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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/815,966 filed on 08/27/2024.
• Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response the Amendments and Remarks filed on 03/02/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2026, 09/04/2024, 05/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kjaergaard teaches:
A computer-implemented method of controlling moving of a point-of-interest of a working tool mounted to a complex attachment, the complex attachment mounted to the work implement of a work vehicle, (Kjaergaard, para [35], “the remapping unit comprises a model of a particular excavator type, i.e. an algorithm implemented as software on a computer to calculate the individual joint movements required to achieve a particular angular and/or linear movement of the tool relative to the reference surface.”, and Fig.1 depicts of an excavator 4 mounted to a complex attachment 10 “ so-called tilt-rotator arrangement” which mounted to the work implement of a work vehicle )
PNG
media_image1.png
743
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the work implement comprising a first component movable with respect to the work vehicle and a second component movable with respect to the first component, (Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts the work implement comprising a first component (boom 2) movable with respect to the work vehicle and a second component (stick 3) movable with respect to the first component (boom 2))
the second component having a free end, the complex attachment coupled to the free end of the second component, (Kjaergaard, para [74], “the far end of the stick 3”, and Fig.1 depicts of an excavator 4 mounted to a complex attachment 10 “ so-called tilt-rotator arrangement” which mounted to the work implement of a work vehicle )
the complex attachment operable to move the point-of-interest of the working tool with respect to the free end of the second component of the work implement, the method comprising: (Kjaergaard, In the figure 1, the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12.”)
and sending velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to a control system of the complex attachment, the control system of the complex attachment applying the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to control the movement of the point-of-interest of the working tool with respect to the second component of the work implement. (Kjaergaard, para [99], “The remapping algorithm 40 then makes use of a kinematic model 45 of the excavator type to calculate the individual joint movements required to achieve a particular movement of the tool relative to the reference surface. Based on this, the remapping algorithm 40 provides actuator commands 46 configured to control movement of the excavator links, e.g. control signals comprising actuator positions and actuator velocities, hydraulic command pressures, hydraulic command flows, and electrical currents or voltages.”
Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki teaches:
defining a desired trajectory for the point-of-interest of the working tool; ( Suzuki, Fig. 6 and para[62], “ FIG. 6 , an actual action locus of the bucket 22 based on the machine control is illustrated”)
PNG
media_image2.png
862
1557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining desired first velocities for the movements of the first and second components of the work implement and determining desired second velocities for the movements of the point-of-interest of the working tool with respect to the second component of the work implement; ( Suzuki, Fig.6 and para[54], “The target velocity computing section 310 computes the target velocity of the actuators 20A, 21A, and 22A that drive the front work implement”, and para[58], “The bucket target velocity correcting section 450 corrects the target velocity of the bucket ”)
applying the desired first velocities to a control system of the work vehicle that controls actuators of the work implement; ( Suzuki, para[54], “outputs the action command value to the drive system”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Suzuki in order to include a computer-implemented method of controlling moving of a point-of-interest of a working tool and defining a desired trajectory for the point-of-interest of the working tool; determining desired first velocities for the movements of the components of the work implement and determining desired second velocities for the movements of the point-of-interest of the working tool with respect to the work implement; applying the desired first velocities to a control system that controls actuators of the work implement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a work machine that is capable of improving the work performance” (Suzuki, Description)
Regarding Claim 2:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kjaergaard teaches:
from the complex attachment (Kjaergaard, para [74], “ the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12”)
Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving measured second velocities…; (Suzuki, para[39], “The posture sensor 30 includes an angular velocity sensor 30 a and an acceleration sensor 30 b and can measure the angle of the respective components of the front work implement 2 and the swing structure 3.”)
and generating adjusted second velocities in response to differences between the measured second velocities and the desired second velocities and providing the adjusted second velocities as the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities.( Suzuki, para [89], “it is determined whether the target velocity of the bucket 22 according to the operation input amount from the operation input device 33 is lower than the target velocity computed in step S180 ”, and para[90], “the target velocity of the bucket 22 is corrected”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Suzuki in order to include receiving measured second velocities and generating adjusted second velocities in response to differences between the measured second velocities and the desired second velocities and providing the adjusted second velocities as the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a work machine that is capable of improving the work performance” (Suzuki, Description)
Regarding Claim 3:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the adjusted second velocities are the same as the desired second velocities when the measured second velocities are the same as the desired second velocities. ( Suzuki, Fig.11 and para [88], “In step S185, the target velocity of the bucket 22 is not corrected.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Suzuki in order to include wherein the adjusted second velocities are the same as the desired second velocities when the measured second velocities are the same as the desired second velocities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a work machine that is capable of improving the work performance” (Suzuki, Description)
Regarding Claim 5:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kjaergaard teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the first component of the work implement has a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the main frame of the work vehicle at a first linkage joint; (Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts the work implement comprising a first component (boom 2) has a first end and a second end, and the first end coupled to the main frame of the work vehicle at a first linkage joint)
the second component of the work implement has a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the second end of the first component at a second linkage joint; and the complex attachment is coupled to the second end of second component at a third linkage joint. (Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts the work implement comprising a second component (stick 3) movable with respect to the first component (boom 2), stick 3 has a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the second end of the first component at a second linkage joint; and the complex attachment is coupled to the second end of second component at a third linkage joint.)
PNG
media_image1.png
743
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Kjaergaard teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the first component is a boom, the second component is an arm, and the third linkage joint is configured to enable pivotable attachment of the complex attachment to the arm. (Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts the work implement comprising a first component (boom 2) and a second component is an arm (stick 3), and the third linkage joint is configured to enable pivotable attachment of the complex attachment to the arm)
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1), further in view of Kim (US20180223499A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: coupling a source of hydraulic flow to the complex attachment; receiving hydraulic flow requests from the complex attachment; (Kim, para[40], “The hydraulic motor 431 is coupled to the first body 410, receives hydraulic energy from the hydraulic pump”)
and adjusting hydraulic flow to the complex attachment in response to the hydraulic flow requests. (Kim, para[44],” prevents the pressure of oil, fed to the hydraulic motor, from increasing above a preset threshold value”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Kim in order to include coupling a source of hydraulic flow to the complex attachment; receiving hydraulic flow requests from the complex attachment; and adjusting hydraulic flow to the complex attachment in response to the hydraulic flow requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “thus the efficiency of work can be improved.” (Kim, Description)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1), further in view of Eberhardt (US20240262659A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Eberhardt teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the desired first velocities and the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities are synchronized before sending the desired first velocities to the control system of the work vehicle and before sending the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to the control system of the complex attachment. (Eberhardt, para[45], “the first hydraulic cylinder pivoting the first arm relative to the upper carriage and the second hydraulic cylinder pivoting the second arm relative to the first arm are controlled in a synchronized manner in such a way that the angular speeds of the first and second arms are in a fixed ratio to one another during pivoting. The coordination or synchronization of the two arms is therefore achieved here by synchronizing a plurality of hydraulic cylinders.”) Examiner note: Eberhardt teaches synchronizing the desired first velocities and the second velocities of two components of work element. It is design choice to perform the synchronization before sending the desired first velocities to the control system and before sending the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to the complex attachment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Eberhardt in order to include wherein the desired first velocities and the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities are synchronized before sending the desired first velocities to the control system and before sending the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to the complex attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “coordination or synchronization of the two arms is therefore achieved” (Eberhardt, Description)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1), further in view of Wang (US 20230173660 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kjaergaard in view of Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the desired first and second velocities are determined by applying inverse kinematics to the desired trajectory.( Wang, para [69], “The robot program computed by the controller converts the gripper positions and orientations at various points along the trajectory into robot joint velocity commands, such as by using inverse kinematics calculations”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Wang in order to include wherein the desired first and second velocities are determined by applying inverse kinematics to the desired trajectory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improving the precision of the workpiece placement” (Wang, Description)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Kim (US20180223499A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Kjaergaard teaches:
A self-propelled work vehicle comprising: a main frame moveable with respect to terrain; a work implement comprising: a first component having a first end pivotably coupled to the main frame and having a second end of the first component moveable with respect to the main(Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts a work vehicle with a main frame (6) moveable with respect to terrain; the work implement comprising a first component (boom 2) pivotably with respect to the work vehicle and a second component (stick 3) pivotably with respect to the first component (boom 2). Fig.1 depicts of an excavator 4 mounted to a complex attachment 10 “ so-called tilt-rotator arrangement” which mounted to the work implement of a work vehicle, Fig.1 depicts the work implement comprising a second component (stick 3) movable with respect to the first component (boom 2), stick 3 has a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the second end of the first component at a second linkage joint; and the complex attachment is coupled to the second end of second component at a third linkage joint.)
PNG
media_image1.png
743
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the complex attachment comprising: a first portion pivotably coupled to the first working tool mounting system of the second component of the work implement; (Kjaergaard, Fig.1 depicts of an excavator 4 mounted to a complex attachment 10 “ so-called tilt-rotator arrangement” which mounted to the second component (stick 3) of the work implement of a work vehicle)
a working tool mounted to the rotatable working tool mounting system of the complex attachment; (Kjaergaard, In the figure 1, the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12.”)
and a complex attachment control system configured to receive tilt and rotate commands, the complex attachment control system responsive to the tilt and rotate commands to control the at least one actuator to selectively tilt the second portion with respect to the first portion and to selectively rotate the working tool mounting system; (Kjaergaard, para [74], “the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12.”, para [82], “controlling an excavator having a tilt-rotator arrangement”, para [84], “ the system uses… a computer, electronic logic circuit, or microcontroller”)
and a work vehicle control system configured to monitor and control a position of the first working tool mounting system at the second end of the work implement, to generate the tilt and rotate commands velocities, and to send the tilt and rotate commands to the complex attachment, the complex attachment control system responsive to the tilt and rotate commands to selectively tilt the second portion of the complex attachment with respect to the first portion of the complex attachment and to selectively rotate the working tool mounting system. (Kjaergaard, para [74], “the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12.”, para [82], “controlling an excavator having a tilt-rotator arrangement”, para [84], “ the system uses… a computer, electronic logic circuit, or microcontroller”, and para [29], “the system comprises a remapping unit configured to remap a user command for moving two of the multiple links with respect to each other about a corresponding joint to an associated rotatory tool degree of freedom out of three independent rotatory tool degrees of freedom of a movement of the tool with respect to the reference surface.”, and para [47], “the system may also be configured that an enablement state for automatic readjustment of a rotary tool degree of freedom is selectable by a user.”
at least one actuator configured to selectively tilt the second portion and the working tool mounting system of the complex attachment with respect to the first portion of the complex attachment (Kjaergaard, para [54], “wherein the tilt-rotator arrangement is configured that … swiveled about a tilt axis perpendicular to the rotor axis and the pitch axis.”)
Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Kim teaches:
a second portion including a rotatable working tool mounting system of the complex attachment; (Kim, Fig.3 and para [37], “a rotation module 430 interposed between the first body 410 and the second body 420, and configured to enable the rotational movement of the second body 420”, and para [38], “a specific configuration of the rotation module 430 includes: a hydraulic motor 431 configured to generate rotating force; a drive gear 432 and a driven gear 433 configured to transfer rotating force; and a bearing 434 configured such that the driven gear 433 is formed on the outer circumferential surface thereof.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
659
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Kim in order to include a second portion including a rotatable working tool mounting system of the complex attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “thus the efficiency of work can be improved.” (Kim, Description)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Kim (US20180223499A1), further in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
Kjaergaard in view of Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki teaches:
The self-propelled work vehicle of claim 9, wherein the work vehicle control system comprises: a trajectory determination subsystem to determine a desired trajectory of a point-of-interest of the working tool; ( Suzuki, para[05], “ a control method of a construction machine that execute bucket control ”, para[08], “ the claw tip of the bucket”), Fig. 6 and para[62], “ FIG. 6 , an actual action locus of the bucket 22 based on the machine control is illustrated”)
a velocity determination subsystem responsive to the desired trajectory to determine desired first velocities and desired second velocities to achieve the desired trajectory, the desired first velocities for components of the work implement and for the first working tool mounting system, the desired second velocities for the complex attachment, ( Suzuki, para[54], “The target velocity computing section 310 computes the target velocity of the actuators 20A, 21A, and 22A that drive the front work implement 2, on the basis of the operation amount information of the operation input device 33, the distance between the bucket 22 and the excavation target surface”)
wherein the tilt and rotate commands sent to the complex attachment are responsive to the desired second velocities; ( Suzuki, para[42], “outputs a command for driving the hydraulic excavator”)
and a hydraulic control subsystem that receives the desired first velocities and that controls movements of the components and the first working tool mounting system of the work implement. ( Suzuki, para [89], “it is determined whether the target velocity of the bucket 22 according to the operation input amount from the operation input device”, and para[34],” The directional control valve 35 b controls the flow rate and the direction of a hydraulic fluid supplied from the hydraulic pump 35 a to the boom cylinder 20A, the arm cylinder 21A, the bucket cylinder 22A, the motor 38 for swing, and the motor 41 for travelling that are actuators”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Suzuki in order to include wherein the work vehicle control system comprises: a trajectory determination subsystem to determine a desired trajectory of a point-of-interest of the working tool; a velocity determination subsystem responsive to the desired trajectory to determine desired first velocities and desired second velocities to achieve the desired trajectory, the desired first velocities for components of the work implement and for the first working tool mounting system, the desired second velocities for the complex attachment, wherein the tilt and rotate commands sent to the complex attachment are responsive to the desired second velocities; and a hydraulic control subsystem that receives the desired first velocities and that controls movements of the components and the first working tool mounting system of the work implement.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a work machine that is capable of improving the work performance” (Suzuki, Description)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Kim (US20180223499A1), further in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1) and Eberhardt (US20240262659A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Kjaergaard in view of Kim and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Kjaergaard teaches:
the complex attachment … tilting and rotating the working tool (Kjaergaard, para [74], “the excavator further comprises a so-called tilt-rotator arrangement 10 providing a swiveling of the tool 4 about a tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation of the tool 4 about a rotor axis 12.”,
Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Eberhardt teaches:
The self-propelled work vehicle of claim 10, further comprising a synchronization subsystem to synchronize the desired first velocities and velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to generate synchronized first velocities and synchronized second velocities, (Eberhardt, para[45], “the first hydraulic cylinder pivoting the first arm relative to the upper carriage and the second hydraulic cylinder pivoting the second arm relative to the first arm are controlled in a synchronized manner in such a way that the angular speeds of the first and second arms are in a fixed ratio to one another during pivoting. The coordination or synchronization of the two arms is therefore achieved here by synchronizing a plurality of hydraulic cylinders.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kjaergaard to include these above teachings from Eberhardt in order to include a synchronization subsystem to synchronize the desired first velocities and velocities responsive to the desired second velocities to generate synchronized first velocities and synchronized second velocities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “coordination or synchronization of the two arms is therefore achieved” (Eberhardt, Description)
Regarding Claim 12:
Kjaergaard in view of Kim and Suzuki, Eberhardt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki teaches:
The self-propelled work vehicle of claim 11, wherein the work vehicle control system includes a feedback control subsystem configured to receive feedback from the complex attachment system representing measured second velocities and to generate the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities responsive to differences between the measured second velocities and the desired second velocities.( Suzuki, para [87], “In step S180, the target velocity of the bucket 22 is corrected to make the distance between the bucket 22 and the excavation target surface shorter within a range in which the action correction amount of the bucket 22 does not exceed the bucket correction limit value computed in step S170 or step S175.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kim to include these above teachings from Suzuki in order to include wherein the work vehicle control system includes a feedback control subsystem configured to receive feedback from the complex attachment system representing measured second velocities and to generate the velocities responsive to the desired second velocities responsive to differences between the measured second velocities and the desired second velocities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a work machine that is capable of improving the work performance” (Suzuki, Description)
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US20200318316A1) in view of Kim (US20180223499A1), further in view of Suzuki (US20230332375A1) and Wang (US 20230173660 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Kjaergaard in view of Kim and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Kjaergaard does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches:
The self-propelled work vehicle of claim 10, wherein the velocity determination subsystem generates the desired first velocities and the desired second velocities using inverse kinematics. (Wang, para [69], “The robot program computed by the controller converts the gripper positions and orientations at various points along the trajectory into robot joint velocity commands, such as by using inverse kinematics calculations”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify excavator having rotatable arm from Kim to include these above teachings from Wang in order to include wherein the desired first and second velocities are determined by applying inverse kinematics to the desired trajectory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improving the precision of the workpiece placement” (Wang, Description)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Updating Notice of References Cited (PTO-892 form). The references identified by Applicant have been cited on PTO-892 form. The examiner thanks Applicant for bringing it to the examiner’s attention.
103 Rejection. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 (See applicant’s response, page 8, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PADILLA (US20180030693A1) teaches an excavator that can automatically steer and tilt a rotating bucket or similar implement near obstacles or grade boundaries. The excavator has a boom, stick, and a coupling that lets the implement swing, curl, tilt, and rotate. Sensors track the machine’s position, the implement’s edge, and its orientation relative to a map or grade database. A controller uses that information to estimate where the nearest edge of the implement is relative to a reference boundary. If that edge overlaps or is approaching the reference boundary, the system commands the implement to rotate away so it clears the area. The rotation can be started before contact, using a user-set buffer or approach distance. The system can also stop rotation once the implement reaches a clearance distance. In some cases, it can counter-rotate the implement if it rotates too far. The disclosure says this may help reduce operator fatigue, improve productivity, and reduce the chance of hitting obstacles.
Kitajima (US20250129578A1) teaches a control system for a work machine, such as a hydraulic excavator. When the operator triggers a start condition, or when another condition is met, the system identifies a virtual rotation axis that points in the tool’s opening direction. It then automatically computes how much each actuator should move so the tool rotates to a target posture around that virtual axis. The goal is to change the tool’s tooth direction without changing its opening direction. In the bucket example, this lets the teeth become parallel to the vehicle body reference plane while the bucket mouth, that has a tilt rotator and a bucket or other work tool at the end of the arm. The system reads data oriented for excavation. That helps reduce soil spill when carrying material to a dump truck. The control uses measured angles and position data from multiple sensors plus stored geometry data. The processor then outputs control signals to the bucket cylinder, tilt cylinder, and rotary from multiple sensors to figure out the current pose of the work tool. When a certain start condition motor. The system can be started by a button press or, in a variation, when the bucket is lifted away from the ground by a threshold distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights