DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-13 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 02/12/2026:
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 8 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 11 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/12/2026; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Title Objection, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the Title Objection has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the objection(s) of claim(s) 1, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the objection(s) of claim(s) 1 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
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: “a work device rotatably attached to the upper turning body so as to be capable of performing a processing motion of processing an object” in claim 1.
Claim limitations: “a work device rotatably attached to the upper turning body so as to be capable of performing a processing motion of processing an object” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “device” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “work device” as: “The attachment 30 is a work device attached to the upper turning body 22 so as to be capable of performing a work motion. The work motion is a motion for processing an object, including a vertically rotational movement. The attachment 30 includes a boom 31, an arm 32, and a bucket 33. The boom 31 has a proximal end and a distal end opposite thereto, the proximal end being connected to the upper turning body 22 capably of vertically rotational movement (capably of being raised and lowered). The arm 32 has a proximal end and a distal end opposite thereto, the proximal end being connected to the distal end of the boom 31 capably of vertically rotational movement. The bucket 33 is a tip attachment, which is attached to the distal end of the arm 32 capably of rotational movement in a front-rear direction to form the tip of the attachment 30. The bucket 33 has a shape capable of performing work operation such as excavation, leveling, scooping, and the like, on an excavation object including earth and sand. The excavation object by the bucket 33 is not limited to earth and sand but allowed to be also a stone or a waste (industrial waste, etc.). Besides, the work machine according to the present invention is not limited to an excavation machine and, therefore, the work object is not limited to the excavation object” in at least paragraph 0011 and Fig. 1, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “work device” as including but not limited to a bucket mounted to a boom and an arm, which are attached to a work machine, for example.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa in view of ITO (United States Patent Publication 2021/0262196 A1), referenced as Ito_1 moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, while Izumikawa discloses:
“A work machine comprising: a lower traveling body capable of performing a traveling motion; an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body so as to be capable of turning with respect to the lower traveling body” [Izumikawa; "According to a further embodiment of the present invention, a construction system for assisting construction work to be performed using a shovel is provided. The shovel includes a lower traveling body, a traveling hydraulic motor configured to move the lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, and an attachment attached to the upper turning body. The construction system includes a communication device configured to communicate with the shovel, and a control device. The control device is configured to set a predetermined condition on movement of the lower traveling body, and upon determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied, output information on stopping the movement of the lower traveling body to the shovel via the communication device such that the traveling hydraulic motor is controlled to stop the movement of the lower traveling body;" See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0037, 0038, 0084, 0085];
“a work device rotatably attached to the upper turning body so as to be capable of performing processing motion of processing an object” [Izumikawa; "An arm 5 is attached to the tip of the boom 4, and a bucket 6 serving as an end attachment is attached to the tip of the arm 5;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0037;
"The boom 4, the arm 5, and the bucket 6 form an excavation attachment that is an example of an attachment;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0038;];
“and a controller that controls driving of the upper turning body and the work device so as to make the upper turning body and the work device perform a series of motions including the processing motion by the work device a plurality of times” [Izumikawa; "The controller 30 is configured to operate as a control device to control the driving of the shovel 100...A machine guidance device 50 (see FIG. 2) included in the controller 30 is configured to execute the machine guidance function and the machine control function;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0043;
"The machine guidance device 50 includes a position calculating part 51, a distance calculating part 52, an information communicating part 53, and an automatic control part 54 as functional elements;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0071;
"The automatic control part 54 is configured to automatically assist the operator in manually operating the shovel 100 by automatically moving actuators. For example, the automatic control part 54 may automatically extend or retract at least one of the boom cylinder 7, the arm cylinder 8, and the bucket cylinder 9 such that the position of the tip of the bucket 6 coincides with the intended work surface, while the operator is manually performing an arm closing operation. In this case, for example, by simply operating an arm operating lever in a closing direction, the operator can close the arm 5 while causing the position of the tip of the bucket 6 to coincide with the intended work surface. This automatic control may be executed upon a predetermined switch, included in the input device 42, being pressed. The predetermined switch is, for example, a machine control switch (hereinafter referred to as a “MC switch”), and may be positioned, as a knob switch, at the tip of the operating apparatus 26;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0080;
"The automatic control part 54 may cause the turning hydraulic motor 2A to automatically rotate such that the upper turning body 3 front-faces the intended work surface when the predetermined switch such as the MC switch is pressed;" ¶: 0081; See also: ¶: 0068];
“wherein: the controller is configured to perform: shifting a start position of the processing motion included in the next series of motions in a turning direction that is a direction in which the upper turning turns body when processing work which is work performed by the series of motions reaches a predetermined stage”[Izumikawa; "The machine guidance device 50 starts the travel guidance each time the travel lever 26D is operated while the MC switch is pressed, and stops the shovel 100 each time a predetermined part (the shovel center point CP) of the shovel 100 reaches a virtual plane PS, that is, each time the shovel 100 is moved a predetermined distance D. The predetermined distance D is set based on two adjacent virtual planes PS. In this manner, each time the shovel 100 is moved the predetermined distance D, that is, each time the shovel 100 reaches an adjacent virtual plane PS, the machine guidance device 50 sets the next adjacent virtual plane PS located in an unfinished area of the slope as the next target virtual plane. The predetermined distance D, which is the distance between such two adjacent virtual planes, is set based on at least one of the type of the bucket 6, the size of the bucket 6, and the characteristics of soil;" ¶: 0192; See also: ¶: 0074, 0077, 0086, 0088, 0169, 0276];
“making the lower traveling body perform an area change movement that is a movement in a movement direction for changing an area in which the processing work is performed when the processing work reaches the predetermined stage in a state where the start position has reached a predetermined shift limiting surface that defines a limit of the shift of the start position in the turning direction” [Izumikawa; "Specifically, the machine guidance device 50 may be configured to set a predetermined condition on the movement of the lower traveling body 1, and control the traveling hydraulic motor 2M to stop the movement of the lower traveling body 1 when the predetermined condition is satisfied. In this case, the predetermined condition includes, for example, the shovel center point CP having reached a virtual plane PS while the shovel 100 is traveling;" ¶: 0193; See also: ¶: 0074, 0077, 0086, 0088, 0169, 0276];
“and setting an after-movement start position, which is a start position of the processing motion after the area change movement, so as to make the processing work after the area change movement and the processing work before the area change movement continuous with each other” [Izumikawa; "Alternatively, the automatic control part 54 may automatically cause the traveling hydraulic motor 2M to rotate when the predetermined switch such as the MC switch is pressed, irrespective of whether the travel lever is operated. In response to the remaining distance being zero, the automatic control part 54 forcibly stops the rotation of the traveling hydraulic motor 2M. In this case, the operator can cause the lower traveling body 1 to travel until the shovel center point reaches a virtual plane by simply pressing the predetermined switch. That is, the operator can move the shovel 100 to a position appropriate for continuing the finishing work;" ¶: 0085;
"In light of the above, the machine guidance device 50 controls the travel of the shovel 100 during each stroke by appropriately arranging the virtual planes PS, such that the amount of soil loaded into the slope bucket 6A during a single stroke does not exceed the capacity of the slope bucket 6A. Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 8, the machine guidance device 50 forcibly stops the travel of the shovel 100 when the shovel center point CP reaches a virtual plane PS. As a result, as illustrated in FIG. 9B, the upper turning body 3 can be positioned such that a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the current stroke overlaps with a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the previous stroke by the predetermined width W2;" ¶: 0202; See also: Fig. 7A, 7B, 8 & 9A-9D; ¶: 0304, 0305];
Izumikawa does not specifically state: “the movement direction being a direction perpendicular to a direction along a turning center axis of the upper turning body and being directed toward the shift limiting surface, the turning center axis being an axis about which the upper turning body turns.”
Ito_1, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for work machines, teaches: “the movement direction being a direction perpendicular to a direction along a turning center axis of the upper turning body and being directed toward the shift limiting surface, the turning center axis being an axis about which the upper turning body turns” [Ito_1; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ito discloses an excavator that rotates around a vertical axis (indicated by the rotational arrow in Fig. 9) and travels along a trajectory (for example the trajectory defined by points TP1-TP4 in Fig. 8B. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the disclosed trajectory as perpendicular the to vertical rotation axis and therefore teaches the claimed "the movement direction being a direction perpendicular to a direction along a turning center axis of the upper turning body and being directed toward the shift limiting surface" limitation accordingly; Fig. 3, 7, 8A, 8B & 9; ¶: 0109-0111, 0180, 0187-0191, 0211, 0212].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling an excavator to perform work along a plurality of planes to excavate a work surface as disclosed by Izumikawa to incorporate the teachings regarding maintaining a perpendicular orientation of a work vehicle trajectory with respect to a vertical rotation axis of the work vehicle as taught by Ito_1 with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an excavator to perform work along a plurality of planes to excavate a work surface that is more robust in its ability to “move the leading end of the attachment AT (the working portion of the bucket 6) along the target work surface across the entire range from the top of slope TS to the toe of slope FS, regardless of the work location to where traveling is performed. Therefore, the workability of the slope work by the excavator 100 can be improved” [Ito_1; ¶: 0192; See also: ¶: 0260].
With respect to claim 2, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the area change movement is a movement in a direction of making an after-movement posture which is a posture of the upper turning body with respect to the lower traveling body at the after- movement start position closer to an initial posture which is a posture of the upper turning body with respect to the lower traveling body at the start position of the processing motion included in the first series of motions” [Izumikawa; In at least the figures and paragraphs cited, Izumikawa discloses setting a series of planes, PS1-PS7 in Fig. 11, such that the "plurality of virtual planes PS are virtual planes each including the normal to the upward slope BS." Izumikawa further discloses controlling travel of the excavator as well as rotation of the excavator such that the excavator is able to perform work at the plurality of virtual planes. In at least the example disclosed in Fig. 11, Izumikawa discloses that the lower turning body, the cabin, the boom, the arm and the bucket are aligned in parallel to the longitudinal axis of the excavator, denoted by the dotted line in Fig. 11, while the machine is excavating at plane PS1. Similarly, when the machine is operating at plane PS7, the lower turning body, the cabin, the boom, the arm and the bucket are also aligned in parallel to the longitudinal axis of the excavator. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the excavator having the "same posture" at positions PS1 and PS7; Fig. 11; ¶: 0167-0169, 0212-0216].
With respect to claim 3, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to perform setting the after-movement posture to the same posture as the initial posture and setting a distance of the area change movement so as to make the processing work after the area change movement continuous with the processing work before the area change movement” [Izumikawa; In at least the figures and paragraphs cited, Izumikawa discloses setting a series of planes (PS1-6 and PSa-c in Fig. 8), wherein the distance, D, between respective planes is set such that there exists overlapping regions, DS (DS1-5 in Fig. 8), in which the slope area contacted by the bucket during the current stroke overlaps the slope area contacted by the bucket during the previous stroke (which is upstream from the current stroke). This results in continuous soil excavation without causing soil to fallout of the bucket, which would result in soil to accumulate in the overlapping regions. To resolve this issue would require the additional strokes in the upstream (-X direction) that prevents continuous operation; Fig. 8 & 9A-9D; ¶: 0084, 0085, 0189, 0190, 0196-0198].
With respect to claim 4, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to make the lower traveling body perform the area change movement by a preset movement distance and configured to set the after-movement posture so as to make the processing work by the series of motions after the area change movement continuos with the processing work before the area change movement” [Izumikawa; In at least the figures and paragraphs cited, Izumikawa discloses setting a series of planes (PS1-6 and PSa-c in Fig. 8), wherein the distance, D, between respective planes is set such that there exists overlapping regions, DS (DS1-5 in Fig. 8), in which the slope area contacted by the bucket during the current stroke overlaps the slope area contacted by the bucket during the previous stroke (which is upstream from the current stroke). This results in continuous soil excavation without causing soil to fallout of the bucket, which would result in soil to accumulate in the overlapping regions. To resolve this issue would require the additional strokes in the upstream (-X direction) that prevents continuous operation; Fig. 8 & 9A-9D; ¶: 0084, 0085, 0189, 0190, 0196-0198].
With respect to claim 5, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to make a notification device notify that the after-movement start position is deviated beyond the shift limiting surface by the area change movement by the movement distance” [Izumikawa; "The information communicating part 53 may use a continuous sound, and may represent variations in the remaining distance by changing the pitch, loudness, or the like of the sound. Further, the information communicating part 53 may issue an alarm when the remaining distance becomes a negative value, that is, when the shovel center point goes beyond a virtual plane. The alarm is, for example, a continuous sound significantly louder than the intermittent sounds;" ¶: 0078].
With respect to claim 7, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to stop the area change movement when the lower traveling body is made reach a preset movement limiting position by the area change movement” [Izumikawa; "Specifically, the machine guidance device 50 may be configured to set a predetermined condition on the movement of the lower traveling body 1, and control the traveling hydraulic motor 2M to stop the movement of the lower traveling body 1 when the predetermined condition is satisfied. In this case, the predetermined condition includes, for example, the shovel center point CP having reached a virtual plane PS while the shovel 100 is traveling;" ¶: 0193; See also: ¶: 0074, 0077, 0086, 0088, 0169, 0276].
With respect to claim 8, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to shift the start position within a preset working area and configured to set the after-movement start position within the working area so as to make the processing work after the area change movement continuous with the processing work before the area change movement” [Izumikawa; In at least the figures and paragraphs cited, Izumikawa discloses setting a series of planes (PS1-6 and PSa-c in Fig. 8), wherein the distance, D, between respective planes is set such that there exists overlapping regions, DS (DS1-5 in Fig. 8), in which the slope area contacted by the bucket during the current stroke overlaps the slope area contacted by the bucket during the previous stroke (which is upstream from the current stroke). This results in continuous soil excavation without causing soil to fallout of the bucket, which would result in soil to accumulate in the overlapping regions. To resolve this issue would require the additional strokes in the upstream (-X direction) that prevents continuous operation; Fig. 8 & 9A-9D; ¶: 0084, 0085, 0189, 0190, 0196-0198].
With respect to claim 9, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to set the after-movement start position to a position upstream of the shift limiting surface in a direction of the area change movement” [Izumikawa; In at least the figures and paragraphs cited, Izumikawa discloses setting a series of planes (PS1-6 and PSa-c in Fig. 8), wherein the distance, D, between respective planes is set such that there exists overlapping regions, DS (DS1-5 in Fig. 8), in which the slope area contacted by the bucket during the current stroke overlaps the slope area contacted by the bucket during the previous stroke (which is upstream from the current stroke). This results in continuous soil excavation without causing soil to fallout of the bucket, which would result in soil to accumulate in the overlapping regions. To resolve this issue would require the additional strokes in the upstream (-X direction) that prevents continuous operation; Fig. 8 & 9A-9D; ¶: 0084, 0085, 0189, 0190, 0196-0198].
With respect to claim 13, Izumikawa discloses: “wherein the processing motion is a motion of scraping an inclined surface” [Izumikawa; "The operator performs work such that the upward slope BS is made flat from the top TS to the toe FS with a single stroke of the excavation attachment. The operator repeats a stroke of the excavation attachment and the travel of the lower traveling body 1 such that a wide slope area is finished flat. Specifically, the operator operates the shovel 100 such that a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the current stroke overlaps with a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the previous stroke by a predetermined width W2;" ¶: 0189].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumikawa in view of Ito_1 and ITO (United States Patent Publication 2021/0262190 A1), referenced as Ito_2 moving forward.
With respect to claim 10, while Izumikawa discloses: “and the controller is configured to make the upper turning body and the work device repeat the series of motions with a change of a height of a tip of the work device in the processing motion” [Izumikawa; "The predetermined condition may be a condition that the travel distance of the shovel 100 has reached the target travel distance when the travel lever is operated while the predetermined switch such as the MC switch is pressed. In this case, the travel distance of the shovel 100 is calculated based on the output of the positioning device P1. The target travel distance is set based on at least one of information on the size of the end attachment, information on the positional relationship between the intended work surface and the shovel 100, and information on the current ground surface. The target travel distance may be a preset value or may be a dynamically set value;" ¶: 0086;
"when the turning operating lever is operated in a direction that decreases the vertical distance between the tip of the bucket 6 and the intended work surface (upward slope), the automatic control part 54 performs the front-facing control. In this manner, the turning hydraulic motor 2A can be operated such that the difference between the left end vertical distance and the right end vertical distance is reduced. Then, the automatic control part 54 stops the turning hydraulic motor 2A when the difference is less than or equal to a predetermined value or is zero. Alternatively, the automatic control part 54 may set a turning angle that causes the difference to be less than or equal to a predetermined value or zero as a target angle, and perform turning angle control such that the angular difference between the target angle and a current turning angle (detected value) is zero. In this case, the turning angle is, for example, the angle of the longitudinal axis of the upper turning body 3 with respect to a reference direction;" ¶: 0088;
"The operator performs work such that the upward slope BS is made flat from the top TS to the toe FS with a single stroke of the excavation attachment. The operator repeats a stroke of the excavation attachment and the travel of the lower traveling body 1 such that a wide slope area is finished flat. Specifically, the operator operates the shovel 100 such that a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the current stroke overlaps with a slope area contacted by the slope bucket 6A during the previous stroke by a predetermined width W2;" ¶: 0189];
Izumikawa does not specifically state: “wherein the processing motion is an excavation motion of excavating earth and sand.”
Ito_2, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for work machines, teaches: “wherein the processing motion is an excavation motion of excavating earth and sand” [Ito_2; "The boom raising turning start condition is a condition for starting work for moving sediment, such as earth, sand, or the like, stored in the bucket 6 toward a dump truck parked at a predetermined position. For example, the boom raising turning start condition may include a condition that an amount of excavated sediment by the attachment is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount. For example, the boom raising turning start condition may include “completion of excavation by a predetermined distance or more by the attachment”. In this case, the controller 30 obtains the amount of excavated sediment and the excavation distance by the attachment on the basis of, for example, an image in front of the upper pivot body 3 by a monocular camera or a stereo camera which can be included in the space recognition device 70. That is, the boom raising turning start condition is a condition for determining whether one operation of the shovel 100 such as excavation operation has been completed;" ¶: 0196].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling an excavator to perform work along a plurality of planes to excavate a work surface as disclosed by Izumikawa to incorporate the teachings regarding executing an automatic boom raising operation when excavating sediment including sand and soil as taught by Ito_2 with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling an excavator to perform work along a plurality of planes to excavate a work surface that is more robust in its ability to enable a portion of an attachment of a shovel serving as a reference to move along a predetermined trajectory more appropriately based on a predetermined condition such as a “sediment discharge start condition” being used to trigger automatic operation of a dumping operation subsequent to excavation [Ito_2; ¶: 0006-0008, 0196, 0197, 0210].
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
ITOH et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0355651 A1) discloses: A shovel that includes a lower traveling structure, an upper swing structure swingably mounted on the lower traveling structure, an attachment attached to the upper swing structure and including a boom, an arm, and a bucket, and processing circuitry. The processing circuitry is configured to cause the shovel to automatically perform work by causing the upper swing structure and the attachment to automatically operate. The work is at least one of the work of banking earth and the work of filling with earth
SHIRATANI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0010522 A1) discloses: A shovel that includes a lower traveling body, an upper turning body turnably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment attached to the upper turning body, an attachment actuator configured to move the attachment, and processing circuitry configured to assist an operator so that a level difference between two adjacent finished surfaces becomes equal to or less than a predetermined value
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights