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
Claims 1-7 filed on 02/12/2024 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 8-9 have been added as new claims to the claim set. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 5 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 11/26/2025, with respect to Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) stating “… Applicant has amended claims 1 and 7 to address the issues raised in the Office Action. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite the control device comprising[] a processor, and claim 7 has been amended to recite the control system comprising[] a processor. See Specification at [0029]. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)…” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 5-7 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 5-7, and their corresponding dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. 103 stating “… amended independent claim 1, 5, and 7 each recite, among other things, that the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member. Similarly, independent claim 6 has been amended to recite, among other things, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restricting driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member. The cited references fail to describe or otherwise render obvious at least these features… a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led, absent impermissible hindsight gleaned from the present application, to somehow modify Izumikawa to include the features of amended claims 1 and 5-7… The other cited references fail to remedy the deficiencies of Izumikawa discussed above… the cited references, either alone or in proper combination, fail to describe or otherwise render obvious all of the features of amended independent claims 1 and 5-7. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 and its dependent claims, as well as amended independent claims 5-7, are in condition for allowance…” have been considered but are moot due to the amendments and added limitations provided above. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Igarashi et al. US 20220186459 A1 (“Igarashi”).
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the prior art of record: in order to overcome the prior art of record, applicant can amend claims 1 and 5-7 as follows:
1. “wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, stop driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member”
5. “wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, stop driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member”
6. “based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, stopping driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member”
7. “wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, stop driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa WO 2016158779 A1 (“Izumikawa”) in view of Ogawa et al. US 20130103247 A1 (“Ogawa”) and Igarashi et al. US 20220186459 A1 (“Igarashi”).
For claim 1, Izumikawa discloses a control device (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) of a work machine that includes (i) work equipment including a first member, a second member, and a work tool, and (ii) a swing body supporting the work equipment (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment. The upper swing body 3 is mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel via the turning mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. As the end attachment, a slope bucket, a weir bucket or the like may be used…”), the control device comprising:
a processor (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) configured to perform an automatic loading control of holding a posture of the work tool in a target posture and moving a position of the work tool up to a target position (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…When the bucket 6 approaches the digging target surface and the tip of the bucket 6 reaches the tilt control start surface (tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4), automatic control of the tilt angle of the bucket 6 is started. When automatic control of the tilt angle is performed, the tilt angle is adjusted so that the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 becomes parallel to the target line TL... When the digging operation is finished and the toe of the bucket 6 moves to the outside (upper side in FIG. 4…”), and
wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…While the bucket 6 is positioned between the tilt control start surface (the tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4) and the excavation target surface … Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface … when the position of the bucket 6 is lower than the tilt control start line CL, the operation of the hydraulic actuator to be operated is restricted even if the operator operates the swing operation or the boom, arm, bucket, etc… The angle between the toe line 6a and the drilling target surface is maintained at a predetermined angle or less… Thereby, it is possible to limit the speed of the turning operation or the operation of the boom, the arm, the bucket and the like…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range.
However, Ogawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (See at least [0038] – “… the driving controller 120 checks the posture of the bucket when an automated task is started. When the checked results show that the posture of the bucket is similar to a reference posture, the driving unit 140 is controlled so that driving trajectory data will be followed at the time of an operator's selection. Conversely, when the posture of the bucket differs largely from the reference posture, the driving controller 120 changes the posture of the bucket. The driving controller 120 changes the angle of bucket to a reference bucket angle at the time of the operator's selection, in consideration of the current bucket angle…” and [0041] of Ogawa – “… To describe in detail a case in which the bucket angle is preset at 10.degree. by the work trajectory controlling device 100, during automated excavating, the driving controller 120 compares a preset bucket angle (for example, 10.degree.) to the current bucket angle, and controls the driving unit 140 to move the bucket cylinder when the current bucket angle exceeds the preset angle, so that the bucket angle falls within the preset angle…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Ogawa teaches an excavator system that compares a current angle of the bucket with reference angle when an automated task is started and controls the angle of bucket to be within the reference angle when the current bucket angle exceeds the reference angle to determine a driving trajectory for the excavator.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the automated task from being performed inefficiently due to an improper posture of the work device when the automated task is begun as specified in at least [0016] of Ogawa.
Furthermore, Izumikawa also fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member.
However, Igarashi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member (See at least [0071] of Igarashi – “… The velocity limit calculating section 42D calculates respective velocity limits (limit values for elongation velocities) for the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 … so that the work implement 1A will not excavate soil beyond the target excavation surface … the primary target velocity of one or more of the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 is restrictively corrected such that a component Vcy of the target velocity vector Vc that is perpendicular to the target excavation surface St will be closer to zero as the bucket 10 is lowered to make the target surface distance H1 closer to zero… In this manner, the bucket claw tip is held in an area above the target excavation surface St such that the bucket claw tip will not enter an area below the target excavation surface…” Examiner notes that the system restricts the target velocity of at least one of the boom, the arm, and the bucket which includes the embodiment where the target velocity of the arm is restricted while the target velocities of the boom and bucket are not restricted). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Igarashi teaches a system for an excavator that is capable of limiting the velocity of the arm member while not restricting the velocities of the boom and bucket as the bucket is lowered to a target excavation surface.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member as taught by Igarashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the bucket claw tip from entering an area below the target excavation surface as specified in at least [0071] of Igarashi.
For claim 3, Izumikawa discloses wherein the automatic loading control is started in response to a predetermined input operation to a predetermined input device (See at least page 9 of Izumikawa – “…an automatic tilt switch 26D for inputting ON / OFF of the bucket tilt automatic control is attached to the tip of the lever 26A, 26B … only when there is a command from the operator, the communication command may be output to the switching valve D8 to enable automatic bucket tilt control…”).
For claim 5, Izumikawa discloses a work machine (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment…”) comprising:
work equipment including a first member, a second member, and a work tool (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment. The upper swing body 3 is mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel via the turning mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. As the end attachment, a slope bucket, a weir bucket or the like may be used…”);
a swing body supporting the work equipment (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment. The upper swing body 3 is mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel via the turning mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. As the end attachment, a slope bucket, a weir bucket or the like may be used…”); and
a control device comprising a processor (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) configured to perform an automatic loading control of holding a posture of the work tool in a target posture and moving a position of the work tool up to a target position (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…When the bucket 6 approaches the digging target surface and the tip of the bucket 6 reaches the tilt control start surface (tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4), automatic control of the tilt angle of the bucket 6 is started. When automatic control of the tilt angle is performed, the tilt angle is adjusted so that the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 becomes parallel to the target line TL... When the digging operation is finished and the toe of the bucket 6 moves to the outside (upper side in FIG. 4…”), and
wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…While the bucket 6 is positioned between the tilt control start surface (the tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4) and the excavation target surface … Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface … when the position of the bucket 6 is lower than the tilt control start line CL, the operation of the hydraulic actuator to be operated is restricted even if the operator operates the swing operation or the boom, arm, bucket, etc… The angle between the toe line 6a and the drilling target surface is maintained at a predetermined angle or less… Thereby, it is possible to limit the speed of the turning operation or the operation of the boom, the arm, the bucket and the like…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range.
However, Ogawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (See at least [0038] – “… the driving controller 120 checks the posture of the bucket when an automated task is started. When the checked results show that the posture of the bucket is similar to a reference posture, the driving unit 140 is controlled so that driving trajectory data will be followed at the time of an operator's selection. Conversely, when the posture of the bucket differs largely from the reference posture, the driving controller 120 changes the posture of the bucket. The driving controller 120 changes the angle of bucket to a reference bucket angle at the time of the operator's selection, in consideration of the current bucket angle…” and [0041] of Ogawa – “… To describe in detail a case in which the bucket angle is preset at 10.degree. by the work trajectory controlling device 100, during automated excavating, the driving controller 120 compares a preset bucket angle (for example, 10.degree.) to the current bucket angle, and controls the driving unit 140 to move the bucket cylinder when the current bucket angle exceeds the preset angle, so that the bucket angle falls within the preset angle…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Ogawa teaches an excavator system that compares a current angle of the bucket with reference angle when an automated task is started and controls the angle of bucket to be within the reference angle when the current bucket angle exceeds the reference angle to determine a driving trajectory for the excavator.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture in the automatic loading control, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the automated task from being performed inefficiently due to an improper posture of the work device when the automated task is begun as specified in at least [0016] of Ogawa.
Furthermore, Izumikawa also fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member.
However, Igarashi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member (See at least [0071] of Igarashi – “… The velocity limit calculating section 42D calculates respective velocity limits (limit values for elongation velocities) for the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 … so that the work implement 1A will not excavate soil beyond the target excavation surface … the primary target velocity of one or more of the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 is restrictively corrected such that a component Vcy of the target velocity vector Vc that is perpendicular to the target excavation surface St will be closer to zero as the bucket 10 is lowered to make the target surface distance H1 closer to zero… In this manner, the bucket claw tip is held in an area above the target excavation surface St such that the bucket claw tip will not enter an area below the target excavation surface…” Examiner notes that the system restricts the target velocity of at least one of the boom, the arm, and the bucket which includes the embodiment where the target velocity of the arm is restricted while the target velocities of the boom and bucket are not restricted). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Igarashi teaches a system for an excavator that is capable of limiting the velocity of the arm member while not restricting the velocities of the boom and bucket as the bucket is lowered to a target excavation surface.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member as taught by Igarashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the bucket claw tip from entering an area below the target excavation surface as specified in at least [0071] of Igarashi.
For claim 6, Izumikawa discloses a control method for a work machine (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) that includes (i) work equipment including a first member, a second member, and a work tool, and (ii) a swing body supporting the work equipment (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment. The upper swing body 3 is mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel via the turning mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. As the end attachment, a slope bucket, a weir bucket or the like may be used…”), the control method comprising:
in an automatic loading control of holding a posture of the work tool in a target posture and moving a position of the work tool up to a target position (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…When the bucket 6 approaches the digging target surface and the tip of the bucket 6 reaches the tilt control start surface (tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4), automatic control of the tilt angle of the bucket 6 is started. When automatic control of the tilt angle is performed, the tilt angle is adjusted so that the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 becomes parallel to the target line TL... When the digging operation is finished and the toe of the bucket 6 moves to the outside (upper side in FIG. 4…”), and
based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restricting driving of the second member (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…While the bucket 6 is positioned between the tilt control start surface (the tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4) and the excavation target surface … Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface … when the position of the bucket 6 is lower than the tilt control start line CL, the operation of the hydraulic actuator to be operated is restricted even if the operator operates the swing operation or the boom, arm, bucket, etc… The angle between the toe line 6a and the drilling target surface is maintained at a predetermined angle or less… Thereby, it is possible to limit the speed of the turning operation or the operation of the boom, the arm, the bucket and the like…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, controlling the work tool to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range.
However, Ogawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, controlling the work tool to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (See at least [0038] – “… the driving controller 120 checks the posture of the bucket when an automated task is started. When the checked results show that the posture of the bucket is similar to a reference posture, the driving unit 140 is controlled so that driving trajectory data will be followed at the time of an operator's selection. Conversely, when the posture of the bucket differs largely from the reference posture, the driving controller 120 changes the posture of the bucket. The driving controller 120 changes the angle of bucket to a reference bucket angle at the time of the operator's selection, in consideration of the current bucket angle…” and [0041] of Ogawa – “… To describe in detail a case in which the bucket angle is preset at 10.degree. by the work trajectory controlling device 100, during automated excavating, the driving controller 120 compares a preset bucket angle (for example, 10.degree.) to the current bucket angle, and controls the driving unit 140 to move the bucket cylinder when the current bucket angle exceeds the preset angle, so that the bucket angle falls within the preset angle…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Ogawa teaches an excavator system that compares a current angle of the bucket with reference angle when an automated task is started and controls the angle of bucket to be within the reference angle when the current bucket angle exceeds the reference angle to determine a driving trajectory for the excavator.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, controlling the work tool to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the automated task from being performed inefficiently due to an improper posture of the work device when the automated task is begun as specified in at least [0016] of Ogawa.
Furthermore, Izumikawa also fails to specifically disclose based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restricting driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member.
However, Igarashi, in the same field of endeavor teaches based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restricting driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member (See at least [0071] of Igarashi – “… The velocity limit calculating section 42D calculates respective velocity limits (limit values for elongation velocities) for the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 … so that the work implement 1A will not excavate soil beyond the target excavation surface … the primary target velocity of one or more of the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 is restrictively corrected such that a component Vcy of the target velocity vector Vc that is perpendicular to the target excavation surface St will be closer to zero as the bucket 10 is lowered to make the target surface distance H1 closer to zero… In this manner, the bucket claw tip is held in an area above the target excavation surface St such that the bucket claw tip will not enter an area below the target excavation surface…” Examiner notes that the system restricts the target velocity of at least one of the boom, the arm, and the bucket which includes the embodiment where the target velocity of the arm is restricted while the target velocities of the boom and bucket are not restricted). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Igarashi teaches a system for an excavator that is capable of limiting the velocity of the arm member while not restricting the velocities of the boom and bucket as the bucket is lowered to a target excavation surface.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member as taught by Igarashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the bucket claw tip from entering an area below the target excavation surface as specified in at least [0071] of Igarashi.
For claim 7, Izumikawa discloses a control system of a work machine (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) that includes (i) work equipment including a first member, a second member, and a work tool, and (ii) a swing body supporting the work equipment (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment. The upper swing body 3 is mounted on the lower traveling body 1 of the shovel via the turning mechanism 2. A boom 4 is attached to the upper swing body 3. An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5. As the end attachment, a slope bucket, a weir bucket or the like may be used…”), the control system comprising:
a processor (See at least page 10 of Izumikawa – “… the bucket tilt automatic control … being executed by the machine guidance device 50… the controller 30 or another control device may perform it...”) configured to perform an automatic loading control of holding a posture of the work tool in a target posture and moving a position of the work tool up to a target position (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…When the bucket 6 approaches the digging target surface and the tip of the bucket 6 reaches the tilt control start surface (tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4), automatic control of the tilt angle of the bucket 6 is started. When automatic control of the tilt angle is performed, the tilt angle is adjusted so that the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 becomes parallel to the target line TL... When the digging operation is finished and the toe of the bucket 6 moves to the outside (upper side in FIG. 4…”), and
wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…While the bucket 6 is positioned between the tilt control start surface (the tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4) and the excavation target surface … Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface … when the position of the bucket 6 is lower than the tilt control start line CL, the operation of the hydraulic actuator to be operated is restricted even if the operator operates the swing operation or the boom, arm, bucket, etc… The angle between the toe line 6a and the drilling target surface is maintained at a predetermined angle or less… Thereby, it is possible to limit the speed of the turning operation or the operation of the boom, the arm, the bucket and the like…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range.
However, Ogawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (See at least [0038] – “… the driving controller 120 checks the posture of the bucket when an automated task is started. When the checked results show that the posture of the bucket is similar to a reference posture, the driving unit 140 is controlled so that driving trajectory data will be followed at the time of an operator's selection. Conversely, when the posture of the bucket differs largely from the reference posture, the driving controller 120 changes the posture of the bucket. The driving controller 120 changes the angle of bucket to a reference bucket angle at the time of the operator's selection, in consideration of the current bucket angle…” and [0041] of Ogawa – “… To describe in detail a case in which the bucket angle is preset at 10.degree. by the work trajectory controlling device 100, during automated excavating, the driving controller 120 compares a preset bucket angle (for example, 10.degree.) to the current bucket angle, and controls the driving unit 140 to move the bucket cylinder when the current bucket angle exceeds the preset angle, so that the bucket angle falls within the preset angle…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Ogawa teaches an excavator system that compares a current angle of the bucket with reference angle when an automated task is started and controls the angle of bucket to be within the reference angle when the current bucket angle exceeds the reference angle to determine a driving trajectory for the excavator.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on the posture of the work tool being out of a predetermined range from the target posture, prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the automated task from being performed inefficiently due to an improper posture of the work device when the automated task is begun as specified in at least [0016] of Ogawa.
Furthermore, Izumikawa also fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member.
However, Igarashi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member (See at least [0071] of Igarashi – “… The velocity limit calculating section 42D calculates respective velocity limits (limit values for elongation velocities) for the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 … so that the work implement 1A will not excavate soil beyond the target excavation surface … the primary target velocity of one or more of the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 is restrictively corrected such that a component Vcy of the target velocity vector Vc that is perpendicular to the target excavation surface St will be closer to zero as the bucket 10 is lowered to make the target surface distance H1 closer to zero… In this manner, the bucket claw tip is held in an area above the target excavation surface St such that the bucket claw tip will not enter an area below the target excavation surface…” Examiner notes that the system restricts the target velocity of at least one of the boom, the arm, and the bucket which includes the embodiment where the target velocity of the arm is restricted while the target velocities of the boom and bucket are not restricted). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Igarashi teaches a system for an excavator that is capable of limiting the velocity of the arm member while not restricting the velocities of the boom and bucket as the bucket is lowered to a target excavation surface.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to, based on a height of the work tool being lower than a predetermined threshold in the automatic loading control, restrict driving of the second member while allowing driving of the first member as taught by Igarashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the bucket claw tip from entering an area below the target excavation surface as specified in at least [0071] of Igarashi.
For claim 9, Izumikawa discloses wherein the first member of the work equipment comprises a boom configured to be driven by a boom cylinder (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment… A boom … hydraulically driven by the boom cylinder…”),
wherein the second member of the work equipment comprises a stick configured to be driven by a stick cylinder (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment… An arm 5 …hydraulically driven by …the arm cylinder 8 …”),
wherein the work tool of the work equipment comprises a bucket configured to be driven by a bucket cylinder (See at least page 2 of Izumikawa – “FIG. 1 is a side view of a shovel according to one embodiment…a bucket 6 … hydraulically driven by … the bucket cylinder 9 …”), and
wherein the processor is configured to restrict operation of the stick cylinder (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…While the bucket 6 is positioned between the tilt control start surface (the tilt control start line CL in FIG. 4) and the excavation target surface … Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface … when the position of the bucket 6 is lower than the tilt control start line CL, the operation of the hydraulic actuator to be operated is restricted even if the operator operates the swing operation or the boom, arm, bucket, etc… The angle between the toe line 6a and the drilling target surface is maintained at a predetermined angle or less… Thereby, it is possible to limit the speed of the turning operation or the operation of the boom, the arm, the bucket and the like…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to restrict operation of the stick cylinder while allowing operation of the bucket cylinder.
However, Igarashi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to restrict operation of the stick cylinder while allowing operation of the bucket cylinder (See at least [0071] of Igarashi – “… The velocity limit calculating section 42D calculates respective velocity limits (limit values for elongation velocities) for the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 … so that the work implement 1A will not excavate soil beyond the target excavation surface … the primary target velocity of one or more of the boom cylinder 5, the arm cylinder 6, and the bucket cylinder 7 is restrictively corrected such that a component Vcy of the target velocity vector Vc that is perpendicular to the target excavation surface St will be closer to zero as the bucket 10 is lowered to make the target surface distance H1 closer to zero… In this manner, the bucket claw tip is held in an area above the target excavation surface St such that the bucket claw tip will not enter an area below the target excavation surface…” Examiner notes that the system restricts the target velocity of at least one of the boom, the arm, and the bucket which includes the embodiment where the target velocity of the arm is restricted while the target velocities of the boom and bucket are not restricted). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Igarashi teaches a system for an excavator that is capable of limiting the velocity of the arm member while not restricting the velocities of the boom and bucket as the bucket is lowered to a target excavation surface.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the processor being configured to restrict operation of the stick cylinder while allowing operation of the bucket cylinder as taught by Igarashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the bucket claw tip from entering an area below the target excavation surface as specified in at least [0071] of Igarashi.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa in view of Ogawa and Igarashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. US 20220403623 A1 (“Wu”).
For claim 2, Izumikawa discloses wherein the target posture is a posture suitable for the work tool to load a loading target object (See at least pages 8-9 of Izumikawa – “…Automatic bucket tilt control is continuously performed to make the toe line 6a parallel to the digging target surface… the operator of the shovel can accurately align the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 with the digging target surface without adjusting the angle of the toe line 6a of the bucket 6 relative to the target surface at the time of the digging operation…”).
Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the target position corresponds to a position where the work tool dumps the loading target object.
However, Wu, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the target position corresponds to a position where the work tool dumps the loading target object (See at least [0026] of Wu – “… pushing the linkage 50 forward and resulting in the implement 32 being tilted downwardly in a dump direction (as indicated by arrow 54 in FIG. 1…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Wu teaches a work vehicle system that controls an operation of at least one valve associated with the implement to maintain the implement at a target implement angle as a boom of the lift assembly is being moved across a boom travel range where dumping occurs at the top of the travel range.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of the target position corresponds to a position where the work tool dumps the loading target object as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to pivot the implement in a dumping direction as specified in at least [0043] of Wu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa in view of Ogawa and Igarashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita US 20210002851 A1 (“Morita”).
For claim 8, Izumikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to perform the automatic loading control to load a loading target object from the work tool to a transport vehicle.
However, Morita, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform the automatic loading control to load a loading target object from the work tool to a transport vehicle (See at least Abstract – “… A shovel … according to embodiments of the present invention includes a … a controller … configured to autonomously perform a compound operation …” and Claim 9 of Morita – “… the compound operation is a boom up pivot operation for loading a to-be-loaded object onto a platform of a dump truck, and the controller is configured to autonomously perform the compound operation such that the to-be-loaded objects are loaded in an order from an inner side to an front side of the dump truck…”). Thus, Izumikawa discloses an exaction system that automatically maintains a posture of a bucket to be parallel to a digging target surface when the bucket is positioned between a tilt control start surface and an excavation target surface up until digging operations have been completed and the bucket moves up and above the tilt control start surface, while Morita teaches a system for a shovel that performs an autonomous operation that loads loading target objects in an order onto a platform of a dump truck.
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 control device, work machine, control method, and control system as disclosed in Izumikawa to include the feature of performing the automatic loading control to load a loading target object from the work tool to a transport vehicle as taught by Morita, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to load objects in an order from an inner side to a front side of the dump truck as specified in at least Claim 9 of Morita.
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 MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668