DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 7/31/2024.
Claims 3-6 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute abstract filed 7/31/2024 has been entered by the examiner.
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:
a target path setting part in claim 1,
an automatic operation path in claim 1,
a work upper limit position setting part in claim 1,
a work position shifting part in claim 1,
a peripheral-object position detector in claim 4, and
a work end judgement part in claim 6.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a target path setting step in claim 8,
an automatic operation step in claim 8,
a work upper limit position setting step in claim 8, and
a work position shifting step in claim 8.
Specifically, these limitations in claim 8 recite “step of” instead of “step for.” Per MPEP 2181(I)(A), "[i]f the claim element uses the phrase ‘step for,’ then Section 112, Para. 6 is presumed to apply…. On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation."
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to independent claim 8, the claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “program,” a program encompasses forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “program” to only non-transitory tangible media. Per MPEP 2106.03(I), “[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation” are not directed to any of the statutory categories. Therefore, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
While dependent claim 9 further limits the “program” of claim 8 to be recorded on a “recording medium,” the claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “recording medium,” a program on a computer readable medium is broad enough to encompass forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “recording medium” to only non-transitory tangible media. One skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that the scope of the claim covers transitory media such as electromagnetic and other signals, as it is commonplace to use transitory signals as a means for recording executable software for transmission to a computing device. Therefore, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claimed “automatic operation program” of claim 8 to recite "a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising an automatic operation program" which would serve to exclude non-statutory subject matter from the claim's scope.
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US 2018/0142441 A1), hereinafter Berry, in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2018/0119384 A1), hereinafter Imaizumi.
Claim 1
Berry discloses the claimed automatic operation system (see Figure 3) for performing automatic operation of a work machine (see ¶0051, regarding controller 196 of material-handling machine 102 fully automates the unloading operation), comprising:
an attachment (i.e. implement system 118) attached to the machine body (i.e. body 112) capably of making a motion for performing work and including an attachment body (i.e. linkage 132) and a tip attachment (i.e. work implement 130) (see ¶0025-0026, with respect to Figure 1, regarding implement system 118 includes work implement 130 coupled to body 112 via linkage 132), the tip attachment including a control target part (i.e. leading edge 166) and attached to a tip of the attachment body capably of making a release motion for performing work of releasing a work object (i.e. work material 108) (see ¶0025-0026, regarding that implement 130 is configured to rotate about pivot joint 148 through a distal end of the lift arm 136 of linkage 132), the attachment body being operable to change a position of the control target part (see ¶0075, with respect to Figure 7B, regarding that implement 130 is moved along predetermined path 560 to locate leading edge 166 of implement 130 at a target unloading location 210, where implement 130 is moved via actuators 138, 142 of linkage 132, as described in ¶0026); and
a controller (i.e. controller 196) including:
a target path setting part that sets a target path (i.e. path in retraction), which is a target of a path along which the control target part is to be moved between a work position (i.e. target unloading position 210) where the tip attachment makes the release motion and a path end position (i.e. autoload trigger zone 550) away from the work position (see ¶0080, with respect to step 526 of Figure 6, regarding that controller 196 is programmed to effect a path in retraction from material receptacle 106 that is the reverse of implement 130 path effected in steps 522 and 524, where the “work position” is the target unloading location 210 of leading edge 166, defined in ¶0075-0076, with respect to Figure 7B, and the “path end position” is a position of leading edge 166 in autoload trigger zone 550, defined in ¶0070, with respect to Figure 7A);
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 ¶0082-0083, with respect to step 528 of Figure 6, regarding that successive loading cycles are performed until material receptacle 106 is determined to be full in step 414).
Berry does not further disclose a work upper limit position setting part that sets a work upper limit position that is an upper limit of the work position. However, the work machine of Berry has inherent upper limits that may reasonably apply to the automatic unloading operation, in light of Imaizumi.
Specifically, Imaizumi teaches a controller of a wheel loader that performs automatic unloading control (similar to the automatic operation of a work machine taught by Berry) (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). Imaizumi further teaches a work upper limit position setting part that sets a work upper limit position (i.e. uppermost position) that is an upper limit of end position Ze (similar to the work position taught by Berry) of the path depicted in Figures 5 and 6 (see ¶0090, with respect to Figures 5-7, regarding that the unloading end position is set as the uppermost position within the movable range of boom 31). Similar to Berry, Imaizumi further teaches an embodiment in which the unloading end positions Ze are different for each cycle (see ¶0091).
Since the systems of Berry and Imaizumi are directed to the same purpose, i.e. performing an automatic unloading operation by a wheel loader, 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 controller of Berry to further include a work upper limit position setting part that sets a work upper limit position that is an upper limit of the work position, in the same manner that the controller of Imaizumi sets an end position of an automatic unloading operation as the uppermost position within a movable range of the boom, with the predictable result of restricting operations to the mechanical operation of the boom cylinder (¶0200-0201 of Imaizumi) while carrying out smooth unloading operations according to the height of soil in the vessel (¶0004 of Imaizumi).
Berry, as modified by Imaizumi, further discloses 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 (see ¶0082, with respect to Figure 6, regarding that controller 196 varies the vertical distance 556 as a function of the number of unloading cycles delivered to the material receptacle 106, so as to increase vertical distance 556 with increasing count value from cycle counter 204). Imaizumi is applied to teach the incorporation of the “work upper limit position” associated with the mechanical limitations of the boom cylinder; therefore, the shift in vertical distance 556 of implement 130 in Figure 7B of Berry is “within a range on a lower side of the work upper limit position,” in light of Imaizumi.
Claim 2
Berry further discloses that the work position shifting part is configured to shift the working position to an upper side in accordance with an advance of the cycle of the series of motions (see ¶0082, regarding that with each successive cycle, vertical distance 556 is increased). The limitation of “upper side” is not defined in the claim; therefore, Berry reasonably teaches shifting to an “upper side” as the vertical distance 556 of implement 130 in Figure 7B is increased.
Claim 3
Imaizumi further discloses that the work upper limit position setting part is configured to set the work upper limit position based on a position at which the distal end of boom 31, defined as attached to bucket 32 in ¶0048 (similar to the tip attachment taught by Berry) is located (see ¶0090, with respect to Figures 5-7, regarding that the unloading end position is set as the uppermost position within the movable range of boom 31).
Claim 4
Berry further discloses a peripheral-object position detector that acquires peripheral-object position information that is information on a position of an object present around the work position (see ¶0029-0032, regarding perception system 120 determines the location of the material receptacle 106), 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 (see ¶0080-0081, regarding that implement 130 is controlled along a path that avoids unintended contact with material receptacle 106 that has a location determine based on data input from perception system 120).
Claim 5
Berry further discloses that the work position shifting part is configured to shift the work position by a preset constant shift amount in accordance with the advance of the series of motions over the plurality of cycles (see ¶0082, with respect to Figure 7B, regarding that controller 196 increases vertical distance 556 with increasing count value from cycle counter unit 204)
Claim 6
Berry further discloses that 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, and the automatic operation part is configured to end the work when the work end condition is judged to be satisfied (see ¶0059, with respect to Figures 4 and 6, regarding that when controller 414 determines that material receptacle 106 is full, the method ends at step 416).
Berry does not further disclose that the work end condition including a condition that the work position has reached the work upper limit position. However, this feature is taught by Imaizumi. Specifically, Imaizumi teaches setting the target position of the distal end of boom 31 to the current position of the distal end of boom 31, effectively ending the work, when the distal end of boom 31 (similar to the work position taught by Berry) has reached the work upper limit position (see ¶0200-0201, regarding determination unit 208 determines that the boom cylinder 41 has reached an end of the movable range and the distal end of boom 31 has reached the highest position).
Since the systems of Berry and Imaizumi are directed to the same purpose, i.e. performing an automatic unloading operation by a wheel loader, 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 work end condition of Berry to further include a condition that the work position has reached the work upper limit position, in light of Imaizumi, with the predictable result of restricting operations to the mechanical operation of the boom cylinder (¶0200-0201 of Imaizumi) while carrying out smooth unloading operations according to the height of soil in the vessel (¶0004 of Imaizumi).
Claim 7
Berry, as modified by Imaizumi, discloses the claimed work machine (i.e. material-handling machine 102 depicted in Figure 1) comprising the elements discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Berry, as modified by Imaizumi, discloses the claimed automatic operation program for performing automatic operation of a work machine (see ¶0051, regarding controller 196 of material-handling machine 102 fully automates the unloading operation, where controller 196 is programmed, as described in ¶0080) including the elements and steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9
Imaizumi further discloses the claimed recording medium on which the automatic operation program according to claim 8 is recorded, wherein the automatic operation program can be read by the computer (see ¶0036, regarding controller 196 includes preprogrammed logic, power electronics, data processing circuits, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, software, firmware, I/O processing circuits, or any other controller structures).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Wu et al. (US 2022/0195690 A1) 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, ¶0159, Figure 8B), and Abd El Salam Mohamed et al. (US 2022/0403622 A1) teaches increasing the dumping height of a bucket in a subsequent cycle (see ¶0041).
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