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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1-25 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-162858, filed on 10/01/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-8, 11, and 20-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8, 11, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sakuta Sou et al. (US20210002863A1), hereinafter referred to as Sou, in view of Takaoka Yukahisa et al. (WO2020217977A1), hereinafter referred to as Yukahisa.
Regarding claim 1, Sou discloses: a work machine (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 100, “shovel”) comprising:
a lower traveling body (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 1, “lower traveling body” ¶¶ [0031])
an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body capably of turning (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 3, “upper turning body,” ¶¶ [0032])
a work device attached to the upper turning body capably of performing a work motion (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 6, “working portion,” ¶¶ [0033] which discloses the work device capable of being hydraulically driven to perform a work motion)
Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a controller that executes automatic control of driving of the upper turning body and the work device so as to make the upper turning body and the work device perform a designated motion that is designated in advance (see at least Yukahisa, pg.41, par.3-4, autonomous operation of a work machine by determining a predetermined allowable area based on position data of the machine and its surroundings (to avoid interfering at the worksite) and a restricted area; pg.44, par.1-3, which discloses a controller that executes automatic control)
wherein the controller is configured to revise the designated motion before beginning the execution of automatic control, when determining a restriction target part of the work device will be protruded beyond an allowable area that is preset or there is a possibility that the restriction target part is protruded beyond the allowable area when the upper turning body and the work device performs the designated motion, so as to keep the restriction target part from being protruded beyond the allowable area (see at least Yukahisa, Fig.7, pg.41, par.3-4, autonomous operation of a work machine by determining a predetermined allowable area based on position data of the machine and its surroundings (to avoid interfering at the worksite) and a restricted area; pg.44, par.1-3, which discloses a controller that executes automatic control, par.10-11 discloses an example of predetermining a restriction zone of the work device in a non-allowable area based on position and sensor data, then automatic control is executed to perform the designated motion of excavating, pg.46, par.2-5, this means)
the controller is configured to execute the automatic control so as to make the upper turning body and work device perform the designated motion that has been revised (see at least Yukahisa, Fig.7, pg.41, par.3-4, autonomous operation of a work machine by determining a predetermined allowable area based on position data of the machine and its surroundings (to avoid interfering at the worksite) and a restricted area; pg.44, par.1-3, which discloses a controller that executes automatic control, par.10-11 discloses an example of predetermining a restriction zone of the work device in a non-allowable area based on position and sensor data, then automatic control is executed to perform the designated motion of excavating, pg.46, par.2-5, this means the controller is configured to execute the automatic control so as to make the upper turning body and work device perform the designated motion that has been revised)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sou to include a controller that executes automatic control of driving of the upper turning body and the work device so as to make the upper turning body and the work device perform a designated motion that is designated in advance, wherein the controller is configured to revise the designated motion before beginning the execution of automatic control, when determining a restriction target part of the work device will be protruded beyond an allowable area that is preset or there is a possibility that the restriction target part is protruded beyond the allowable area when the upper turning body and the work device performs the designated motion, so as to keep the restriction target part from being protruded beyond the allowable area, and the controller is configured to execute the automatic control so as to make the upper turning body and work device perform the designated motion that has been revised as taught by Yukahisa. Incorporating this teaching into the base invention of Sou would allow for an improvement to the work environment that prevents the work machine from interfering with excavation in restricted areas during automatic operation.
Regarding claim 2, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to set the allowable area (see at least Sou, Fig.6, ¶¶ [0091], [0102], [0119]-[0120] which discloses the controller able to set an allowable area (a target construction surface and arrangement positions) as well as prohibited areas)
Regarding claim 3, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to set the allowable area based on a plurality of positions at which a predetermined part of the work device can be located (see at least Sou, Fig.6, ¶¶ [0091], [0102], [0119]-[0120] which discloses the controller able to set an allowable area (a target construction surface and arrangement positions) as well as prohibited areas based on a plurality of position at which a predetermined part of the work device can be located)
Regarding claim 4, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to set the allowable area based on information about an ambient condition at a work site (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063] which discloses an obstacle detector (LIDAR) capable of transmitting a signal to the controller which may communicate data indicative of ambient condition (detection of a predetermined object within a region set in the vicinity of the work device); [0140]-[0141] discloses the communication of ambient condition at the work site in order to set designated allowable and restricted areas that the work device may traverse)
Regarding claim 5, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to set the allowable area based on information about the ambient condition that is managed by a management device that manages ambient condition at the work site (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063] which discloses an obstacle detector (LIDAR) capable of transmitting a signal to the controller which may communicate data indicative of ambient condition (detection of a predetermined object within a region set in the vicinity of the work device); [0119]-[0120], [0140]-[0141] discloses the communication managed by the obstacle detector of ambient condition at the work site to the controller in order to set designated allowable and restricted areas that the work device may traverse)
Regarding claim 6, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 4, further comprising an acquisition device that acquires information about an ambient condition of the work site, wherein the controller sets the allowable area based on information about the ambient condition acquired by the acquisition device (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], [0119]-[0120], [0140]-[0141])
Regarding claim 7, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 100, “shovel”) wherein the controller is configured to perform:
controlling driving of the upper turning body and the work device so as to make the restriction target pass through a plurality of target points sequentially to make the upper turning body and work device perform the designated motion (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0040]-[0041], [0144]-[0145], [0152]-[154] which discloses controlling driving the upper turning body and work device to make the restriction target pass through a plurality of target points (predetermined points) to perform the designated motion)
setting a transit point when there is a possibility that the restriction target part of the work device is protruded beyond the allowable area between two target points selected from a plurality of target points in the designated motion that is unrevised between the two target points within the allowable area (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] which discloses setting a transit point, which is a point of transition from an unrevised motion (calculate changes in positional target points via polygon model of a work motion plurality of points) when there is a possibility that the device is protruded beyond the allowable area while performing an unrevised designated motion)
revising the designated motion to make the restriction target pass through the transit point (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134], [0136]-[0141] which discloses the restriction function provided by the controller that determines if the upper device is protruded beyond (entering a prohibited area) an allowable area; ¶¶ [0152], [0157] discloses instances of the work device performing a designated motion to keep the target part out of the allowable area via stopping or slowing and avoidance, this means the work machine includes a controller that can change/revise the designated motion once machine detects the restriction target part within a prohibited area or outside of the allowable area boundaries)
Regarding claim 8, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to set the transit point on a line interconnecting the two target points (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134])
Regarding claim 11, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the work device includes:
a bucket, which includes the restriction target part (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 6, “bucket”)
the designated motion includes an excavation motion for excavating an excavation object with the bucket (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0040]-[0042], [0136]-[0141], [0144]-[0145], which disclose a controller that controls the driving of the upper turning body (shovel) and the work device (working portion) so as to make the components perform a designated motion that is designated (predetermined points) in advance; [0133]-[0134] discloses an excavation motion)
the work machine further comprising:
a height detection device that detects a height of a surface of the excavation object (see at least Sou, Fig.1, Item 503, “height calculating unit,” ¶¶ [0112]-[0114], [0116]-[0118] which discloses a height detecting device that is capable of transmitting data to the controller to allow it detect when the excavation motion of the bucket is at its height limit and outside a permitted zone)
wherein the controller is configured to horizontally shift a region in which the excavation motion is performed, when at least one of a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised is an endpoint that is located at a height equivalent to a height of the surface and outside the allowable area, so as to locate the endpoint in the excavation motion that is revised at a height equivalent to the height of the surface (see at least Sou, [0065]-[0068], [0112]-[0114], [0116]-[0118] which discloses a height detecting device that is capable of transmitting data to the controller to allow it detect when the excavation motion of the bucket is at its height limit and outside a permitted zone, which means that the controller has the ability to horizontally shift the work machine during an excavation motion to revise/correct the motion when at least one start and terminal point exceeds a boundary of an allowable area, passes into a restricted zone)
Regarding claim 20, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to make a notification device notify a revision of the designated motion (see at least Sou ¶¶ [0137]-[0139] which discloses the notification (alarm) of a revision (the restriction process and reorienting) of the designated motion has occurred)
Regarding claim 21, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to stop respective motions of the upper turning body and the work device when judging it difficult to make the upper turning body and the work device perform the revised designated motion (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0095]-[0098], [0137], [0156]-[0157] which discloses stopping the respective motions of the upper turning body and the work device when judging it difficult (to make the upper turning body and the work device perform the revised designated motion)
Regarding claim 22, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a position detection device that detects a coordinate of a position of at least one of the lower traveling body, the upper turning body and the work device in a coordinate system of a work site (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0059] discloses a GPS device able to detect the position of at least one of the lower traveling body, the upper turning body)
wherein the controller is configured to set the allowable area in the coordinate system of the work site and to update the allowable area based on a change in the coordinate of the position detected by the position detection device (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042], [0059] which discloses the ability of the controller to set and update the allowable area and restricted zones in the reference coordinate system of the target construction zone based on a change in position (positional relationship) detected (transmitted) by position detection device)
Regarding claim 23, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the restriction target part is a tip of the work device (see at least Sou, ¶¶ [0109]-[0113])
Regarding claim 24, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to make a motion information display device display information about the designated motion and information about a result of the revision (see at least Sou, Fig.14-17 which discloses instance of the display device providing the prohibited and allowable area setting process; ¶¶ [0091], [0102], [0119]-[0120] which discloses the controller able to set and display on a display device an allowable area (a target construction surface and arrangement positions) as well as prohibited areas based on a plurality of position at which a predetermined part of the work device can be located; [0041] discloses display information about the designated motion (operation of the shove) and correction of a motion)
Regarding claim 25, Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to make the position information display device display information about the allowable area and information about relative positions of the upper and work devices relative to the allowable area (see at least Sou, Fig.14-17 which discloses instance of the display device providing the prohibited and allowable area setting process; ¶¶ [0091], [0102], [0119]-[0120] which discloses the controller able to set and display on a display device an allowable area (a target construction surface and arrangement positions) as well as prohibited areas based on a plurality of position at which a predetermined part of the work device can be located)
Claims 9-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sou in view of Yamanaka Nobuyoshi et al. (US20190186100A1), hereinafter referred to as Nobuyoshi.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to:
set the transit point on a straight line passing through a downstream target point, which is a target point on a downstream side in the designated motion that is unrevised, selected from the two target points (see at least modified Sou, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] which discloses setting a transit point (calculate changes in positional target points via polygon model of a work motion plurality of points) when there is a possibility that the device is protruded beyond the allowable area while performing an unrevised designated motion)
Modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement of the work device when the restriction target part passes through the downstream target point by the designated motion that is unrevised (see at least Nobuyoshi, Fig.4, ¶¶ [0010]-[0015], [0080]-[0087] which discloses the reference straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane (the ground) at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement (predetermined direction of uncorrected movement) of the work device when the restriction target part passes through the downstream target point by the designated motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change modified Sou to include the straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement of the work device when the restriction target part passes through the downstream target point by the designated motion that is unrevised as taught by Nobuyoshi. The examiner would like to note that this disclosure provided by Nobuyoshi is entirely possible in Modified Sou. Specific depictions of the straight line are not as explicitly disclosed in the restriction process but implied as the upper body and work device entering a restricted zone (prohibited area) that enters at an unrevised (uncorrected, predetermined motion) designated motion at an incline or decline angle compared to the flat ground. A more intricate, explicit process of correcting a movement is present in Nobuyoshi. As a whole, the combination of these elements into the base device of Modified Sou achieve the same result of correcting a designated, downstream motion of a work machine to avoid, or maneuver around a restricted area via a point trajectory analysis.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sou discloses:
The work machine according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to: set the transit point on a straight line passing through a downstream target point, which is a target point on a downstream side in the designated motion that is unrevised, selected from the two target points (see at least modified Sou, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] which discloses setting a transit point (calculate changes in positional target points via polygon model of a work motion plurality of points) when there is a possibility that the device is protruded beyond the allowable area while performing an unrevised designated motion)
Modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement of the restriction target part when the work device performs a predetermined work motion (see at least Nobuyoshi, Fig.4, ¶¶ [0010]-[0015], [0080]-[0087] which discloses the reference straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane (the ground) at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement (predetermined direction of uncorrected movement) of the work device when the restriction target part passes through the downstream target point by the designated motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Sou to include the straight line being inclined to a horizontal plane at an angle formed between the horizontal plane and a direction of movement of the restriction target part when the work device performs a predetermined word motion as taught by Nobuyoshi. The examiner would like to note that this disclosure provided by Nobuyoshi is entirely possible in modified Sou. Specific depictions of the straight line are not as explicitly disclosed but implied as the upper body and work device entering a restricted zone (prohibited area) that enters at an unrevised (uncorrected, predetermined motion) designated motion at an incline or decline angle compared to the flat ground. A more intricate, explicit process of correcting a movement is present in Nobuyoshi. As a whole, the combination of these elements into the base device of modified Sou achieve the same result of correcting a designated, downstream motion of a work machine to avoid, or maneuver around a restricted area via a point trajectory analysis.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to revise the excavation motion, when a horizontal shift of the region of the excavation motion involves a decrease in an excavation amount by the excavation motion, to increase an excavation depth so as to compensate for an amount of the decrease in the excavation amount, the excavation depth being a depth by which the excavation object is excavated by the bucket (see at least Nobuyoshi, Fig.7, ¶¶ [0085]-[0089], [0157]-[0158] revising an excavation depth when a horizontal shift involves a decrease in excavation amount (resistance of soil) so as to compensate and perform a revised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to revise the excavation motion, when a horizontal shift of the region of the excavation motion involves a decrease in an excavation amount by the excavation motion, to increase an excavation depth so as to compensate for an amount of the decrease in the excavation amount, the excavation depth being a depth by which the excavation object is excavated by the bucket as taught by Nobuyoshi. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of modified Sou includes measuring and adjusting a bucket angle in an excavation motion, however, it does not specifically discuss compensating the motion to break through a resistance of soil which is present in Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings of Nobuyoshi would allow for an improvement to the base device of Modified Sou to allow excavation work to be performed efficiently in a simple manner.
Regarding claim 13, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to modify a trajectory of the bucket in a direction for smoothing the trajectory with increasing the excavation depth (see at least Nobuyoshi, Fig.7, ¶¶ [0085]-[0089], [0157]-[0158] revising an excavation depth via trajectory of the bucket when a horizontal shift involves a decrease in excavation amount (resistance of soil) so as to compensate and perform a revised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to modify a trajectory of the bucket in a direction for smoothing the trajectory with increasing the excavation depth as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings of would allow for an improvement to the base device of Modified Sou that allows excavation work to be performed more efficiently in a simple manner.
Regarding claim 14, modified Sou discloses: the work machine according to claim 1 wherein the work machine includes a bucket, the designated motion includes an excavation motion for excavating an excavation object with the bucket (see at least modified Sou, ¶¶ [0040]-[0042], [0136]-[0141], [0144]-[0145], which disclose a controller that controls the driving of the upper turning body (shovel) and the work device (working portion) so as to make the components perform a designated motion that is designated (predetermined points) in advance; [0133]-[0134] discloses an excavation motion)
Modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the controller is configured to set a ground angle of the bucket in the excavation motion that is revised, on the basis of a set angle that is a preset ground angle of the bucket, with a revision of the excavation motion (see at least Nobuyoshi, Fig.7, ¶¶ [0085]-[0089], [0157]-[0158] revising an excavation depth via trajectory of the bucket when a horizontal shift involves a decrease in excavation amount (resistance of soil) so as to compensate and perform a revised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change modified Sou to include the controller is configured to set a ground angle of the bucket in the excavation motion that is revised, on the basis of a set angle that is a preset ground angle of the bucket, with a revision of the excavation motion as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings of would allow for an improvement to the base device of Modified Sou that allows excavation work to be performed more efficiently in a simple manner.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is penetrated into the excavation object in the excavation motion that is revised to an angle equal to a ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is penetrated into the excavation object by the excavation motion that is unrevised (see at least Nobuyoshi, ¶¶ [0101]-[0104], [0107]-[0108] which discloses setting the angle of the bucket (excavation angle) equal to a ground angle of the bucket (limit angle); [0120]-0127] discloses the calculation correcting an unrevised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is penetrated into the excavation object in the excavation motion that is revised to an angle equal to a ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is penetrated into the excavation object by the excavation motion that is unrevised as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings into modified Sou would create an improvement to the base device of the disclosure that allows for more precision in correcting/revising excavation and designated motions of the work device, such as, making an excavation depth appropriate to the measured work information and situational parameters.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is extracted from the excavation object in the excavation motion that is revised to an angle equal to a ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is extracted from the excavation object in the excavation motion that is unrevised (see at least Nobuyoshi, ¶¶ [0101]-[0104], [0107]-[0108] which discloses setting the angle of the bucket (excavation angle) equal to a ground angle of the bucket (limit angle); [0120]-0127] discloses the calculation correcting an unrevised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is extracted from the excavation object in the excavation motion that is revised to an angle equal to a ground angle of the bucket at which the bucket is extracted from the excavation object in the excavation motion that is unrevised as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings into modified Sou would create an improvement to the base device of the disclosure that allows for more precision in correcting/revising excavation and designated motions of the work device, such as, making an excavation depth appropriate to the measured work information and situational parameters.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket in at least a part of the excavation motion that is revised, based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and respective path lengths of trajectories of a tip of the bucket in the excavation motion that is unrevised and the excavation motion that is revised (see at least Nobuyoshi, ¶¶ [0101]-[0104], [0107]-[0108], [0231]-[0237] which discloses setting the angle of the bucket (excavation angle) equal to a ground angle of the bucket (limit angle) based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and respective path lengths of trajectories of a tip of the bucket in the excavation motion; [0120]-0127] discloses the calculation correcting an unrevised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket in at least a part of the excavation motion that is revised, based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and respective path lengths of trajectories of a tip of the bucket in the excavation motion that is unrevised and the excavation motion that is revised as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings into modified Sou would create an improvement to the base device of the disclosure that allows for more precision in correcting/revising excavation and designated motions of the work device, such as, making an excavation depth appropriate to the measured work information and situational parameters.
Regarding claim 18, modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket in at least a part of the excavation motion that is revised, based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and a horizontal distance between the start point and the terminal point in each of the excavation motion that is unrevised and the excavation motion that is revised (see at least Nobuyoshi, ¶¶ [0101]-[0104], [0107]-[0108], [0231]-[0237] which discloses setting the angle of the bucket (excavation angle) equal to a ground angle of the bucket (limit angle) based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and respective path lengths of trajectories of a tip of the bucket in the excavation motion; [0120]-0127] discloses the calculation correcting an unrevised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket in at least a part of the excavation motion that is revised, based on respective ground angles of the bucket at a start point and a terminal point of the excavation motion that is unrevised and a horizontal distance between the start point and the terminal point in each of the excavation motion that is unrevised and the excavation motion that is revised as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings into modified Sou would create an improvement to the base device of the disclosure that allows for more precision in correcting/revising excavation and designated motions of the work device, such as, making an excavation depth appropriate to the measured work information and situational parameters.
Regarding claim 19, Modified Sou is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Nobuyoshi teaches: the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at a lowest point of a trajectory of a tip of the bucket to an angle equal to or less than a ground angle at which a bottom surface of the bucket is horizontal (see at least Nobuyoshi, ¶¶ [0101]-[0108], [0231]-[0237] which discloses setting the ground angle of the bucket at a lowest point of a trajectory of a tip of the bucket to an angle equal to or less than a ground angle at which a bottom surface of the bucket is horizontal; [0120]-0127] discloses the calculation correcting an unrevised excavation motion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to change modified Sou to include the work machine according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to set the ground angle of the bucket at a lowest point of a trajectory of a tip of the bucket to an angle equal to or less than a ground angle at which a bottom surface of the bucket is horizontal as taught by Nobuyoshi. Incorporating the teachings into modified Sou would create an improvement to the base device of the disclosure that allows for more precision in correcting/revising excavation and designated motions of the work device, such as, making an excavation depth appropriate to the measured work information and situational parameters.
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 KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664