DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/18/2026.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of the Remarks filed 9/18/2026, the Applicant contends that support is provided in paragraph [0064] of the publication.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), paragraph [0064] of the pre-grant publication teaches that the work position is set to the work upper limit position when the calculated work position has reached the work upper limit position (i.e. step S41 is YES), where the judgement of the work end condition is made after a release motion, such that when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied (i.e. step S30 is YES), the work ends without any work position being set in any particular manner. The Applicant’s disclosure does not support a trigger of “when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied” as being used to set the work position to the work upper limit position.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. Specifically, upon further search and consideration, the amendment filed 9/18/2026 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2026 and 8/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the work upper limit position being a position at which the amount of the work object released in the series of motions reaches a preset amount. There is no disclosure of a “preset amount” as defining the work upper limit position, and the disclosure merely describes the work upper limit position as being associated with an amount of work object that is “appropriate.” Specifically, paragraph [0051] of the specification filed 7/31/2024 recites:
“Preferably, the work upper limit position PWU is set at such a position that the amount of the work object WO released in the series of motions is appropriate. For example, in the case where the release motion of the tip attachment 15d at the work position PW is a motion for work of loading the work object WO into a container (loading platform or the like), the work upper limit position PWU may be set at such a position as to restrain the work object WO loaded in the container from excess or deficiency.”
An “appropriate” amount of work object released in the series of motions encompasses concepts that do not require a “preset amount.” For example, as discussed in paragraph [0048], an operator can “sensuously” set the work upper limit position through observation of an appropriate amount of work object without any human or controller defining a “preset amount.” Further, an “excess or deficiency” of work object with respect to the “appropriate” amount described in paragraph [0051] implies an acceptable range, while the limitation of “preset amount” implies a specific value.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of the work position shifting part sets the work position to the work upper limit position when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied. The trigger of “when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied” is not disclosed as being used to set the work position to the work upper limit position. Specifically, paragraph [0062] of the specification filed 7/31/2024 recites:
“Specifically, in the case where the work position PW calculated by the work position shifting part 63 is a position on the upper side Za of the work upper limit position PWU, that is, when the work position PW has reached the work upper limit position PWU by the shift thereof (YES in step S41 in FIG. 3), the work position shifting part 63 sets the work position PW to the work upper limit position PWU (step S42). In other words, the work position shifting part 63 corrects the work position PW to be shifted, from the calculated position to the work upper limit position PWU. The automatic operation part 53 may end the series of motions over the plurality of cycles after the tip attachment 15d makes a motion for work, namely, release motion, at the work position PW thus corrected to the work upper limit position PWU (YES in step S30). Alternatively, when the work position PW reaches the work upper limit position PWU, the series of motions of the plurality of cycles may be ended without the correction of the work position PW to the work upper limit position PWU (YES in step S30).”
The work position is set to the work upper limit position when the calculated work position has reached the work upper limit position (i.e. step S41 is YES), where the judgement of the work end condition is made after a release motion, such that when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied (i.e. step S30 is YES), the work ends without any work position being set in any particular manner.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record, Abd El Salam Mohamed et al. (US 2022/0403622 A1), hereinafter Abd El Salam Mohamed, and Rocke (US 5,446,980), hereinafter Rocke, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed work machine, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and automatic operation system for performing automatic operation of a work machine, comprising:
an attachment attached to the machine body capably of making a motion for performing work and including an attachment body and a tip attachment, the tip attachment including a control target part and attached to a tip of the attachment body capably of making a release motion for performing work of releasing a work object, the attachment body being operable to change a position of the control target part; and
a controller including:
a target path setting part 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 release motion and a path end position away from the work position;
an automatic operation part 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;
a work upper limit position setting part that sets a work upper limit position that is an upper limit of the work position, the work upper limit position being a position at which the amount of the work object released in the series of motions reaches a preset amount; and
a work position shifting part that shifts the work position in an up-down direction in accordance with an advance of the series of motions over the plurality of cycles,
wherein the work position shifting part shifts the work position to the work upper limit position or within a range on a lower side of the work upper limit position, and sets the work position in the series of motions in a first cycle after setting of the work upper limit position by the work upper limit position setting part among the plurality of cycles to a position on a lower side of the work upper limit position,
the controller further includes a work end judgment part that judges whether or not a preset work end condition for ending work by the series of motions over the plurality of cycles is satisfied, the work end condition including a condition that the work position has reached the work upper limit position,
the work position shifting part sets the work position to the work upper limit position when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied, and the automatic operation part ends the series of motions over the plurality of cycles after the tip attachment makes the release motion at the work position corrected to the work upper limit position.
As discussed in the interview held on 8/26/2026, Abd El Salam Mohamed cannot be reasonably applied to the limitations that further define “the automatic operation part ends the series of motions over the plurality of cycles after the tip attachment makes the release motion at the work position corrected to the work upper limit position,” in light of the overall claim.
Upon further search and consideration, Rocke has been identified as most relevant prior art. Specifically, Rocke teaches a similar automatic operation system for performing automatic operation of a work machine (see col. 5, lines 61-62, regarding the automated excavation work cycle is iteratively performed) comprising an attachment attached to the machine body capably of making a motion for performing work and including an attachment body and a tip attachment, the tip attachment including a control target part and attached to a tip of the attachment body capably of making a release motion for performing work of releasing a work object, the attachment body being operable to change a position of the control target part (see col. 3, lines 3-14, with respect to Figure 1, regarding work vehicle 105 has an angular relation with work implement 100 that includes boom 110, stick 115, and bucket 120, which is pivotally attached to stick 115 and includes a tip), and a controller (i.e. logic means 250 in Figure 2) including a target path setting part 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 release motion and a path end position away from the work position (see col. 9, lines 11-23, regarding that prior to starting the excavation work cycle, dump and dig locations and their respective transverse angles are specified and recorded), an automatic operation part 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 (see col. 5, line 61-col. 6, line 4, with respect to Figure 3, regarding the automated excavation work cycle is iteratively performed; col. 13, line 54-col. 12, line 2, regarding the controlled movement between a dump location and a dig location), and a work position shifting part that shifts the work position in an up-down direction in accordance with an advance of the series of motions over the plurality of cycles (see col. 8, lines 35-42, regarding that a setpoint L that corresponds to a desired boom height for dumping is incremented in response to the last recorded position bucket depth), the controller further includes a work end judgment part that judges whether or not a preset work end condition for ending work by the series of motions over the plurality of cycles is satisfied (see col. 7, with respect to steps 515 and 520 of Figure 5, regarding that if the boom cylinder pressure exceeds setpoint F, program control stops).
However, Rocke does not teach a work upper limit position setting part that sets a work upper limit position that is an upper limit of the work position, the work upper limit position being a position at which the amount of the work object released in the series of motions reaches a preset amount, such that the work position shifting part shifts the work position to the work upper limit position or within a range on a lower side of the work upper limit position, and sets the work position in the series of motions in a first cycle after setting of the work upper limit position by the work upper limit position setting part among the plurality of cycles to a position on a lower side of the work upper limit position. Rocke further does not teach the work end condition including a condition that the work position has reached the work upper limit position, such that the work position shifting part sets the work position to the work upper limit position when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied, and the automatic operation part ends the series of motions over the plurality of cycles after the tip attachment makes the release motion at the work position corrected to the work upper limit position.
Additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Berry et al. (US 2018/0142441 A1) that teaches controller 196 varies the vertical distance 556 and horizontal distance 558 as a function of the number of unloading cycles delivered to the material receptacle 106 to achieve a target distribution of material within the material receptacle 106 to compensate for increasing height of material 108 within material receptacle 106 with successive cycles (see ¶0083), Wu et al. (US 2022/0195690 A1) that teaches creating a target trajectory for autonomously loading a dump truck (see ¶0127), where dumping end point Pe1 associated with target trajectory TL1 for a first cycle is provided at a height lower than subsequent cycles, e.g., dumping end point Pe2 associated with target trajectory TL2 (see ¶0148, ¶0149, Figure 8B), and Imaizumi (US 2018/0119384 A1) that teaches automatic unloading control of a wheel loader (see ¶0072), where successive loading cycles are performed in which the distal end of the boom of the wheel loader is moved from a start position Zs to an end position Ze (see ¶0083-0088, with respect to Figure 8).
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
