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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/9/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because JP-2001-32330-A, JP-2010-65577-A, and JP-2017-71982-A are not provided in the application folder. It appears that foreign applications JP-2001-032330-A, JP-2010-065577-A, and JP-2017-071982-A have been incorrectly cited as JP-2001-32330-A, JP-2010-65577-A, and JP-2017-71982-A respectively causing this issue. Examiner recommends submitting a corrected IDS with the corrected citations. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of claims 2-7 read "a work machine" which appears to be a continuity error since "work machine" already has antecedent basis to claim 1 and thus should read "the work machine" to maintain consistency within the claims and avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “rotation speed setting member” in the limitation “a rotation speed setting member manually operable for setting a target rotation speed of the engine” invokes 112(f) as “member” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the setting of an engine rotation speed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification (paragraph 0045) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“A rotation speed setting member 48 is a member that sets a target rotation speed
of engine 31 by setting a target value of an amount of fuel supply to engine 31.
Rotation speed setting member 48 is provided, for example, in an instrument panel on
the right of operator's cab 2a in operator's cab 2a. Rotation speed setting member 48
is, for example, a member like a dial and provided as being manually operable.
Rotation speed setting member 48, however, may be another member such as a lever, a
pedal, or a switch.” (Emphasis added.)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, applicant uses the term “contents of works” which is not lexicographically defined within the specification and does not have a well-known definition within the art. Examiner understands that this is likely a translation error of a term that makes more sense in the original Japanese. Paragraph 0062 and Figures 5-7 seem to indicate that “contents of works” is meant to mean a vehicle operating state such as an excavating state, a loaded state, a soil ejection state, an unloaded state, or some other state. This is not reflected within the utilized term “contents of works” which, upon initial read, may be mistaken as meaning the contents of the work implement (e.g. what type of material is within the work implement or how much material is in the work implement) which, in light of the specification, is clearly not the intended meaning behind the utilized term. Examiner recommends amending the claims and disclosure to replace every instance of “contents of works” with a more accurate translation that reflects the idea to be captured such as “vehicle working state” or “working step” or some other translation that adequately reflects the disclosed idea provided no new matter is added. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret “contents of works” to mean “vehicle working state” (e.g. excavating).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. KR 20180111055 A (hereinafter Kim; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon) in view of Yamaguchi et al. US 20120245805 A1 (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and Dongare et al. US 20220135036 A1 (hereinafter Dongare).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a control device of a work machine (translated Abstract "a control system for construction equipment"), the work machine including a vehicular body (Figure 1 shows a bulldozer with a body), a work implement supported on the vehicular body (Figure 1 shows a bulldozer with a bucket 30 connected to a boom 20 which is connected to the bulldozer body), and an engine which is a drive source of the work implement (translated paragraph 0020, for example, provides an explicit example of the engine driving the bucket by raising the attached boom), the control device comprising:
a rotation speed setting member manually operable for setting a target rotation speed of the engine (translated paragraph 0002 discloses an accelerator pedal normally connected to a driving power to increase driving speed); and
a controller that selectively carries out any one of ordinary control and intervention control (translated paragraph 0006 discloses a vehicle control unit (VCU) connected to an engine control unit (ECU) to perform an engine RPM increase according to load weight and boom position; translated paragraph 0036 discloses that operator can choose to turn this on or off indicating that normal control and control based on load weight and boom position is selectively performed; translated paragraphs 0045-0047 provide additional detail on selectively entering this engine RPM increase mode),
wherein in carrying out the intervention control, the controller obtains sensor data related to the work implement (translated paragraph 0006 discloses that the VCU receives position of a boom and weight of a load), sets the target rotation speed corresponding to the sensor data (translated paragraph 0007 discloses that the VCU determines an engine RPM increase according to the load weight and boom position), and controls the engine at the set target rotation speed regardless of an amount of operation onto the rotation speed setting member (translated paragraph 0006 discloses that the VCU sends a control signal to the ECU to adjust the engine's rotation frequency based on the engine RPM increase value; it is important to Kim's operation that the accelerator pedal operation is ignored via transmission cut-off during this so that an operator can focus on operating the work implement as detailed in translated paragraphs 0001-0005 for example).
Kim does not explicitly teach that in carrying out the ordinary control, the controller controls the engine at the target rotation speed based on an operation onto the rotation speed setting member. This may be implicitly interpreted from translated paragraph 0002 in light of translated paragraphs 0036-0047 when a transmission cut-off is not performed, but for completeness of the record, Yamaguchi is utilized to teach this explicitly.
Yamaguchi teaches that in carrying out the ordinary control, the controller controls the engine at the target rotation speed based on an operation onto the rotation speed setting member (paragraph 0010 discloses a control unit receives inputs into an accelerator wherein engine speed is controlled based on accelerator operation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi such that the accelerator of Kim may be utilized according to the teachings of Yamaguchi when the engine RPM increase mode of Kim is not being performed. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator control and handling.
Kim does not teach that in carrying out the intervention control, the controller estimates contents of works by the work implement and sets the target rotation speed corresponding to the estimated contents of works.
Dongare teaches that in carrying out the intervention control, the controller estimates contents of works by the work implement (Abstract discloses determining a work state based on sensor inputs) and sets the target rotation speed corresponding to the estimated contents of works (Abstract discloses generating control signals, such as engine speed adjustments, based on the determined work state).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Dongare such that, upon obtaining the sensor data according to the teachings of Kim, said sensor data can be utilized to determine a vehicle work state which can further be used to determine an engine RPM adjustment according to the teachings of Dongare wherein the determined engine adjustment amount can be utilized according to the teachings of Kim. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to increase productivity and ease of operating the vehicle as disclosed in Dongare (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Kim further teaches that the controller obtains a weight of loads loaded on the work implement (translated paragraph 0040 discloses determining the weight of a load loaded on a vehicle with a boom cylinder pressure sensor).
Kim does not teach that the controller estimates the contents of works based on a weight of loads loaded on the work implement.
Dongare further teaches that the controller estimates the contents of works based on a weight of loads loaded on the work implement (Abstract discloses determining a work state based on sensor inputs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the further teachings of Dongare such that the sensor data of Kim can be utilized in a work state determination which can further be used to determine an engine RPM adjustment according to the teachings of Dongare wherein the determined engine adjustment amount can be utilized according to the teachings of Kim. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to increase productivity and ease of operating the vehicle as disclosed in Dongare (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Kim further teaches that the controller carries out the intervention control when a function to measure a weight of loads loaded on the work implement has been activated (translated paragraph 0040 discloses determining the weight of a load loaded on a vehicle with a boom cylinder pressure sensor; translated paragraph 0007 discloses that the VCU determines an engine RPM increase according to the load weight).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Yamaguchi and Dongare as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato et al. US 20150275798 A1 (hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Kim further teaches that the controller includes an engine controller that outputs a control signal to the engine (translated paragraph 0006 discloses an ECU which controls the engine) and an intervention controller (translated paragraph 0006 discloses a VCU connected to the ECU which performs the engine RPM increase control).
Kim does not teach that the intervention controller is interposed in a signal path between the rotation speed setting member and the engine controller.
Kato teaches that the intervention controller is interposed in a signal path between the rotation speed setting member and the engine controller (Figure 1 shows an VCU 30 connected between the pathways of an accelerator 33 and ECU 31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Kato since the arrangement of components detailed is a mere rearrangement of parts which has been shown to only require ordinary skill in the art as detailed in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
All further limitations of claim 2 are a substantial repetition of the limitations of claim 1 in context of a dual controller system. For the purpose of conciseness of this Office Action, rejection of these limitations will not be repeated. See claim 1 above for the details of rejection for the repeated limitations.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Yamaguchi and Dongare as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tinker et al. US 20200064130 A1 (hereinafter Tinker).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Kim further teaches that the work machine further includes a work implement position sensor attached to the work implement to detect a position of the work implement (translated paragraph 0038 discloses a boom position detection unit for detecting position of the boom such as an angle or displacement sensor).
Kim does not teach that the work machine further includes a vehicular body position sensor attached to the vehicular body to detect a position of the vehicular body
Tinker teaches that the work machine further includes a vehicular body position sensor attached to the vehicular body to detect a position of the vehicular body (paragraph 0005 discloses an IMU attached to a chassis of a machine to take a measurement of body position) and a work implement position sensor attached to the work implement to detect a position of the work implement (paragraph 0005 discloses an IMU attached to a tilt lever and another IMU attached to a lift arm of a machine to determine positions of a work element).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Tinker such that both vehicle and work implement position sensors are utilized according to the teachings of Tinker with a reasonable expectation of success to improve linkage angle measurements as disclosed in Tinker (paragraph 0002).
Kim does not teach that the controller estimates the contents of works based on results of detection by the vehicular body position sensor and the work implement position sensor.
Dongare further teaches that the controller estimates the contents of works based on results of detection by the vehicular body position sensor and the work implement position sensor (Abstract discloses determining a work state based on sensor inputs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the further teachings of Dongare such that the sensor data of Kim and Tinker can be utilized within a sensor based work state determination which can further be used to determine an engine RPM adjustment according to the teachings of Dongare wherein the determined engine adjustment amount can be utilized according to the teachings of Kim. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to increase productivity and ease of operating the vehicle as disclosed in Dongare (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 3 as detailed above. Kim further teaches that the results of detection by the work implement position sensor are directly inputted to the controller (translated paragraph 0006 discloses that the VCU receives boom position data from the boom position detection unit).
Kim does not teach that the results of detection by the vehicular body position sensor are directly inputted to the controller.
Tinker further teaches that the results of detection by the vehicular body position sensor and the work implement position sensor are directly inputted to the controller (paragraph 0015 discloses that a controller may receive all position measurements).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the further teachings of Tinker such that the vehicle body sensor data of Tinker can be utilized and fed into the VCU of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to improve linkage angle measurements as disclosed in Tinker (paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Yamaguchi and Dongare as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagano et al. JP 2001032330 A (hereinafter Nagano; Nagano was previously provided as a translated Abstract by the applicant, but examiner has provided a full translation which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kim reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kim does not teach that the controller estimates the contents of works based on a result of previous estimation of the contents of works.
Nagano teaches that the controller estimates the contents of works based on a result of previous estimation of the contents of works (translated paragraph 0011 discloses basing engine speed on a magnitude of load detected during a previous round of work; examiner understands this would accomplish the same goal of basing engine speed off of vehicle state which is based on a previous vehicle state).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Nagano such that engine speed can be set according to the sensor results of a previous cycle as taught by Nagano with a reasonable expectation of success to set the engine speed of each cycle quickly and improve economics and workability of driving as detailed in Nagano (translated page 9 last three paragraphs).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hyodo et al. US 20200378089 A1 discloses modifying engine speed based on operation state and otherwise controlling engine speed according to an accelerator pedal.
Matsushita et al. US 5564507 A discloses a vehicle body sensor which determines body orientation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 4:30 pm PST Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669