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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 2-9 are withdrawn from consideration due to restriction. Claims 1 and 10-16 have been examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/25.
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 in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18044605 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the similarity in elements between the two claim sets.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US20220195690 (“Wu”).
Claim 1
Wu discloses a work system for automatically operating a work machine including a work device (abstract), the work system comprising:
a controller that controls an operation of the work machine so that a leveling work is performed, the leveling work including a leveling operation in which a work target object that has been loaded into a container by a loading work is leveled using the work device (0192 The fourth dumping operation is performed in order to level the upper surface of the load LD already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6 and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP2 and fill in the space SP2., 0189 controller),
wherein the controller acquires information regarding at least one of the work target object in the container, the container, the work machine, and the loading work, and determines at least one of a start position of the leveling operation and an end position of the leveling operation by using the information (0191 A target trajectory TL4 for the fourth dumping operation is an example of the target trajectory TL, and is expressed as a virtual line segment connecting a dumping start point Ps4 and a dumping end point Pe4 at a height H4, which is slightly lower than the upper surface of the load LD3. The height H4 is a height from the bottom surface of the bed BD., Fig. 8d, 0192 The height H4 is an example of the height Ht, and is calculated based on the height of the upper surface of the load LD3, for example. The fourth dumping operation is performed in order to level the upper surface of the load LD already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6 and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP2 and fill in the space SP2. Therefore, the fourth dumping operation is performed with the empty bucket 6, namely, with no excavation object scooped into the bucket 6.).
Claim 10
Wu discloses wherein:
the work device includes a bucket (0039 bucket),
the loading work is a work of loading the work target object into the container by using the bucket, and the leveling work is a work of leveling the work target object loaded into the container by using the bucket (0191 A target trajectory TL4 for the fourth dumping operation is an example of the target trajectory TL, and is expressed as a virtual line segment connecting a dumping start point Ps4 and a dumping end point Pe4 at a height H4, which is slightly lower than the upper surface of the load LD3. The height H4 is a height from the bottom surface of the bed BD., Fig. 8d, 0192 The height H4 is an example of the height Ht, and is calculated based on the height of the upper surface of the load LD3, for example. The fourth dumping operation is performed in order to level the upper surface of the load LD already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6 and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP2 and fill in the space SP2. Therefore, the fourth dumping operation is performed with the empty bucket 6, namely, with no excavation object scooped into the bucket 6.),
the controller controls an operation of the work machine so that the loading work and the leveling work are performed (0121),
the information regarding the loading work includes information regarding a loading end position which is a position of the bucket at an end of the loading work (0161 The dumping start point Ps2 is the start point of the target trajectory TL2. The dumping start point Ps2 is set at a position the interval RS apart from the rear gate RG in the forward direction. The interval RS for the target trajectory TL2 may be a value different from the interval RS for the target trajectory TL1., Fig. 8D),
the leveling operation is a first leveling operation in the leveling work (0192 The fourth dumping operation is performed in order to level the upper surface of the load LD already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6 and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP2 and fill in the space SP2. Therefore, the fourth dumping operation is performed with the empty bucket 6, namely, with no excavation object scooped into the bucket 6.),
the start position is a leveling work start position which is a start position of the first leveling operation (Fig. 8D, 0191 A target trajectory TL4 for the fourth dumping operation is an example of the target trajectory TL, and is expressed as a virtual line segment connecting a dumping start point Ps4 and a dumping end point Pe4 at a height H4, which is slightly lower than the upper surface of the load LD3. The height H4 is a height from the bottom surface of the bed BD.), and
the controller determines the leveling work start position in a loading end position side region of an internal region of the container when the container is viewed from above (Fig. 8D, 0191 A target trajectory TL4 for the fourth dumping operation is an example of the target trajectory TL, and is expressed as a virtual line segment connecting a dumping start point Ps4 and a dumping end point Pe4 at a height H4, which is slightly lower than the upper surface of the load LD3. The height H4 is a height from the bottom surface of the bed BD.).
Claim 16
Claim(s) 16 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of US4909561 (“Lovaas”).
Claim 11
Wu discloses:
wherein the loading end position side region is a region including the loading end position (0147 When the bed BD of the dump truck DT is recognized based on the output of at least one of the object detector 70 and the image capturing device 80, a dumping start point Ps1 and a dumping end point Pe1 are set., Fig. 8).
However, Wu fails to explicitly disclose when the container is viewed from above out of two regions obtained by dividing the internal region of the container when the container is viewed from above into two equal parts. Furthermore, Lovaas teaches a vehicle with a loading bed (Fig. 1), including:
the loading end position when the container is viewed from above out of two regions obtained by dividing the internal region of the container when the container is viewed from above into two equal parts (col. 1 lines 37-47 A pickup truck bed cover has a forward panel that is telescopically received within a rearward panel when the bed is at least partially uncovered. The transverse or lateral breadth of the front panel is less than the corresponding breadth of the rear panel. The vehicle bed is completely covered when the panels are extended with respect to one another. The front half of the bed is uncovered by sliding the front panel in a rearward direction, and the back half of the bed is uncovered by sliding the back panel in a forward direction.).
Wu and Lovaas both disclose vehicles with loading areas. The concept of dividing the loading area into two equal parts is taught by Lovaas, and such description could have been applied to the system in Wu, thus teaching the claimed subject matter. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Wu to include the teaching of Lovass with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide clear description of where material is loaded and the starting and end positions in leveling the load.
Claim 12
Wu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the container has a shape in which a dimension in a horizontal first direction is larger than a dimension in a horizontal second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the two regions are obtained by dividing the internal region into two equal parts in the first direction. However, Wu does disclose the container having the first dimension (Fig. 8). Furthermore, Lovaas teaches:
wherein the container has a shape in which a dimension in a horizontal first direction is larger than a dimension in a horizontal second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 2), and
the two regions are obtained by dividing the internal region into two equal parts in the first direction (Fig. 2).
See prior art rejection of claim 11 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 13
Wu discloses wherein:
the leveling work further includes a last leveling operation of leveling the work target object using the bucket (0204 The second dumping operation is performed in order to load the bed BD with the excavation object scooped into the bucket 6, level the upper surface of the load LD1 already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6, and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP3 and fill in the space SP3.), and
the controller controls the operation of the work machine so that the last leveling operation is performed in a region not including the loading end position out of the two regions (0204, 0192 The height H4 is an example of the height Ht, and is calculated based on the height of the upper surface of the load LD3, for example. The fourth dumping operation is performed in order to level the upper surface of the load LD already loaded onto the bed BD with the back surface of the bucket 6 and push part of the excavation object at the top of the load LD with the back surface of the bucket 6 to drop the part of the excavation object into a space SP2 and fill in the space SP2. Therefore, the fourth dumping operation is performed with the empty bucket 6, namely, with no excavation object scooped into the bucket 6., Fig. 8D, 0145 In FIGS. 7A through 7C, a front panel FR and a rear gate RG of the dump truck DT are illustrated).
See prior art rejection of claim 11 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of US20210010229 (“Sano”).
Claim 14
Wu discloses:
wherein the first leveling operation is leveling operation of leveling the work target object in the container (Fig. 8).
Wu fails to disclose wherein the first leveling operation is a first press-leveling operation of pressing the work target object downward using the bucket in a first press-leveling range, the leveling work further includes a second press-leveling operation of pressing the work target object downward using the bucket in a second press-leveling range, and the controller controls the operation of the work machine so that a part of the second press-leveling range overlaps the first press-leveling range when viewed from above. However, Wu does disclose the leveling operation (0192). Furthermore, Sano teaches a work machine with a bucket (Fig. 1), including wherein:
the first leveling operation is a first press-leveling operation of pressing the work target object downward using the bucket in a first press-leveling range (0203 In this case, the compaction work can be performed in such a manner that ranges that can be compacted effectively by the bucket 6 (hereinafter referred to as “effective compaction ranges”) partially overlap between any given compaction position PSk (k is an integer equal to or more than 1 and equal to or less than n−1) and any given compaction position PS(k+1). For example, there is a range overlapping, in the horizontal direction of the drawing, between an effective compaction range PS1A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS1 and an effective compaction range PS2A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS2. Therefore, with the compaction work at the compaction position PSk and the compaction work at the adjacent compaction position PS(k+1), an area where compaction work is performed insufficiently and an area where compaction work is not performed at all can be eliminated., Fig. 8),
the leveling work further includes a second press-leveling operation of pressing the work target object downward using the bucket in a second press-leveling range (0203 In this case, the compaction work can be performed in such a manner that ranges that can be compacted effectively by the bucket 6 (hereinafter referred to as “effective compaction ranges”) partially overlap between any given compaction position PSk (k is an integer equal to or more than 1 and equal to or less than n−1) and any given compaction position PS(k+1). For example, there is a range overlapping, in the horizontal direction of the drawing, between an effective compaction range PS1A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS1 and an effective compaction range PS2A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS2. Therefore, with the compaction work at the compaction position PSk and the compaction work at the adjacent compaction position PS(k+1), an area where compaction work is performed insufficiently and an area where compaction work is not performed at all can be eliminated., Fig. 8), and
the controller controls the operation of the work machine so that a part of the second press-leveling range overlaps the first press-leveling range when viewed from above (0203 In this case, the compaction work can be performed in such a manner that ranges that can be compacted effectively by the bucket 6 (hereinafter referred to as “effective compaction ranges”) partially overlap between any given compaction position PSk (k is an integer equal to or more than 1 and equal to or less than n−1) and any given compaction position PS(k+1). For example, there is a range overlapping, in the horizontal direction of the drawing, between an effective compaction range PS1A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS1 and an effective compaction range PS2A of the bucket 6 for the compaction work at the compaction position PS2. Therefore, with the compaction work at the compaction position PSk and the compaction work at the adjacent compaction position PS(k+1), an area where compaction work is performed insufficiently and an area where compaction work is not performed at all can be eliminated., Fig. 8). Examiner asserts that while Sano teaches pressing of material on a ground surface, one of ordinary skill in the art would find that given that Wu discloses the leveling the in the container and Sano teaches press-leveling, the overlapping press-leveled ranges of Sano could be applied to the container of Wu, thus teaching the claimed subject matter.
Wu and Sano both disclose work machine buckets that level work material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Wu to include the teaching of Sano with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure complete and full leveling of the material, including at the edges of each press where insufficient leveling may occur (Sano: 0203 Therefore, with the compaction work at the compaction position PSk and the compaction work at the adjacent compaction position PS(k+1), an area where compaction work is performed insufficiently and an area where compaction work is not performed at all can be eliminated.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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(s) and any intervening claim(s). The closest prior art of record is US20210010229 and US20250129577, which disclose using a bucket to press material, including when the material is in a cargo bed of a vehicle. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: wherein the container is a cargo bed of a vehicle, the information regarding the state of the container includes information regarding a decrease amount of a height of the cargo bed with respect to ground, the leveling operation is a press-leveling operation of pressing the work target object in the container downward using the bucket, and the controller controls the operation of the work machine so that the press-leveling operation stops when the decrease amount exceeds a predetermined value during the press- leveling operation. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide sufficient disclosure, teaching or suggestion to adequately provide a basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892. Specifically, the following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s claims:
US20250129577 - CONTACT DETERMINATION DEVICE, CONTACT DETERMINATION SYSTEM, CONTACT DETERMINATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM; and
US20210332566 - DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE FOR WORK MACHINE, WORK MACHINE, AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD FOR WORK MACHINE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663