DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 7/30/2024.
Claims 3-5 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/20/2025 and 7/30/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the first straight line setting part is a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation that is supported by paragraphs [0032] and [0043] of the specification, with respect to Figure 2, describing a controller serving as the first straight line setting part that determines the first straight line L1 from the first point PA.
In claim 1, the second straight line setting part is a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation that is supported by paragraphs [0033] and [0043] of the specification, with respect to Figure 2, describing a controller serving as the second straight line setting part that determines the second straight line L2 from the second point PB.
In claims 1-4, the area setting part is a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation that is supported by paragraphs [0041], [0045], [0050], and [0054]-[0055], with respect to Figures 2-5, describing a controller serving as the area setting part that determines a work area according to the scenarios depicted in Figures 3-5.
In claim 5, the coordinate calculation part is a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation that is supported by paragraphs [0035]-[0036], with respect o Figure 2, describing a controller serving as the coordinate calculation part that determines coordinates of the first point PA of the first straight line L1 and the second point PB of the second straight line L2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A work area setting system for setting a work area in which a work machine makes a work motion, the work machine including a lower traveling body, an upper turning body mounted on an upper part of the lower traveling body capably of turning around a vertical turning center axis, and an attachment attached to the upper turning body capably of rotational movement in a direction along a motion surface that is a plane extending vertically to make the work motion, the work area setting system comprising:
a first straight line setting part that sets a first straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in a plan view in which the work machine is viewed from above and passes through a first point at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a first direction;
a second straight line setting part that sets a second straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in the plan view and passes through a second point at which the tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction that is different from the first direction; and
an area setting part that sets an area between the first straight line and the second straight line in the plan view as the work area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of sets a first straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in a plan view in which the work machine is viewed from above and passes through a first point at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a first direction. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “first straight” is data pertaining to a line arranged parallel to a surface and passing through a “first point.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “first point,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to a location on an attachment of a work machine when in a particular orientation. The particular orientation of the work machine is not derived from particular sensors, nor is the work machine controlled in order to achieve a particular orientation. The limitations of “parallel to the motion surface in a plan view in which the work machine is viewed from above” and “at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a first direction” are merely describing the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a first straight line setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “a first straight line setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “first straight line setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. a first point at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a first direction) and forming a simple observation (i.e. sets a first straight line that passes through the first point). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “a first straight line setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a first straight line setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of sets a second straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in the plan view and passes through a second point at which the tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction that is different from the first direction. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “second straight” is data pertaining to a line arranged parallel to a surface and passing through a “second point.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “second point,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to a location on an attachment of a work machine when in a particular orientation. The particular orientation of the work machine is not derived from particular sensors, nor is the work machine controlled in order to achieve a particular orientation. The limitations of “parallel to the motion surface in a plan view” and “at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction” are merely describing the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a second straight line setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “a second straight line setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “second straight line setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. a second point at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction) and forming a simple observation (i.e. sets a second straight line that passes through the second point). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “a second straight line setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a second straight line setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of sets an area between the first straight line and the second straight line in the plan view as the work area. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of an “area” is data pertaining to a region between two lines. While the limitation of a “work area” is defined in the preamble as an area “in which a work machine makes a work motion,” particular controlled operations of the work machine are not claimed, and the limitation of “work area” is merely used to define the type of data (i.e. “area”) that is being set.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “an area setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “an area setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “area setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. an area between the first and second straight lines) and forming a simple observation (i.e. sets the area as the work area). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “an area setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “an area setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of a first straight line setting part, a second straight line setting part, and an area setting part, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. These claimed parts are recited at a high level of generality and are merely automating the setting steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim recites additional elements of the work machine including a lower traveling body, an upper turning body mounted on an upper part of the lower traveling body capably of turning around a vertical turning center axis, and an attachment attached to the upper turning body capably of rotational movement in a direction along a motion surface that is a plane extending vertically to make the work motion. The “work machine” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose work environment. The “work machine” and its associated components contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., setting a first straight line, a second straight line, and an area pertaining to a point on a work machine in particular orientations); therefore, the “work machine” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the controller and work machine were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a conventional work machine, and the specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-5
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the area setting part is configured to set, in a case where both the first point and the second point are located on the same circle centered on the turning center axis in the plan view, an arc that interconnects the first point and the second point along the same circle in the plan view as an outer boundary of the work area with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper turning body. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “an arc” is data pertaining to a portion of a circle connected by the first and second points. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “an outer boundary,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to limits of an area. The “turning radial direction” of the work machine is not derived from particular sensors, nor is the work machine controlled in order to achieve the turning radial direction. The limitation of “with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper body” is merely describing the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the area setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “the area setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “the area setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second points) and forming a simple observation (i.e. set an arc that interconnects the first and second points as an outer boundary). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “the area setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “the area setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the area setting part is configured to set an arc-shaped curve, in a case where the first point is located on a first circle centered on the turning center axis whereas the second point is located on a second circle centered on the turning center axis and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle in the plan view, the arc-shaped curve interconnecting the first point and the second point in the plan view as an outer boundary of the work area with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper turning body. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “an arc-shaped curve” is data pertaining to a portion of a circle connected by the first and second points. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “an outer boundary,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to limits of an area. The “turning radial direction” of the work machine is not derived from particular sensors, nor is the work machine controlled in order to achieve the turning radial direction. The limitation of “with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper body” is merely describing the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the area setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “the area setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “the area setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second points) and forming a simple observation (i.e. set an arc-shaped curve that interconnects the first and second points as an outer boundary). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “the area setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “the area setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the area setting part is configured to set a third point between the first point and the second point in the plan view and configured to set a first-point-side portion, which is a portion closer to the first point than the third point out of the outer boundary of the work area, based on the position of the first point and set a second-point-side portion, which is a portion closer to the second point than the third point out of the outer boundary of the work area, based on the position of the second point, in a case where the first point is located on a first circle centered on the turning center axis whereas the second point is located on a second circle centered on the turning center axis and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle in the plan view in the plan view. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “an third point” is data pertaining to a location associated with an area between the first and second points. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a first-point-side portion” and “a second-point side-portion,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to portions of the outer boundary of an area. No particular sensors or control of the work machine is claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the area setting part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “the area setting part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “the area setting part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second points) and forming a simple observation (i.e. set a third point between the first and second points, set a first-point-side portion as a portion closer to the first point than the third point, and set a second-point-side portion as a portion closer to the second point than the third point). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “the area setting part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “the area setting part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of a coordinate calculation part that calculates a plurality of coordinates for each of the first point and the second point, the plurality of coordinates including coordinates in a front-rear direction of the upper turning body, coordinates in a vertical direction of the lower traveling body, and coordinates in a turning direction of the upper turning body. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “a plurality of coordinates” is location-related data. The particular directions of the work machine (i.e. front-rear, vertical, and turning directions) are not derived from particular sensors, nor is the work machine controlled in order to achieve the claimed directions. The limitation of “coordinates in a front-rear direction of the upper turning body, coordinates in a vertical direction of the lower traveling body, and coordinates in a turning direction of the upper turning body” is merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “plurality of coordinates”).
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a coordinate calculation part,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller. That is, other than reciting “a coordinate calculation part,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “a coordinate calculation part” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second points) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. calculate a plurality of coordinates for each of the first and second points). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “a coordinate calculation part”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a coordinate calculation part” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-5 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation of the same circle. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a “circle” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the system. In the rejection below, this limitation has been interpreted as the same distance from the turning center axis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurosawa (US 2022/0002970 A1), hereinafter Kurosawa.
Claim 1
Kurosawa discloses the claimed work area setting system (see Figures 1 and 2) for setting a work area in which a work machine (i.e. excavator 100) makes a work motion (see Figures 6A and 6B), the work machine including a lower traveling body (i.e. lower traveling body 1), an upper turning body (i.e. upper turning body 3) mounted on an upper part of the lower traveling body capably of turning around a vertical turning center axis (see ¶0035, with respect to Figure 1, regarding the upper turning body 3 is mounted to lower traveling body 1 in a turnable manner via turning mechanism 2), and an attachment (i.e. boom 4, arm 5, and bucket 6, defined as the attachment in ¶0035) attached to the upper turning body capably of rotational movement in a direction along a motion surface that is a plane extending vertically to make the work motion (see ¶0039-0040, with respect to Figure 1; ¶0186, with respect to Figures 6A and 6B depicting the top view and side view of excavator 100 during work), the work area setting system comprising:
a first straight line setting part (i.e. controller 30) that sets a first straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in a plan view in which the work machine is viewed from above and passes through a first point (i.e. position P1) at which a tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a first direction (see ¶0187, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding that position P1 is identified when the bucket 6A has finished scooping earth and sand by position calculating unit 51 of controller 30, as described in ¶0088; Figure 6A, depicting a “straight line” set from point P1 to the central axis of work machine 100, in order to further estimate the turning angle, as described in ¶0189 and ¶0191);
a second straight line setting part (i.e. controller 30) that sets a second straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in the plan view and passes through a second point (i.e. position P2) at which the tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see ¶0187, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding that position P2 is identified during a combined operation in which upper turning body 3 is turning in a direction toward the position front-facing dump truck DT while boom 4 is raised with earth and sand by position calculating unit 51 of controller 30, as described in ¶0088; Figure 6A, depicting a “straight line” set from point P2 to the central axis of work machine 100, in order to further estimate the turning angle, as described in ¶0190-0191); and
an area setting part (i.e. controller 30) that sets an area between the first straight line and the second straight line in the plan view as the work area (see ¶0190, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding bucket 6 moves from position P1 to position P2). The “work area” is defined only as an area “in which a work machine makes a work motion” in the preamble of the claim.
The “lines” and “area” are not claimed to be used for a particular purpose, e.g., for display or control; therefore, Kurosawa reasonably teaches “setting” the claimed lines and area, as depicted in Figure 6A.
Claim 2
Kurosawa further discloses that the area setting part is configured to set, in a case where both the first point and the second point are located on the same circle centered on the turning center axis in the plan view, an arc that interconnects the first point and the second point along the same circle in the plan view as an outer boundary of the work area with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper turning body (see ¶0086, regarding that machine guidance 50 of controller 30 causes automatic motion of the upper body 3, such that bucket 6 moves along a target trajectory; Figure 6A, depicting the bolded target trajectory that connects position P1 and position P2 on an “arc” of a circle). The “work area” is defined only as an area “in which a work machine makes a work motion” in claim 1; therefore, the “outer boundary of the work area” may reasonably be represented by the bolded “arc” represented by the target trajectory of the bucket.
Claim 4
Kurosawa may alternatively be applied to the limitation of a second straight line setting part (i.e. controller 30) that sets a second straight line, which is a straight line parallel to the motion surface in the plan view and passes through a second point (i.e. position P3) at which the tip of the attachment is located when the upper turning body is oriented in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see ¶0187, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding that position P3 is indicated by the work target before starting the operation of discharging the earth and sand held in bucket 6 by controller 30, as described in ¶0189-0190; Figure 6A, depicting a “straight line” set from point P3 to the centra axis of work machine 100, in order to estimate the turning angle, as described in ¶0190-0191), such that the “area setting part” sets an area between the first straight line and the second straight line in the plan view as the work area (see ¶0190, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding bucket 6 moves from position P1 to position P3). The “work area” is defined only as an area “in which a work machine makes a work motion” in the preamble of claim 1.
In light of the limitations of claim 4, Kurosawa further discloses that the area setting part is configured to set a third point (i.e. position P2) between the first point and the second point in the plan view and configured to set a first-point-side portion, which is a portion closer to the first point than the third point out of the outer boundary of the work area, based on the position of the first point (see ¶0190, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding that controller 30 controls bucket 6 to move from position P1 through position P2 toward position P3; Figure 6A, depicting a “first-point-side portion” between position P1 and position P2), and set a second-point-side portion, which is a portion closer to the second point than the third point out of the outer boundary of the work area, based on the position of the second point (see ¶0190, with respect to Figure 6A, regarding that controller 30 controls bucket 6 to move from position P1 through position P2 toward position P3; Figure 6A, depicting a “second-point-side portion” between position P2 and position P3) in a case where the first point is located on a first circle centered on the turning center axis whereas the second point is located on a second circle centered on the turning center axis and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle in the plan view in the plan view (see Figure 6A, depicting positions P1 and P3 located at different radii from the central axis of work machine 100). The claimed “circles” merely act as a reference for the respective “radius” and does not influence any particular control or display operations; therefore, the “circles” may inherently exist in Figure 6A of Kurosawa in association with the respective radius of each position P1 and P3.
Claim 5
Kurosawa further discloses a coordinate calculation part (i.e. controller 30) that calculates a plurality of coordinates for each of the first point and the second point, the plurality of coordinates including coordinates in a front-rear direction of the upper turning body, coordinates in a vertical direction of the lower traveling body, and coordinates in a turning direction of the upper turning body (see ¶0187, with respect to Figures 6A and 6B, regarding that positions P1 and P2 are calculated by position calculating unit 51 of controller 30, as described in ¶0088; Figures 6A and 6B, depicting positions P1 and P2 as being associated with polar coordinates that include “front-rear,” “vertical,” and “turning” direction).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa in view of Nishi (US 2021/0002852 A1), hereinafter Nishi.
Claim 3
As depicted in Figures 6A and 6B, Kurosawa teaches that an S-shaped curve is set and does not further disclose that the area setting part is configured to set an arc-shaped curve, in a case where the first point is located on a first circle centered on the turning center axis whereas the second point is located on a second circle centered on the turning center axis and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle in the plan view, the arc-shaped curve interconnecting the first point and the second point in the plan view as an outer boundary of the work area with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper turning body. However, it would be obvious to modify the shape of the curve to be an arc-shaped curve with the end points at different radii, in light of Nishi.
Specifically, Nishi teaches a shovel 100 (similar to the work machine taught by Kurosawa) that similarly performs loading work into a dump truck 60 using a similar target trajectory TR (see ¶0184-0186, with respect to Figure 12A). Nishi teaches alternatives to the target trajectory TR to account for nearby guardrail GR, such that controller 30 (similar to the area setting part taught by Kurosawa) is configured to set an arc-shaped curve (see trajectory TR in Figures 13A-C), in a case where shovel 100 is oriented in +Y direction, as depicted in Figure 13A (similar to the first point taught by Kurosawa) is located on a first circle centered on the center axis of shovel 100 depicted with respect to SR1 in Figure 13A (similar to the turning center axis taught by Kurosawa) whereas shovel 100 is oriented in +X direction, as depicted in Figure 13B (similar to the second point taught by Kurosawa) is located on a second circle centered on the center axis of shovel 100 depicted with respect to SR2 in Figure 13B (similar to the turning center axis taught by Kurosawa) and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle (see ¶0197-0198, regarding turning radius SR2 is smaller than turning radius SR1) in the top view described in ¶0196 and depicted in Figures 13A-13C (similar to the plan view taught by Kurosawa), the arc-shaped curve interconnecting attachment AT in the +Y direction moving along target trajectory TR in the +X direction, as depicted in Figures 13A and 13B, as an outer boundary of motion depicted in Figures 13A and 13B (similar to the work area taught by Kurosawa) with respect to a turning radial direction of upper turning body 3, as described in ¶0227 (similar to the upper turning body taught by Kurosawa) (see ¶0196-0200, with respect to Figures 3A-3C).
Since the systems of Kurosawa and Nishi are directed to the same purpose, i.e. moving an attachment of a work machine towards a dump truck, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the area setting part of Kurosawa to be further configured to set an arc-shaped curve, in a case where the first point is located on a first circle centered on the turning center axis whereas the second point is located on a second circle centered on the turning center axis and having a radius different from a radius of the first circle in the plan view, the arc-shaped curve interconnecting the first point and the second point in the plan view as an outer boundary of the work area with respect to a turning radial direction of the upper turning body, in light of Nishi, with the predictable result of preventing the end of the excavation attachment from extending over restricted areas, such as over a guardrail, during turning operations (¶0200 of Nishi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Morita (US 2021/0002851 A1) teaches calculating a target trajectory of a bucket according to particular points represented by mounds and ranges in a dump truck (see ¶0161-0162, with respect to Figures 10A-10C), and Ebara et al. (translation of JP 2021050492 A) teaches setting positions for rotation of a rotating body of a work machine in a particular rotation radius direction (see ¶0047-0053, with respect to Figure 4; ¶0076, with respect to Figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661