DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “real-timely” monitoring.” It is believed that this recited phrase is a typo of the intended phrase “real-time.”
Claim 1 recites, “the method comprising following steps.” This reads awkwardly and should be amended to read, “the method comprising the following steps.”
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Claims 1-9 recite unique steps labeled “Step S1 – Step S8.” The wording “Step S(numerical designation)” is not recited in a traditional step-plus-function manner (“step for (insert function)”). It is unclear if the Steps + S(numerical designation) adds anything to the claims by insinuating a sequential order of actions or are merely redundantly reciting that each claimed function/action is a step. Claims 1-9 are indefinite for this reason.
The claims should be amended to remove the numeric markers for each step and amended to simply recite “a/the step for (currently recited function)” – or – amended entirely to remove the word “step” from the independent claim and each of the dependent claims which refer back to the previously claimed steps and merely refer back to the function when further limiting previously claimed steps.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the word “large” when claiming the coal rock block(s). This is a relative term of degree for which the specification provides no standard of measure. The instant disclosure does have support for an “overload” or “under break” situation, exceeding a force threshold, and/or avoidance path disclosure which could be leveraged to amend around this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and/or being subject to outstanding issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, either taken alone or in combination, does not fairly disclose or teach the specifics of the claims as currently recited.
U.S. Pat. 11,634,887 to Kim et al. discloses a digging force estimation/trajectory generator for operating a mining bucket with a force monitoring function, but does not disclose the specific combination of elements, orientation, and functions of the invention as currently recited.
U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0099738 to Danko discloses coordinated excavator joint control using D-H convention and Matlab programming, but does not disclose the specific programming of the invention as currently claimed.
U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0242829 to Cheng et al. discloses the use of a binocular camera calibration, but does not disclose the specific orientation as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights