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 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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 3/23/2026. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 10 of 16, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to specification objections, drawing objections, and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections, drawing objections, and claim objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 10-11 of 16, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive. Updated 112(b) rejections are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-16 of 16, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 1 is now rejected under Friend et al. (US-2017/0073935; hereinafter Friend; already of record from IDS) in view of Fukuzawa et al. (US-2007/0109147; hereinafter Fukuzawa).
A detailed rejection follows below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “…an azimuth θdir of the front work device…” as described in the specification (see at least [0110]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the limitation “…a swing angle of the upper swing structure relative to the lower track structure…the upper swing structure has an azimuth…” which does not provide enough detail as to how the “swing angle” and “azimuth” compare or contrast. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the “swing angle” and the “azimuth” as the same angle.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 posture measurement device that measures a state quantity ... and outputs information...” in claim 1.
“…a position measurement device that outputs own machine position information...” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Support for these limitations are as follows:
a posture measurement device:
[0022] Here, the boom angle sensor 14, the arm angle sensor 15, the bucket angle sensor 17, the inclination angle sensor 18, and the swing angle sensor 19 are included in a posture measurement device 53 that measures state quantities related to the posture of the front work device 2, for example, each pivot angle, the swing angle of the upper swing structure 7, and the like, and that outputs information about the posture of the front work device 2 as posture information.
a position measurement device:
[0057] ...In addition, the position of the work machine in the site coordinate system 500 may be measured by using a position measurement device such as a GNSS or a device that calculates positions such as a TS (Total Station), and the position of the work machine may be transmitted to the transporting machine 200, or an FMS or the like provided at the work site, along with the information about the loading area 210...
[0110] ...For example, a position measurement device such as a GNSS, a TS (Total Station), or the like may be used as the position measurement device 60...
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…the basis of the posture information about the work machine…a basis of the posture information about the work machine…” which the Examiner believes should be updated to instead state “…a basis of the posture information about the work machine…[ [ a ] ] the basis of the posture information about the work machine…” if that is in fact the Applicant’s intent, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…the basis of the swing angle of the upper swing structure…” which the Examiner believes should be updated to instead state “…a basis of the swing angle of the upper swing structure…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 2 as currently presented states “…the LiDAR overlap…” which the Examiner believes should be updated to instead state “…a LiDAR overlap…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 as currently presented states “The work machine according to claim 3 that has a plurality of LiDAR that has a plurality of mutually different measurement areas…” which the Examiner believes should be updated to instead state “The work machine according to claim 3 that has a plurality of LiDAR which each respectively have a plurality of mutually different measurement areas…” or the like, so as to correct the improper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…measures a state quantity related to a posture…” however this is not a common term which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, nor is there any structure or detail provided in the specification or drawings to further indicate the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a posture measurement device that measures a state quantity related to a posture of the work machine, including a swing angle…compute the swing angle…the swing angle…” which describes both a measured “swing angle” as well as a computed “swing angle” however does not adequately differentiate between the two, thus the third mention of “the swing angle” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret all references of the “swing angle” as the same.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…the upper swing structure does not have the azimuth such that the position of the transporting machine to be computed…” which is indefinite because the intention of the limitation is not evident as currently presented, but rather appears to be an incomplete thought requiring additional information. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim as “…the upper swing structure does not have the azimuth such that the position of the transporting machine [ [ to ] ] can be computed…”.
Regarding claim 5, limitation “a position measurement device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Neither the claims nor the specification details the structure of the “position measurement device”. A “position measurement device” has been provided an open-ended list of what structure could entail, therefore the Examiner will be required to interpret the device according to the only definitive structure, that is a GNSS. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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, 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend et al. (US-2017/0073935; hereinafter Friend; already of record from IDS) in view of Fukuzawa et al. (US-2007/0109147; hereinafter Fukuzawa).
Regarding claim 1, Friend discloses a work machine that has a lower track structure, an upper swing structure swingably provided on top of the lower track structure and an articulated front work device and performs loading work to load a transporting machine with a transporting target object (see Friend at least [0009] "In still another aspect, a machine includes a rotatable base, a linkage assembly including a boom operatively connected to the base, a connecting member operatively connected to the boom, and a material moving work implement operatively connected to the connecting member. An implement system pose sensor generates implement system pose signals indicative of a pose of a portion of the implement system. A target has a target zone and is movable at a work site and a target pose sensor generates target pose signals indicative of a pose of the target zone..."), the work machine comprising:
a LiDAR that is disposed on the upper swing structure, measures an object existing in a predetermined measurement area around the work machine and a position of the object, and outputs information about the object and the position as object position information (see Friend at least [0046]-[0047] "...Perception sensors 71 may embody LIDAR (light detection and ranging) devices (e.g., a laser scanner), RADAR (radio detection and ranging) devices, SONAR (sound navigation and ranging) devices, cameras, and/or other types of devices that may determine the range and direction to objects and/or attributes thereof... An object identification system, shown generally at 73, may be mounted on or associated with the rope shovel 15 in addition to the terrain mapping system 70..." and [0054] "...Upon determining that an obstacle is within a predetermined distance or proximity of the rope shovel 15, the object identification system 73 may identify the type of haul truck and utilize its stored dimensions to generate an electronic model that is stored within the electronic map.");
a posture measurement device that measures a state quantity related to a posture of the work machine, including a swing angle of the upper swing structure relative to the lower track structure, and outputs information about the state quantity as posture information (see Friend at least [0036]-[0037] "A pose sensing system 60, as shown generally by an arrow in FIG. 2, may include a pose sensor 61 to sense the position and orientation (i.e., the heading, pitch, roll or tilt, and yaw) of the rope shovel 15 relative to the work site 100. The position and orientation of the rope shovel 15 are sometimes collectively referred to as the pose of the machine. The pose sensor 61 may include a plurality of individual sensors that cooperate to generate and provide pose signals to controller 56 indicative of the position and orientation of the rope shovel 15. In one example, the pose sensor 61 may include one or more sensors that interact with a positioning system such as a global navigation satellite system or a global positioning system to operate as a pose sensor. In another example, the pose sensor 61 may further include a slope or inclination sensor such as pitch angle sensor for measuring the slope or inclination of the rope shovel 15 relative to a ground or earth reference. The controller 56 may use pose signals from the pose sensors 61 to determine the pose of the rope shovel 15 within work site 100. In other examples, the pose sensor 61 may include a perception based system, or may use other systems such as lasers, sonar, or radar to determine all or some aspects of the pose of rope shovel 15."); and
a controller configured to compute a position and a posture of the transporting machine relative to the work machine on the basis of the posture information about the work machine and the object position information and perform loading assist control of the work machine on a basis of the computed position and posture of the transporting machine (see Friend at least [0054] "...Upon determining that an obstacle is within a predetermined distance or proximity of the rope shovel 15, the object identification system 73 may identify the type of haul truck and utilize its stored dimensions to generate an electronic model that is stored within the electronic map." [0074] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping. For example, the controller 56 may determine a plurality of paths that the dipper 35 may travel from its current location (as determined by the pose of the rope shovel 15) to the target zone at the dump body 84 based upon the kinematic model of the implement system and the desired operating characteristics of the implement system." and [0102] "...The flowcharts depict a process in which an operator may manually perform a digging operation and the controller 56 of rope shovel 15 semi-autonomously moves the dipper 35 into alignment with a haul truck 80, dumps the load within the dipper, and returns the dipper to a dig location at which the operator may perform a new digging operation..."),
wherein the controller is configured to:
compute the swing angle of the upper swing structure on a basis of the posture information about the work machine output from the posture measurement device (see Friend at least [0037] "...The controller 56 may use pose signals from the pose sensors 61 to determine the pose of the rope shovel 15 within work site 100…"),
set a loading area indicating a stop position of the transporting machine and where loading work by the work machine to load the transporting machine is performed (see Friend at least [0093]-[0094] "During a material loading operation, material may be loaded into the dipper 35 at the dig location 140 and the dipper moved into alignment with a first haul truck 80 located at the first dump location 141 and unloaded. Upon emptying the dipper 35, the controller 56 may generate command signals to move the dipper back to the dig location 140 and the process of loading the first haul truck 80 may be repeated until the first haul truck is fully loaded. Either before or while the rope shovel 15 is loading the first haul truck 80, a second haul truck may be positioned at the second dump location 142..."),
assess whether the upper swing structure has an azimuth such that the LiDAR can compute the position of the transporting machine when the transporting machine is stopped in the loading area, on the basis of the swing angle of the upper swing structure, the predetermined measurement area of the LiDAR, and the loading area (see Friend at least [0053] "...The pose of the haul truck 80 may be communicated directly to the rope shovel 15 or to a remote system and the information entered or stored within the electronic map of the work site 100…" [0074] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping..." and [0093] "During a material loading operation, material may be loaded into the dipper 35 at the dig location 140 and the dipper moved into alignment with a first haul truck 80 located at the first dump location 141 and unloaded..."),
compute the position and posture of the transporting machine stopped in the loading area on a basis of the object position information output from the LiDAR, when it is assessed that the upper swing structure has the azimuth such that the position of the transporting machine can be computed (see Friend at least [0074]-[0078] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping. For example, the controller 56 may determine a plurality of paths that the dipper 35 may travel from its current location (as determined by the pose of the rope shovel 15) to the target zone at the dump body 84 based upon the kinematic model of the implement system and the desired operating characteristics of the implement system... If the re-positioning system 76 analyzes the pose of the haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model of the rope shovel 15 (or the pose of the boom 25) and determines that it is desirable to re-position the haul truck 80, the operator of the haul truck may be instructed to re-position the haul truck at a new location or a new orientation."), and
give an instruction about a swing action of the upper swing structure when it is assessed that the upper swing structure does not have the azimuth such that the position of the transporting machine … [can be computed] (see Friend at least Fig 10-11, [0075] "In one example, the haul truck 80 may be too close to the base 16 of rope shovel 15 (i.e., within keep-out zone 121) so that rotation of the base during the loading process would cause a collision or the dipper 35 cannot be maneuvered into the desired loading position generally centered between the front wall 85 and rear wall 86 in a first direction and between the sidewalls 88 in a second direction, with the second direction being generally perpendicular to the first direction." and [0080] "The instructions to re-position the haul truck 80 may take any desired form. In one example, the instructions may be provided as an alert command between the controller 56 of rope shovel 15 and controller 91 of haul truck 80. The instructions may result in a written communication on a display within the haul truck 80, another type of visual indication such as flashing certain lights of the haul truck, or an audible communication or indication such as by generating a verbal request or sounding a horn or an alarm of the haul truck. In another example, the rope shovel 15 may generate an alert commands as visual or audible indications such as flashing lights or sounding an alarm on the rope shovel.").
However, while Friend discloses the detection of a truck in an inappropriate location and then provides corresponding guidance to the truck for repositioning, it is not explicit that Friend discloses the following, as interpreted per the indefiniteness rejection interpretation noted above:
…the position of the transporting machine [cannot] be computed…
Fukuzawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the position of the transporting machine [cannot] be computed (see Fukuzawa at least [0106] "…For example, if the conventional in-vehicle radar is attached to a front grill, the position is too low, and it cannot detect well the position of a truck or the like...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine detection capabilities as disclosed by Friend with sensor adjustments such as taught by Fukuzawa with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of locating a sensor in any specific location on a machine so as to provide detection capabilities which may otherwise be compromised (see Fukuzawa at least [0106]).
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend in view of Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US-2012/0259537; hereinafter Schmidt; already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Friend in view of Fukuzawa teach the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to assess whether the upper swing structure has the azimuth such that the position and posture of the transporting machine can be computed (see Friend at least Fig 11 and [0098] "In a further example, a configuration may be utilized that is similar to that of FIG. 11 but includes a second dump location, indicated generally at 148, near the second dig location 146. By adding the second dump location 148, the rope shovel 15 may load a haul truck at each dump location and then dig material at a dig location near each dump location.") …
However, while Friend discloses that a digging location, done by the machine, occurs near a dumping location, into the truck, it is not explicit that there are representative zones which overlap, such as the following:
…a basis of an overlap degree representing a degree to which the loading area and the measurement area of the LiDAR overlap.
Schmidt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a basis of an overlap degree representing a degree to which the loading area and the measurement area of the LiDAR overlap (see Schmidt at least Fig 7B and [0049] "Also in FIG. 7B the outer 724 and inner 714 mgf's associated with the tractor location 704 overlap the mgf 716 associated with the grain cart 706. In this instance, identifying information may be provided by a communication device 56 at each vehicle such that the MGDM 26 can identify the particular situation. For example, it may be desirable for a grain cart to be located near a combine but not a tractor, in which case the identity of the particular vehicles in proximity to one another may determine whether a particular alert provided. In this instance, the overlap of the outer mgf 724 of the tractor with the mgf 716 of the grain cart may be ignored as that outer mgf 724 may be used for determining proximity to a weather condition...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the area assignations as disclosed by Friend with a determination of overlap such as taught by Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success so as to monitor vehicle locations to aid with collision predictions (see Schmidt at least [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 2, wherein
the controller is configured to:
calculate a position of a front end of the front work device of the work machine on the basis of the posture information about the work machine output from the posture measurement device (see Friend at least [0039]-[0040] "One or more implement sensors may be provided to monitor the position and status of the dipper 35. More specifically, sensors may be provided to provide signals indicative of the position and other characteristics of the dipper 35... A hoist sensor 63 may be provided that generates hoist signals indicative of the height of the dipper 35 relative to the base 16... The crowd sensor 65 may be configured to generate crowd signals indicative of the crowd or position (i.e., the extension or retraction) of the dipper handle 40 relative to the boom 25."), and
set the loading area on a basis of the position of the front end of the front work device (see Friend at least [0062] "...The planning system 75 may simulate and evaluate any aspect of a material moving operation, such as by evaluating a plurality of potential paths between the current location of the dipper 35 and a target zone, and then select (or provide feedback regarding) a proposed dig location, dump location, and/or the path between the dig location and the dump location that creates the most desirable results based upon one or more criteria." [0074] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping..." and [0077] "In a further example, the haul truck 80 may be positioned at a location in which the dipper 35 may be positioned as desired above the dump body 84 but the haul truck is positioned at a location relatively far from the dig location. In such case, it may be desirable to re-position the haul truck 80 so that the time spent by the rope shovel 15 swinging between the dig and dump positions is reduced, thus increasing the efficiency of the material loading process.").
Regarding claim 4, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3, wherein
the controller is configured to:
calculate a tolerance range of a stop position of the transporting machine as a stop tolerance range when the loading area is set (see Friend at least [0073]-[0078]), and
assess that the upper swing structure has the azimuth such that the position and posture of the transporting machine can be computed (see Friend at least [0056] "Comparing FIG. 4 to FIGS. 5-6, one-to-one correspondence between many of the components, elements, or features of FIG. 4 may be found. For example, face 102 of the mine 101 is depicted in both FIGS. 5-6 and ground surface 104 is depicted as being slightly above the x-axis in both FIGS. 5-6 for clarity. The outer limit 120 of the reach of dipper 35 is depicted in FIGS. 4-5 but not in FIG. 6."), when an overlap degree between the stop tolerance range and the measurement area of the LiDAR is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree (see Schmidt at least Fig 7B and [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the area assignations as disclosed by Friend with a determination of overlap compared to a threshold such as taught by Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3, comprising:
a position measurement device that outputs own machine position information about a position of the work machine in a site coordinate system (see Friend at least [0037] "The pose sensor 61 may include a plurality of individual sensors that cooperate to generate and provide pose signals to controller 56 indicative of the position and orientation of the rope shovel 15. In one example, the pose sensor 61 may include one or more sensors that interact with a positioning system such as a global navigation satellite system or a global positioning system to operate as a pose sensor..."), wherein
the controller is configured to assess whether or not the work machine has moved on a basis of the own machine position information, and move a position of the loading area according to a movement amount of the work machine when it is assessed that the work machine has moved (see Schmidt at least [0023]-[0024] "FIG. 2, shows an example embodiment of a system 20 for tracking an agricultural machine by generating and monitoring a mgf generated about the machine's location. In the example embodiment a moving geofence apparatus (MGA) 22 is configured to generate a moving geofence about a machine's location and determine whether the machine is in proximity to a point of interest... In the example shown in FIG. 1, the LDD 28 determines that the vehicle is initially located at location A and provides the location information to the MGGM 16 of the MGA. The MGGM may use the location information to generate a moving geofence 16 about location A. In this example embodiment, the mgf 16 is in the form of a circle of radius r having the vehicle's location A as a center point. As the vehicle moves to position B (shown in dashed lines) the new location is determined by the LDD and provided to the MGGM 24 and the MGGM generates an updated a mgf 16 about location B. Thus, for each determined location n of the vehicle 10, a resulting mgf 16n may be generated. In this way, the mgf 16 moves with the vehicle as the vehicle moves through the field.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further modify the area assignations as disclosed by Friend with a continual updates as a vehicle moves such as taught by Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide real-time information for collision monitoring (see Schmidt at least [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3, wherein
the controller is configured to externally acquire, as own machine position information, position information about the work machine in a site coordinate system by using a communication device ((see Friend at least [0048] "...In one example, the electronic map may be stored within controller 56 and/or an offboard controller." and [0055] "The electronic map may be configured in any desired manner. In one example, the electronic map may be configured to store the data in a cylindrical coordinate system with the central axis of the cylindrical coordinate system corresponding to the axis 22 of the rope shovel 15...") and (see Schmidt at least [0034] "The MGA communications device 66 may be located at the MGA 22 and configured to receive the geographic and other information sent from the field communications device 56 over the network 58 and provide the information to the MGA 22...")), assess whether or not the work machine has moved on a basis of the acquired own machine position information (see Schmidt at least [0022] "...The vehicle 10 moves from an initial geographic location at point A to a second geographic location at point B (shown in dashed lines). A moving geofence (mgf) 16 has been generated about the vehicle's respective locations... As the vehicle 10 moves through the field 12 the mgf 16 overlaps the stationary geofence 18 so that an alert is issued."), and move a position of the loading area according to a movement amount of the work machine when it is assessed that the work machine has moved ((see Friend at least [0074] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping...") and (see Schmidt at least [0022] "...The vehicle 10 moves from an initial geographic location at point A to a second geographic location at point B (shown in dashed lines). A moving geofence (mgf) 16 has been generated about the vehicle's respective locations... As the vehicle 10 moves through the field 12 the mgf 16 overlaps the stationary geofence 18 so that an alert is issued.")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination to re-position a truck as disclosed by Friend with a determination of a machine having moved from one location to another such as further taught by Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success so as to ensure a proper transfer of material from the machine to the truck at an efficient rate (see Schmidt at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3, wherein
the controller is configured to
calculate the position of the front end of the front work device of the work machine on the basis of the posture information about the work machine output from the posture measurement device (see Friend at least [0039]-[0040] "One or more implement sensors may be provided to monitor the position and status of the dipper 35. More specifically, sensors may be provided to provide signals indicative of the position and other characteristics of the dipper 35... A hoist sensor 63 may be provided that generates hoist signals indicative of the height of the dipper 35 relative to the base 16... The crowd sensor 65 may be configured to generate crowd signals indicative of the crowd or position (i.e., the extension or retraction) of the dipper handle 40 relative to the boom 25."), and
assess whether or not the front end of the front work device is positioned above the measurement area of the LiDAR (see Friend at least [0107] "One or more dig locations may be set or stored at stage 153 within controller 56. The dig locations may be identified and stored within controller 56 in any desired manner. In one example, an operator may move the dipper 35 to a desired dig location and actuate an input device such as a switch (not shown) within the operator station 20. Signals from the sensors (e.g., swing sensor 62, hoist sensor 63, and crowd sensor 65) indicative of the position of the desired dig location may be stored within controller 56."), and sense the position and posture of the transporting machine when it is assessed that the front end of the front work device is positioned outside the measurement area of the LiDAR (see Friend at least [0053] "...The pose of the haul truck 80 may be communicated directly to the rope shovel 15 or to a remote system and the information entered or stored within the electronic map of the work site 100…" and [0074] "The re-positioning system 76 may be configured to analyze the pose of a haul truck 80 and the pose and kinematic model or capabilities of the rope shovel 15, as well as the location of any additional obstacles at the work site 100, to determine whether the dipper 35 may be efficiently and/or safely moved to the target zone at the dump body 84 and dumped or whether it is desirable to re-position of the haul truck prior to dumping...").
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Spielman, JR. (US-2022/0057802; already of record) and Ready-Campbell et al. (US-2021/0148086; hereinafter RC; already of record).
Regarding claim 7, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3, wherein
…
the controller is configured to assess that the upper swing structure has the azimuth such that the position and posture of the transporting machine can be computed (see Friend at least [0056] "Comparing FIG. 4 to FIGS. 5-6, one-to-one correspondence between many of the components, elements, or features of FIG. 4 may be found. For example, face 102 of the mine 101 is depicted in both FIGS. 5-6 and ground surface 104 is depicted as being slightly above the x-axis in both FIGS. 5-6 for clarity. The outer limit 120 of the reach of dipper 35 is depicted in FIGS. 4-5 but not in FIG. 6.") ...
However, while Friend discloses a field of view of sensors, neither Friend nor Fukuzawa nor Schmidt explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the measurement area of the LiDAR can be adjusted…
…when an overlap degree between the loading area and a range over which the measurement area of the LiDAR can be adjusted is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, and compute the position and posture of the transporting machine after the measurement area of the LiDAR is adjusted such that the overlap degree between the loading area and the measurement area of the LiDAR is maximized…
Spielman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the measurement area of the LiDAR can be adjusted (see Spielman at least [0056] "Controller 140 may use the size information to adjust a size of an object detection area in order to determine whether an object has been detected in the articulation portion…")…
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors as disclosed by Friend with an adjustable range of detection such as taught by Spielman with a reasonable expectation of success so as to continue detection as a machine is articulated (see Spielman at least [0056]).
However, while Friend discloses an outer reach that the machine is capable of accessing, and the teachings of Schmidt discuss overlap of different vehicle zones, it is not evident that there is a degree of overlap, such as the following:
…when an overlap degree between the loading area and a range over which the measurement area of the LiDAR can be adjusted is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, and compute the position and posture of the transporting machine after the measurement area of the LiDAR is adjusted such that the overlap degree between the loading area and the measurement area of the LiDAR is maximized…
RC, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…when an overlap degree between the loading area and a range over which the measurement area of the LiDAR can be adjusted is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, and compute the position and posture of the transporting machine after the measurement area of the LiDAR is adjusted such that the overlap degree between the loading area and the measurement area of the LiDAR is maximized (see RC at least [0165] "Additionally, upon entering the loading location 916, the hauling tool position engine 940 continuously compares the position of the hauling tool with the position of the excavation tool. Upon detecting that the excavation tool of the vehicle 904 is positioned entirely above the hauling tool of the vehicle 916, the hauling tool position engine 940 instructions the controller of the excavation vehicle 904 to halt the navigation of the excavation vehicle and the excavation tool position engine 930 to actuate the excavation tool to transfer earth into the hauling tool...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determinations associated with positions as disclosed by Friend with an overlap equal to or greater than a degree such as taught by RC with a reasonable expectation of success so that load transfers occur with a high degree of accuracy, such as when a tool is directly above a truck (see RC at least [0165]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ready-Campbell et al. (US-2021/0148086; hereinafter RC; already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Friend in view of Fukuzawa and Schmidt teach the work machine according to claim 3,
that has a plurality of LiDAR that has a plurality of mutually different measurement areas (see Friend at least Fig 2, Fig 4, [0044] "...The terrain mapping system 70 may include one or more perception or perception sensors 71 (FIG. 4) that may scan work site 100 to gather information defining the work surface thereof. More specifically, perception sensors 71 may determine the distance and direction from the perception sensors 71 to points that define a mapped surface such as the work surface as well as obstacles at the work site 100. The field of view of each perception sensor 71 is depicted schematically at 72." and [0046] "... Perception sensors 71 may embody LIDAR (light detection and ranging) devices (e.g., a laser scanner), RADAR (radio detection and ranging) devices, SONAR (sound navigation and ranging) devices, cameras, and/or other types of devices that may determine the range and direction to objects and/or attributes thereof..."), wherein
the controller is configured to assess that the upper swing structure has the azimuth such that the position and posture of the transporting machine can be computed (see Friend at least [0056] "Comparing FIG. 4 to FIGS. 5-6, one-to-one correspondence between many of the components, elements, or features of FIG. 4 may be found. For example, face 102 of the mine 101 is depicted in both FIGS. 5-6 and ground surface 104 is depicted as being slightly above the x-axis in both FIGS. 5-6 for clarity. The outer limit 120 of the reach of dipper 35 is depicted in FIGS. 4-5 but not in FIG. 6.") …
However, while Friend discloses an outer reach that the machine is capable of accessing, and the teachings of Schmidt discuss overlap of different vehicle zones, it is not evident that there is a degree of overlap, such as the following:
…when an overlap degree between the loading area and at least one measurement area of the LiDAR of the plurality of measurement areas of the LiDAR is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, and sense the position and posture of the transporting machine by using a measurement area of the LiDAR having a high overlap degree with the loading area in the plurality of measurement areas of the LiDAR…
RC, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…when an overlap degree between the loading area and at least one measurement area of the LiDAR of the plurality of measurement areas of the LiDAR is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, and sense the position and posture of the transporting machine by using a measurement area of the LiDAR having a high overlap degree with the loading area in the plurality of measurement areas of the LiDAR (see RC at least [0165] "Additionally, upon entering the loading location 916, the hauling tool position engine 940 continuously compares the position of the hauling tool with the position of the excavation tool. Upon detecting that the excavation tool of the vehicle 904 is positioned entirely above the hauling tool of the vehicle 916, the hauling tool position engine 940 instructions the controller of the excavation vehicle 904 to halt the navigation of the excavation vehicle and the excavation tool position engine 930 to actuate the excavation tool to transfer earth into the hauling tool...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determinations associated with positions as disclosed by Friend with an overlap equal to or greater than a degree such as taught by RC with a reasonable expectation of success so that load transfers occur with a high degree of accuracy, such as when a tool is directly above a truck (see RC at least [0165]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Friend (US-2016/0035149) teaches a communication between a loader and a truck so as to precisely align a spotting position for loading the truck.
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 SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights