DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 14 are original. Claims 4-6, 8, 11-13, and 15-20 are amended.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 2/23/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/23/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 7 under the heading “I. Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 7 under the heading “II. Rejections of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the double patenting (presented on p. 7 under the heading “III. Double Patenting Rejection”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 (presented on p. 8-10 under the heading “IV. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 9) state that Publication US2015/0308081A1 (Takaura et al.) at [0061] describes raising of the boom in response to the distance between the cutting edge and design surface being within a reference value, and not based on a determination that a requested movement will cause the bucket to invade a design surface. The office respectfully disagrees. Takaura et al. at [0061] recites:
“when an instruction for operating arm 7 is detected based on output of the arm operation signal by arm operation detecting unit 42B in the state where the distance between cutting edge 8 a of bucket 8 and the design surface is within a reference value, operation restricting unit 211 executes the operation restriction control for forcibly raising boom 6 when it is expected that cutting edge 8 a will invade the design surface”
The office believes it to be clear that [0061] recites two different conditions being present, 1) a state where the distance between cutting edge and design surface is within a reference value, and 2) when it is expected that cutting edge will invade the design surface. The determination of condition 2) is the determination that the requested movement will cause the bucket to move below a desired grade, as claimed in the limitation in question. The arguments state that Takaura et al. does not recite a requested movement or effect of the requested movement. However, the expectation that the cutting edge will invade the design surface is stated to be in response to when the “instruction for operating arm 7” is detected. The office therefore maintains that Takaura et al. reads on the limitation, and the rejections are 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.
(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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publication US2015/0308081A1 (Takaura et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Takaura et al. discloses a method (see [0039, 0051] functions performed by controller 20 as microcomputer, running stored programs) comprising:
determining a position of a bucket (see [0060] acquiring current position of cutting edge 8a) of an excavator (see Figure 1, edge 8a of bucket 8 of excavator);
receiving input (see [0061] arm operation signal from 42B) requesting movement of a stick of the excavator (see Figures 1, 6, [0029] arm 7 being the stick);
determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below a desired grade (see [0061] determine when it is expected that cutting edge 8a will invade the design surface [0042] with goal of preventing deeper cutting, i.e. invading being below); and
in response to determining that the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade:
actuating a boom of the excavator (see [0061] executes the operation restriction control for forcibly raising boom 6) to prevent the bucket from moving below the desired grade (see [0061] for moving design surface, [0042] preventing deeper cut).
Regarding Claim 2, Takaura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
actuating the stick (see [0061] automatic control (profile control) for moving cutting edge 8 a of bucket 8 along the design surface is executed, which [0076] operates the arm) according to the input requesting movement of the stick of the excavator (see [0061] based on the arm operation signal).
Regarding Claim 3, Takaura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the actuating of the boom of the excavator results in an upward movement of the boom (see [0061] forcibly raising boom 6) according to movement of the boom required to prevent the bucket from moving below the desired grade (see [0057] boom operation signal, i.e. particular movement, [0061] raising boom required when cutting edge will invade design surface, [0042] in order to prevent deeper cut) in response to movement of the stick (see [0061, 0076] in response to arm movement occurring for profile control).
Regarding Claims 8-10 and 15-17: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 8-10 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 15-17 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 8-10 and 15-17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1-3, other than the recitation of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium (which has been mapped at the beginning of Claim 1) , and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2015/0308081A1 (Takaura et al.) in view of Published Application US2019/0226181A1 (Imura et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Takaura et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data from a plurality of site sensors;
receiving excavator location information;
determining a current state of the site based on the data from the plurality of site sensors; and
determining a location of the excavator on the site based on the excavator location information,
wherein the determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade is based on the location of the excavator, the current state of the site, and the desired grade.
However, Imura et al. teaches a method for operating an excavator controller (see Figure 14, [0081]), for preventing digging below a desired grade (see [0088] S160 boom pilot pressure is corrected for boom raising, such that [0091] the bucket claw tip moves along target surface 60) comprising
receiving data from a plurality of site sensors (see [0093] S200 topographic data input from topography calculating section 43 m which [0067] uses topographic measurement device 96 which [0044] can be stereo cameras on the excavator (two sensors for the work site));
receiving excavator location information (see [0060] a GNSS receiver can be used for excavator position);
determining a current state of the site based on the data from the plurality of site sensors (see [0044, 0093] the topographic measurement device 96 to measure nearby topography, the current state at S200); and
determining a location of the excavator on the site based on the excavator location information (see [0060] the target surface corresponding to the excavator position determined (the global coordinates the same coordinates used for 3D target surface data (the work site)),
wherein the determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade (see [0086], S140, boom pilot pressure obtained, based on calculations from S120 wherein [0083] boom pilot pressure calculating section 43 n determines boom pilot pressure is necessary when the claw tip (bucket) intersects the target surface 60 (desired grade) and [0087] S150 determining when the pressure is not 0 (i.e. the determination at S150 being a determination of whether the bucket will move below the grade (when boom pilot pressure is not 0) or will not (when boom pilot pressure is zero)) is based on the location of the excavator (see [0082] based on previous step S110 wherein target surface is calculated based on information from the target surface setting device 51, including [0060] excavator position), the current state of the site (see Figure 14, [0096] repeated control cycles, i.e. the determining of S150 in a present cycle is based on the previous cycle including the state of the site as determined in previous step S200), and the desired grade (see [0082] target surface 60 obtained in S110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of Takaura et al. to be further based on the received site and excavator data as taught by Imura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the excavator to respond to immediate and changing site conditions and improve accuracy by reducing accumulation of errors (see Imura et al., [0008-0009]).
Regarding Claim 5, Takaura et al. discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade (see [0061] cutting edge 8 a will invade the design surface based on arm operation) is further based on an arc the stick will sweep (see Figure 4, [0053], operation of arm 7 is rotation changing angle θ2, i.e. arm operation indicates arc the stick will sweep) in response to the input requesting movement of the stick (see [0061]).
Regarding Claim 6, Takaura et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 5, wherein the determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade is further based on a comparison between the arc the stick will sweep in response to the input requesting the movement of the stick and the desired grade.
However, Imura et al. teaches the method as above,
wherein the determining whether the requested movement of the stick will cause the bucket to move below the desired grade is further based on a comparison between the arc the stick will sweep in response to the input requesting the movement of the stick and the desired grade (see [0083] based on pilot pressures from boom pilot pressure calculating section 43 n, further exemplified in Figure 9, [0070-0072] including finding an intersection of arc Tr1 and target surface 60, i.e. comparing the positions of the arc and the desired grade (target surface)).
The motivation to combine Takaura et al. and Imura et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7, Takaura et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 6, wherein the arc the stick will sweep in response to the input requesting movement of the stick is determined based on a position of the boom and a position of the bucket.
However, Imura et al. teaches the method as above,
wherein the arc the stick will sweep in response to the input requesting movement of the stick is determined based on a position of the boom (see [0071] the arc based on a pivot center Ca1, a position of the pivot center on the boom) and a position of the bucket (see Figure 9, [0071] a position of the bucket claw tip P1 to calculating the arc of the bucket claw tip).
The motivation to combine Takaura et al. and Imura et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 11-14 and 18-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 4-7. Claims 11-14 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 4-7, respectively. Claims 18-20 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 4-6, respectively. Claims 11-14 and 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 4-7, other than the recitation of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium (which has been mapped at the beginning of Claim 1) , and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669