and displayed to the operator of the work machine 10 indicating that the respective non-detected teeth 34, lip shrouds 64 and/or other implement are missing.”)
Steinlage does not appear to expressly teach:
process the scanning data and the calibration triggering data to determine at least one of: if a deviation between the target position and a current position of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold, or if a deviation between the target movement range and a current range of movement of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold; and
detect a need for calibrating the work implement in respect to the body portion in response to the at least one deviation meeting the calibration triggering threshold.
However Wei teaches:
process the scanning data and the calibration triggering data to determine at least one of: if a deviation between the target position and a current position of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold, or if a deviation between the target movement range and a current range of movement of the work implement portion based on the scanning data meets the calibration triggering threshold; (Wei, [0028], “Accordingly, the processing circuitry can determine whether the unwanted movement is large enough to move the work machine 100 outside a threshold range of the original or desired digging location. The threshold range can be defined as, for example, a circular or ellipsoid threshold to the machine center-of-rotation pose, or as a square or rectangular threshold (in directions fore-aft vs side-to-side). Other thresholds may be considered including those that reference machine pitch and roll angles.”) and
detect a need for calibrating the work implement in respect to the body portion in response to the at least one deviation meeting the calibration triggering threshold. (Wei, [0028], “If the unwanted movement is large enough, at operation 308, the processing circuitry can choose a time instant at which to perform compensation or to begin performing compensation, and further select a compensation action.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the grade control calibration system disclosed by Steinlage with the work machine disclosed by Wei with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this to reduce instances or amount of unintentional movement, and to compensate for unintentional movement when such movement occurs. (See Wei [0002])
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to process the scanning data and the calibration triggering data to determine the deviation in response to a control action to move the work implement portion to the target position or perform the target movement range. (Wei, [0028])
Regarding claim 4, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the scanning data is indicative of an obstacle and the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine if the work implement is able to reach the target position or perform the target movement range despite the obstacle. (Wei, [0028])
Regarding claim 5, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 4, Wei further teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to, in response to detecting that the work implement is unable to reach the target position or perform the target movement range due to the obstacle, control a change of the target position or the target movement range, control the mining vehicle to move the work implement to the changed target position or perform the target movement range, and detect a need for calibration based on processing scanning data after moving the work implement to the changed target position or performing the changed target movement range. (Wei, [0029]-[0030])
Regarding claim 6, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Steinlage further teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine, on the basis of processing the scanning data, positional difference between the work implement portion and the body portion; (Steinlage, [0021]) and detect the need for calibrating the work implement on the basis of the determined positional difference and the calibration triggering threshold. (Steinlage, [0021]; [0030])
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Steinlage further wherein the scanning data comprises scanned point cloud data and determining the at least one deviation comprises: receiving reference point cloud data of the work implement portion and the body portion; (Steinlage, [0007]; [0026])
processing the scanned point cloud data and the scanned reference point cloud data to perform a point cloud matching operation to detect the work implement portion and the body portion in the scanned point cloud data; and processing the scanned point cloud data to determine a distance between the detected work implement portion and the body portion in the scanned point cloud data. (Steinlage, [0032]; [0033])
Regarding claim 8, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Steinlage further teaches wherein the scanning data and the calibration triggering data comprise image data, and the processing the scanning data and the calibration triggering data comprises processing the image data to: detect the work implement portion in an image of the scanning data and in a reference image of the calibration triggering data; and determine the deviation based on detected difference of the work implement portion within the image of the scanning data and within the reference image. (Steinlage, [0026]; [0031])
Regarding claim 9, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Steinlage further teaches wherein the calibration triggering data comprises position sensor data from a position sensor of the work implement, the position sensor data being indicative of a position of the work implement in relation to the body portion. (Steinlage, [0021] “the plurality of position sensors 302 are electrohydraulic position sensors associated with hydraulic components (e.g. cylinder or cylinder rods) of the boom 24, the stick 26 and the work implement 22, and configured to detect positional and/or velocity information associated with these components.”)
Regarding claim 10, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the work implement comprises a bucket or platform of a load and/or haul vehicle, and the mining vehicle is configured for autonomous driving and the apparatus is configured to detect the need for calibration during the autonomous driving of the mobile mining vehicle. (Wei, [0019])
Regarding claims 15, Steinlage in combination with Wei teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Steinlage further a computer program comprising code for, which when executed in a data processing apparatus, causes the apparatus to perform the method of claim 11. (Steinlage, [0023])
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 ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832 or email aniss.chad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights