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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/31/2024. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-017286, filed on 02/07/2022.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 & 05/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains a typo, the examiner suggests amending the claim to recite as follows “an attachment attached to the machine body capably capable of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 contains a type, the examiner suggests amending the claim to recite as follows “an attachment attached to the machine body capably capable of making a motion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 contains a type, the examiner suggests amending the claim to recite as follows “an attachment attached to the machine body capably capable of making a motion for performing work”. 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.
Claim 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “when the control target part is moved through a second predetermined portion”. There is no mention of a first predetermined portion in both claim 4 and its parent claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine at which point is considered a “second predetermined portion” if no such “first predetermined portion” is referenced. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite the missing predetermined portion.
Claim 5 recites “control target part is to be moved in a third predetermined portion in the target path”. There is no mention of a first and second predetermined portion in both claim 5 and its parent claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine at which point is considered a “third predetermined portion” if no such first and second predetermined portion is referenced. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite the missing predetermined portions.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing to fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 is rejected under U.S.C. 101 for failing to recite a product with a physical or tangible form often referred to as software per se.
Claim 14 is rejected under U.S.C. 101 for reciting transitory forms of signal transmission often referred to as signals per se. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “recording medium” can include both transitory and non-transitory forms of signal transmission.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUGIYAMA (JP 2021059945 A).
Regarding claim 1, SUGIYAMA discloses an automatic operation system for performing automatic operation of a work machine, comprising:
a machine body of the work machine (Fig. 1 & [0013]; “The excavator 100 according to this embodiment comprises a lower running body 1”);
an attachment attached to the machine body (Fig. 1 & [0013]; “an attachment AT”) capably of making a motion and including an attachment body (Fig. 1 & [0013]; “a boom 4, an arm 5,”) and a tip attachment (Fig. 1 & [0013]; “bucket 6 constituting an attachment AT”), the tip attachment including a control target part and attached to a tip of the attachment body capably of making a work motion (Fig. 1 & [0016]; “a bucket 6 as an end attachment is pivotally attached to the tip of the arm 5 so that it can rotate up and down.”), the attachment body being operable to change a position of the control target part (Fig. 1 & [0016]; “a bucket 6 as an end attachment is pivotally attached to the tip of the arm 5 so that it can rotate up and down.”); and
a controller ([0055]; “The controller 30 is provided, for example, in the cabin 10 and controls the driving of the shovel 100.”) including:
a target path setting part ([0078]; “The controller 30 includes, as functional units related to the machine control function, an operation content acquisition unit 3001, a current position calculation unit 3002, a target construction surface acquisition unit 3003, a target trajectory setting unit 3004”) that sets a target path, which is a target of a path along which the control target part is to be moved between a work position where the tip attachment makes the work motion and a path end position away from the work position ([0198]; “For example, the target trajectory setting unit 3004 sets a target trajectory for moving along the target construction surface (for example, as described above, the tilt angle in the forward and backward directions of the target construction surface based on the body of the shovel 100) for the excavation operation by the shovel 100.”);
an automatic operation part ([0078]; “The controller 30 includes, for example, a repetitive pattern determination unit 301”) that automatically controls the motion of the attachment so as to make the attachment perform a series of motions over a plurality of cycles, the series of motions including a motion of moving the control target part along the target path ([0079]; “The repetition pattern determination unit 301 (an example of a determination unit) determines the repetition pattern of the operation of the shovel 100 within a predetermined period (for example, the last few minutes, etc.).”);
a work position shifting part that shifts the work position in at least one direction of an up-down direction and a front-rear direction of the attachment in accordance with an advance of the series of motions over the plurality of cycles ([0083]; “In addition, positions P11, P12, and P13 in the figure represent the excavation end position, the boom raising end position, and the soil discharge position, respectively. Furthermore, the position P13 may change each time an earth-discharging operation is performed.”
Fig. 1; See
θ
1
,
θ
2
and
θ
3
.
Note: Standard excavating machines are capable of maneuvering in the up/down and front/back position using the angles mentioned above. Therefore, one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the position change presented by SUGIYAMA would be capable of changing in the up/down and front/back direction.); and
a target path correction part that corrects a portion of the target path between the path end position and the work position in accordance with a shift of the work position by the work position shifting part ([0174]; “Furthermore, for example, the discharge start condition may include the condition that "the bucket 6 has reached a predetermined point above the dump truck (for example, the end point of the target trajectory, etc.)." In this case, the "predetermined point (end point of the target trajectory)" in the earth unloading start condition may be changed each time earth is unloaded.”).
Regarding claim 2, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses the target path includes a plurality of target points, each of which is information on a target position of the control target part (Fig. 1 & [0083]; “In addition, positions P11, P12, and P13 in the figure represent the excavation end position, the boom raising end position, and the soil discharge position, respectively.”), and the target path correction part corrects each of the target points so as to increase a change amount of each of the target points across correction with an increase in a work position change amount that is a change amount of the work position. ([0083]; “For example, when earth and sand are loaded onto the bed of the dump truck from the side closer to the excavator 100, the position P13 may be changed toward the driver's seat side of the bed of the dump truck each time an earth unloading operation is performed.”)
Regarding claim 3, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses the target path correction part is configured to correct a target moving speed of the control target part so as to render an after-correction moving speed equal to or less than a before-correction moving speed, the before-correction moving speed being a target of a speed at which the control target part is to be moved through a first predetermined portion selected from the target path before correction, the after-correction moving speed being a target of a speed at which the control target part is to be moved through a portion corresponding to the first predetermined portion in the target path after the correction. ([0090]; “The safety function for detecting deviation includes, for example, an operation restriction function that brakes (slows down) the operation of the shovel 100 or slows down and finally stops it.”)
Regarding claim 4, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses a plurality of actuators for driving the attachment, wherein the target path correction part is configured to correct a target moving speed of the control target part in the target path so as to render a plurality of after-correction driving speeds equal to or less than a plurality of before-correction driving speeds, respectively, the plurality of before-correction driving speeds being respective driving speeds of the actuators when the control target part is moved through a second predetermined portion selected from the target path before correction, the plurality of after-correction driving speeds being respective driving speeds of the actuators when the control target part is moved through a portion corresponding to the second predetermined portion in the target path after the correction. ([0088]; “In this way, the loading operation is made up of an excavation operation, a boom-raising and swinging operation, an earth-discharging operation, and a boom-lowering and swinging operation, and a series of these multiple operation sections is repeated during the loading operation.”)
[0089]; “Returning to Figure 3, the deviation operation detection unit 302 (an example of a detection unit) detects deviation operations of the shovel 100 by monitoring whether any operation that deviates from the repeating pattern (hereinafter referred to as "deviation operation") is performed when the shovel 100 is performing an operation corresponding to the repeating pattern.”
[0090]; “The safety function for detecting deviation includes, for example, an operation restriction function that brakes (slows down) the operation of the shovel 100 or slows down and finally stops it.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moving speed towards the “second predetermined portion” which is determined within one of the operations disclosed by SUGIYAMA could be corrected.)
Regarding claim 5, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses the target path correction part is configured to correct an after-correction moving speed that is a target of a speed at which the control target part is to be moved in a third predetermined portion in the target path after correction based on a before-correction moving speed that is a target of a speed at which the control target part is to be moved in the third predetermined portion selected from the target path before the correction and a change amount of the target path across the correction. ([0088]; “In this way, the loading operation is made up of an excavation operation, a boom-raising and swinging operation, an earth-discharging operation, and a boom-lowering and swinging operation, and a series of these multiple operation sections is repeated during the loading operation.”)
[0089]; “Returning to Figure 3, the deviation operation detection unit 302 (an example of a detection unit) detects deviation operations of the shovel 100 by monitoring whether any operation that deviates from the repeating pattern (hereinafter referred to as "deviation operation") is performed when the shovel 100 is performing an operation corresponding to the repeating pattern.”
[0090]; “The safety function for detecting deviation includes, for example, an operation restriction function that brakes (slows down) the operation of the shovel 100 or slows down and finally stops it.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moving speed towards the “third predetermined portion” which is determined within one of the operations disclosed by SUGIYAMA could be corrected.)
Regarding claim 7, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses the work position shifting part is configured to shift the work position by a preset shift amount in accordance with the advance of the series of operations over the plurality of cycles. ([0083]; “Furthermore, the position P13 may change each time an earth-discharging operation is performed.”)
Regarding claim 8, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses a peripheral-object position detector that acquires peripheral-object position information that is information about a position of a peripheral object present around the work position ([0100]; “The positioning device 73 measures the position and orientation of the upper rotating body 3.”), wherein the work position shifting part is configured to shift the work position based on the peripheral-object position information acquired by the peripheral-object position detector. ([0083]; “Furthermore, the position P13 may change each time an earth-discharging operation is performed.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the position of the work position and the current position would be tracked by the positioning sensor, and that the position is tracked as the work position is shifted.)
Claim 12 recites a work machine that utilizes the operation system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 13 recites a program that performs the function of the operation system of claim 1 (([0078]; "The controller 30 includes, for example, a repetitive pattern determination unit 301, adeviation operation detection unit 302, and a safety function activation control unit 303 asfunctional units realized by executing a program installed in an auxiliary storage device on aCPU."). Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, SUGIYAMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, SUGIYAMA discloses a recording medium on which the automatic operation program according to claim 13 is recorded, wherein the automatic operation program can be read by the computer. ([0055]; “For example, the controller 30 is mainly composed of a computer including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a memory device such as a RAM (Random Access Memory), a non-volatile auxiliary storage device such as a ROM (Read Only Memory), and an interface device for input/output with the outside.”)
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of SUGIYAMA as evidenced by ASAO (JP 2018024997 A).
Regarding claim 6, SUGIYAMA discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally ASAO teaches the target path correction part renders the after-correction moving speed greater than the before-correction moving speed by a change amount that is increased with an increase in a change amount of the target path across the correction. ([0073]; “For example, when the determination units 195, 395 determine that the trajectory F (E) of the lower end of the bucket 13C intersects with the region R of the dump truck 102, the control unit 196 may perform either control to decrease the rotation speed of the rotating body 12 or control to increase the lifting speed of the front working implement 13.”)
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 SUGIYAMA with ASAO. This modification would have been obvious because both SUGIYAMA and ASAO cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous control of work machines) and it would have been beneficial to not only decrease the speed (as disclosed by SUGIYAMA) but also increase the speed of operations. This would be beneficial for reasons such as efficiency purposes.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of SUGIYAMA as evidenced by MORITA (CN111954737A).
Regarding claim 9, SUGIYAMA discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally MORITA teaches the controller further includes a work limit position setting part that sets a work limit position that is a limit of a work position setting allowable range that is a range within which the work position is allowed to be set ([0160]; “The first termination condition is, for example, "the specified part of the excavator 100 reaches the termination position".”), and the work position shifting part is configured to shift the work position within the work position setting allowable range based on the work limit position set by the work limit position setting part. ([0208]; “Then, if the distance is below the specified value, functional element F3 determines that the deviation is within the allowable range and calculates the target shovel tip position.”)
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 SUGIYAMA with MORITA. This modification would have been obvious because both SUGIYAMA and MORITA cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous control of work machines) and it would have been beneficial to set conditions to stop the automated working process of the work machine.
Regarding claim 10, SUGIYAMA discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally MORITA teaches the controller further includes a work end judgment part that judges whether or not a work end condition that is set for ending the work by the series of motions over the plurality of cycles is satisfied, the work end condition including that the number of times the series of operations have been performed reaches a preset number of times. ([0160]; “The first termination condition is, for example, "the specified part of the excavator 100 reaches the termination position".”
Note: When iterations occur for the automated excavation, incremental changes in the position of the excavation and dumping operations occur. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changes limiting the range would also limit the number of operations performed as the incremental changes in position occur during the series of operations.)
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 SUGIYAMA with MORITA. This modification would have been obvious because both SUGIYAMA and MORITA cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous control of work machines) and it would have been beneficial to set conditions to stop the automated working process of the work machine.
Regarding claim 11, SUGIYAMA discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally MORITA teaches the controller further includes a work end judgment part that judges whether or not a work end condition that is set for ending the work by the series of motions over the plurality of cycles is satisfied ([0160]; “The first termination condition is, for example, "the specified part of the excavator 100 reaches the termination position".”), the work end condition including that the work position shifted by the work position shifting part has reached a preset position that is set in advance. ([0160]; “The first termination condition is, for example, "the specified part of the excavator 100 reaches the termination position".”)
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 SUGIYAMA with MORITA. This modification would have been obvious because both SUGIYAMA and MORITA cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (autonomous control of work machines) and it would have been beneficial to set conditions to stop the automated working process of the work machine.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
YIN et al. (CN 107882103 A) recites a work machine capable of automatic control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668