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 Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on December 22, 2025. Claims 1-19 and 22 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are amended, claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 22 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-12 filed December 22, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, the arguments and amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, but they are not persuasive. The basic elements of the invention are merely data gathering or presenting information with insignificant extra solution activity in the further limitations. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/USC 103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The term loading place is not defined in the specification it is unclear how to interpret the claims as a result of the amended limitation in claim 1 including in a case where the work content indicates work of compacting the target object at a loading place, the threshold value is set in accordance with a strength of the loading place.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 8 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 8 recites the limitations of (acquiring, determining, and transmitting):
a contact determination system comprising:
at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an acquisition means for process of acquiring information pertaining to a position of at least one movable part among one or more movable parts provided in a work machine from one or more sensors of the work machine and information pertaining to work content of the work machine and a target object on which the work machine carries out work; and
a setting process of setting, in accordance with the work content and the target object,
a threshold value concerning an amount of change in the position of the at least one movable part that serves as a criterion on which to determine contact between the work machine and the target object, the amount of change being specified in accordance with the information pertaining to the position, and
a time period, concerning the amount of change, that serves as the criterion on which to determine contact between the work machine and the target object;
a determination process of carrying out determination of contact between the work machine and the target object on a basis of a result of a comparison between an amount of change in the position and the threshold value and transmitting, based on the determination of contact between the work machine and the target object, a signal to a controller of the work machine to control movement of the work machine, wherein
the criterion for the determination of contact includes that the amount of change in the position is equal to or less than the threshold value in the time period, and
in a case where the work content indicates work of compacting the target object at a loading place, the threshold value is set in accordance with a strength of the loading place.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally acquire information pertaining to the position of a work machine and determine if it makes contact with a target object based on the movement of the work machine.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “processor” multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “transmitting, based on the determination of contact between the work machine and the target object, a signal to a controller of the work machine to control movement of the work machine”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Transmitting a signal to control the movement does not guarantee the movement is actively controlled. it could be mere instructions to the operator.
Claims 1, 15, and 22 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, and 16 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or in alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al., US 2022/0333338 Al (Hereinafter, “Hayakawa”).
Regarding Claims 1,8, 15, and 22, Hayakawa discloses a contact determination system
comprising: at least one processor (4061), the at least one processor carrying out: See at least [0047], “Usable as the controller 100 is, for example, a computer including a computation processing device 4061 such as a CPU.”
an acquisition means for process of acquiring information pertaining to a position of at least one movable part among one or more movable parts provided in a work machine See at least Fig.3 and [0043], “Position data in the machine body coordinate system of freely-selected monitoring points on the work device 1A can be computed from … the respective front implement members 2, 3, and 4.”
from one or more sensors of the work machine and information pertaining to work content of the work machine and a target object on which the work machine carries out work; and See at least [0046], “FIG. 3 is a system configuration diagram of the hydraulic excavator 1 … includes the controller 100, the plurality of pressure sensors 19, the plurality of operation amount sensors 20, the target surface data input device 21 (work content), the present-condition terrain profile data (target object).” And [0072], “As depicted in FIG. 20, the determined operation includes (a) an excavating operation … (b) a tamping operation … (c) a bumping operation.”
a setting process of setting, in accordance with the work content and the target object, See at least [0072], “ Next, the partial shape data generating section 4023 determines an operation(work content) of the work device 1A on the basis of the computed target surface distance (target object) and the computed operation amounts. As depicted in FIG. 20, the determined operation) includes (a) an excavating operation … (b) a tamping operation … (c) a bumping operation.”
(i) a threshold value concerning an amount of change in the position of the at least one movable part that serves as a criterion on which to determine contact between the work machine and the target object, the amount of change being specified in accordance with the information pertaining to the position, See at least [0077], “ground contact region Ga2 which is a predetermined region (threshold value) including at least the rear end of the bottom surface of the bucket (see FIG. 19) … As depicted in FIG. 20(b), the partial shape data generating section 4023 generates the movement locus (change in position) 63 from time t0 to t1 of the monitoring point Mp2 as the partial shape data 65.”
and (ii) a time period, concerning the amount of change, that serves as the criterion on which to determine contact between the work machine and the target object; See at least [0077], “the partial shape data generating section 4023 generates the movement locus 63 from time t0 to t1 of the monitoring point Mp2 as the partial shape data 65.”
a determination means for process of carrying out determination of contact between the work
machine and a target object on a basis of a result of a comparison between the amount of change in
the position and the threshold value; See at least [0088], “In S178, the partial shape data generating
section 4023 generates the partial shape data 65 on the basis of the movement locus 63 (change in
position) of the monitoring point belonging to the ground contact region (threshold) decided in S177 or
the second external shape 62 (see FIG. 20), and outputs the generated partial shape data 65.” And
[0089], “FIG. 17, the position information of the monitoring points Mpm set to the bucket 4 is obtained
when it is determined in S173 that the bucket 4 is in the ground contact state.”
transmitting, based on the determination of contact between the work machine and the target object, a signal to a controller of the work machine to control movement of the work machine, See at least [0104], “in FIG. 15, the whole of data to … partial shape data 65A and 65B … can be adopted as terrain profile data. “ And [0106], “the present-condition terrain profile data generating section 4032, generates progress management information … in a specified period, … position information of a part … and presents the generated information to a user including the operator of the hydraulic excavator 1 via the monitor 405 … also a device such as a smart phone, a tablet, or a personal computer that is present outside the hydraulic excavator 1.”
wherein the criterion for the determination of contact includes that the amount of change in the position is equal to or less than the threshold value in the time period; And [0107], “The hydraulic excavator 1 configured as described above generates the partial shape data 65 on the basis of the external shapes 61 and 62 (threshold) and the movement loci 63(change in position) defined by the positions of the monitoring points Mpm in a period in which the work device 1A is in contact with the ground (in the ground contact period).”
in a case where the work content indicates work of compacting the target object at a loading place, the threshold value is set in accordance with a strength of the loading place. See at least [0063], “An appropriate value is set as the threshold value used for the ground contact determination in consideration of the hardness of the ground … the threshold value may be set as a function of an X-coordinate in the machine body coordinate system.“ Also [0077], “operation determination is the tamping operation (compacting) … a second ground contact region Ga2 (threshold) which is a predetermined region.”
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Hayakawa discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1, 8, and 15:
wherein the at least one processor (4061) further comprising carries out a calculation means for process of calculating the amount of change in the position. See at least [0047], “controller 100 is, for example, a computer including a computation processing device 4061 such as a CPU.“ In [0059], “The lengths and angles of the parts are depicted in FIG. 5 … Equations 5, 6, and 7 are the masses of the boom 2, the arm 3, and the bucket 4, gz is a Z-axis direction component in the machine body coordinate system of gravity acceleration, α′, β′, and γ′ are angular velocities of the boom 2, the arm 3, and the bucket 4, and fbm, fam, and fbk are functions for calculating inertial forces on the basis of the angular velocities of the boom 2, the arm 3, and the bucket 4.”
Regarding Claim 6 and 13, Hayakawa discloses the following limitation dependent on claims 1 and 8:
wherein the at least one movable part is any movable part selected from the group consisting of a first movable part connected to a main body of the work machine, a second movable part connected to the first movable part, and a third movable part connected to the second movable part, and in the acquisition means process, the at least one processor acquires information pertaining to a rotational position of the at least one movable part. See at least [0049], “The work implement posture computing section 4011 receives sensor values of the boom angle sensor 12, the arm angle sensor 13, and the bucket angle sensor 14 as input, and computes the rotation angles α, β, and γ (see FIG. 2) of the boom 2, the arm 3, and the bucket 4 as posture information of the work device 1A. Angle data computed here can be used as posture data of the work device 1A.”
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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa, in view of Kanemitsu et al., US2016/0348343A1 (Hereinafter, “Kanemitsu”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose trajectory controls. However, Kanemitsu teaches the following limitations dependent on claim 1 and 8:
wherein the at least one processor further comprising carries out an action control means for process of generating a target trajectory of the at least one movable part among the one or more movable parts, the target trajectory extending deep into the target object below a surface of the target object when viewed from the at least one movable part. In [0091], “The work device controller 26 performs control so that the speed in the direction in which the work device 2 approaches the excavation target becomes equal to or less than the limit speed so as to suppress abrasion of the target excavation topography by the bucket 8. This control will be referred to as an excavation control as necessary. The excavation control is a control for making the speed in the direction in which the work device 2 approaches the excavation target to be equal to or less than the limit speed while calculating the relative position of the work device 2 and the excavation target on the basis of the bucket blade end position data S and the target excavation topographical data U obtained from the display controller 28”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Hayakawa’s device with the target trajectory limitations disclosed in Kanemitsu with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a device capable of continuously controlling the work device in an appropriate manner, see Kanemitsu [0007].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669