Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 04/01/2026. Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-23 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 11-13, 19 and 20 have been amended, claims 5 and 7-9 have been canceled, and new claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-23 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites “the processor is configured to the image data from the measuring device” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness (Pub. No.: 2021/0230834 A1) in view of Tafazoli (Pub. No.: 2018/0130222 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Ness discloses the claimed monitoring system (figs. 1-13) for a work machine (fig. 1: 21), comprising:
a processor (fig. 2: 36) configured to:
acquire, image data of working equipment included in the work machine at a predetermined sampling rate (fig. 2: 36 and ¶0116-¶0117);
detect, in the image data, presence or absence of a defect in the working equipment (fig. 2: 36 and ¶0119);
count, a number of defect determination samples indicating the image data in which it is determined to have the defect (¶0137-¶0138); and
change, a pattern of a warning output from an output device based on the number of defect determination samples (¶0085 and ¶0097).
Ness does not explicitly disclose calculates a dimension related to a predetermined portion of the working equipment from the image data and determines presence or absence of the defect in the working equipment based on the dimension and a dimension threshold.
However, Tafazoli discloses it is known for a work machine to calculate a dimension related to a predetermined portion of the working equipment from the image data and determines presence or absence of the defect in the working equipment based on the dimension and a dimension threshold (¶0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the machine of Ness to monitor a dimension of the machine to determine wear, as taught by Tafazoli.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ness as described above in order to use a known alternative technique for determining wear and tear of a machine.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined portion includes a bucket tooth that is a replacement member attached to a bucket body included in the work machine (Tafazoli ¶0113).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate, as the dimension of the bucket tooth, a protruding length from the bucket body, and determines that the bucket tooth has a defect when the protruding length is less than the dimension threshold (Tafazoli ¶0086).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to set the dimension threshold in advance based on the protruding length of each of a plurality of the bucket teeth (Tafazoli ¶0095-¶0096).
5) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 2), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 2, wherein
the defect includes detachment of the bucket tooth from the bucket body (Tafazoli ¶0105).
6) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 2), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according claim 2, wherein
the output device includes a display device (fig. 1: 108) that displays a symbol indicating the bucket tooth, and the warning control unit changes a display pattern of the symbol based on the presence or absence of the defect in the bucket tooth (Tafazoli ¶0111 and ¶0124).
7) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 10, wherein
the display device displays a plurality of the symbols based on a position of each of the plurality of the bucket teeth (Tafazoli ¶0111 and ¶0124).
8) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 11, wherein
the processor is configured to display a symbol indicating the bucket tooth determined to have the defect and a symbol indicating the bucket tooth determined to have no defect in different display patterns (Tafazoli ¶0111 and ¶0124).
9) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the work machine includes a measuring device that measures the working equipment, and
the processor is configured to the image data from the measuring device (Tafazoli ¶0113).
10) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 13), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 13.
Ness and Tafazoli do not explicitly disclose the work machine includes a headlight and a housing that holds the headlight, and the measuring device is disposed in the housing.
However, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art a vehicle can have a headlight, and the placement of the measuring device in the headlight is just merely an engineering design choice and well-known modifications for meeting customer requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify Ness and Tafazoli to place the measuring device inside the housing of a headlight.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ness as described above in order to design the system to meet a user needs.
11) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 14), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 14.
Ness does not explicitly disclose the measuring device is disposed outside the headlight in a vehicle width direction of the work machine.
However, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art a vehicle can have a measuring device located on the outside of the headlight housing, and the placement of the measuring device on the outside of the headlight housing is just merely an engineering design choice and well-known modifications for meeting customer requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the measuring device of Ness to be located on the outside of the headlight housing.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ness as described above in order to find a location on the machine where the sensor may effectively monitor the parts of the working machine.
12) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 14), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 14.
Ness does not explicitly disclose the measuring device is disposed on each of a left side and a right side of a center of the work machine in a vehicle width direction of the work machine, the measuring device on the left side measures a left part of the working equipment, and the measuring device on the right side measures a right part of the working equipment.
However, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art a vehicle can have a measuring device located on a left-side of the machine and on the right side of the machine, and the placement of the measuring device on the left-side of the machine and on the right side of the machine is just merely an engineering design choice and well-known modifications for meeting customer requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to locate the measuring device on each side of the working machine.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ness as described above in order to find a location on the machine where the sensor may effectively monitor the parts of the working machine.
13) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 13), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 13, wherein
the working equipment includes a bucket for excavating an excavation target, the bucket performs a dumping operation to discharge an excavated object held in the bucket, and the measuring device measures at least the bucket performing the dumping operation (Ness fig. 1: and ¶0114).
14) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 13), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 13, wherein the measuring device includes an imaging device (Tafazoli ¶0104).
15) In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output the warning in a first pattern from the output device when the number of defect determination samples is less than a sample threshold (Ness ¶0102), and output the waring in a second pattern from the output device when the number of defect determination samples is equal to or greater than the sample threshold (Ness ¶0100).
17) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output the warning in a first pattern from the output device when a number of consecutively acquired pieces of the image data each being determined as the defect determination sample is less than a sample threshold (Ness ¶0102), and output the warning in a second pattern from the output device when the number is equal to or greater than the sample threshold (Ness ¶0100).
18) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 21), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein
the output device includes a sound generator that generates a warning sound,
the pattern of the warning includes a volume of the warning sound,
the warning output in the first pattern includes generation of the warning sound in a first volume from the sound generator, and
the warning output in the second pattern includes generation of the warning sound in a second volume from the sound generator, the second volume being larger than the first volume (Ness ¶0085).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness (Pub. No.: 2021/0230834 A1) in view of Tafazoli (Pub. No.: 2018/0130222 A1) and further in view of Hamada (Pub. No.: 2021/0032846 A1).
1) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 17), Ness and Tafazoli further disclose the monitoring system for the work machine according to claim 17, wherein he working equipment includes a boom that connects a vehicle body of the work machine and the bucket, and the bucket performs the dumping operation to discharge the excavated object to a dump body of a dump truck in a state that the boom is raised (Tafazoli figs. 2-5).
Ness does not explicitly disclose the measuring device measures the bucket performing the dumping operation to discharge the excavated object to the dump body.
However, Hamada discloses it is known for a working machine to have a measuring device which measures the bucket performing the dumping operation to discharge the excavated object to the dump body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ness to have a dump body on the working machine and measuring the operation based on the dump operation.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ness as described above in order to monitor the effectiveness of the working machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights