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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on March 3, 2026. Claims 1-6 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to claims 3-5 are withdrawn in consideration of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1. However, new rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0293972 by Tamazato (herein after "Tamazato"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0026214 by Cook et al. (herein after "Cook").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, Tamazato discloses a construction machine (Tamazato: backhoe 1 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a lower track structure (Tamazato: lower moving body 15 in Fig. 3);
an upper swing structure rotatably mounted on the lower track structure (Tamazato: upper rotating body 11 in Fig. 3);
a multi-joint work implement rotatably mounted on the upper swing structure (Tamazato: boom 12, arm 13, and bucket 14 in Fig. 1);
a posture sensor mounted on the work implement (Tamazato: GNSS receivers 16 and tilt sensors 17 in Fig. 1; IMUs 30 in Fig. 3); and
a controller (Tamazato: controller 18 in Fig. 1) that is configured to convert posture data of the work implement, the posture data being sensed by the posture sensor, into coordinates of a first predetermined position of the work implement by using predetermined conversion parameters (Tamazato ¶ [0096]: The relative position between the machine body coordinate system 4 and the world geodetic system 3 is recognized by the position of the GNSS antenna 16 in the machine body coordinate system 4 and the posture recognition recognized with the IMU30. The relative movement of the posture from the original posture can be recognized from the rotation at each axis in three dimensions),
the controller being configured to calculate updated values of the conversion parameters to perform calibration on a basis of the posture data of the work implement, the posture data being sensed by the posture sensor (Tamazato ¶ [0119] - [0121]: Rotation of each of the boom 12, the arm 13 and the bucket 14 is measured to determine the position of the blade tip 25 of the bucket in the working tool coordinate system 5. The position of the bucket blade tip 25 in the machine body coordinate system 4 is obtained by converting the coordinate system from the working tool coordinate system 5 to the machine body coordinate system 4. From the position of the GNSS antenna 16 and the rotation of the machine body recognized with the IMU30, the position of the blade tip 25 of the bucket in the world geodetic system 3 can be determined by convert the coordinate system from the machine body coordinate system 4 to the world geodetic system 3), and coordinates of a second predetermined position of the work implement, the coordinates being measured by an external measuring device (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the prism is held on a blade tip 25 of the bucket, and the world geodesic coordinate 3 of the blade tip is measured by the total station (TS) 6. The measurements is made from a side of the backhoe. Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth),
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine whether the work implement is statically determinate or not (Tamazato ¶ [0047]: the method of the calibrating the constituent position of the movable tool in the machine body, is characterized in that said bucket, said arm, and said boom are made stationary in prescribed positions, respectively, the prescribed positions of said bucket of said movable working tool is measured as said measurement positions by using said optical surveying device; Tamazato ¶ [0087]: As shown in FIG. 3, the lower moving body 15 is made and kept stationary for a time period in which the GNSS receiver 16 is stabilized, while rotating the upper rotator 11, and positions P1, P2, P3 of the GNSS antenna 16 are measured in the world geodetic system at three locations (see FIG. 5). When turning, the rotation angles among respective P1, P2, P3 are measured with IMU30 (measured by integrating the angular velocity of the gyroscope sensor of the IMU); Tamazato ¶ [0104]-[0106]: As shown in FIG. 8, while the boom 12 and the arm are fixed, the bucket 14 only is rotated, and two P.sub.i of the blade tip 25 of the bucket are measured in the global geodesic system. Then, the arm 13 is rotated, the above is performed. The total number of measurement points is 4. Next, the boom 12 is rotated, and the above is repeated. The total number of measurement points is 8; Tamazato ¶ [0123]: As shown in FIG. 9, the boom 12, arm 13 and the bucket 14 are made stationary at the upper rotation limits, and their respective points are set to O.sup.2, O.sup.3, and P.sub.i at the start of the machine); and
(Tamazato ¶ [0119] - [0121]: Rotation of each of the boom 12, the arm 13 and the bucket 14 is measured to determine the position of the blade tip 25 of the bucket in the working tool coordinate system 5. The position of the bucket blade tip 25 in the machine body coordinate system 4 is obtained by converting the coordinate system from the working tool coordinate system 5 to the machine body coordinate system 4. From the position of the GNSS antenna 16 and the rotation of the machine body recognized with the IMU30, the position of the blade tip 25 of the bucket in the world geodetic system 3 can be determined by convert the coordinate system from the machine body coordinate system 4 to the world geodetic system 3) and the coordinates of the second predetermined position, the coordinates being measured by the external measuring device after the instruction to calibrate the conversion parameters has been given (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the prism is held on a blade tip 25 of the bucket, and the world geodesic coordinate 3 of the blade tip is measured by the total station (TS) 6. The measurements is made from a side of the backhoe. Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth).
It is noted that Tamazato discloses a calibration method that is characterized by holding a bucket, boom and arm stationary but Tamazato fails to particularly disclose wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire posture data of the work implement sensed at a plurality of time points by the posture sensor during a predetermined time after an instruction to calibrate the conversion parameters has been given;
analyze the acquired posture data of the work implement at the plurality of time points to determine whether a posture change of the work implement has occurred during the predetermined time;
determine whether the work implement is statically determinate or not based on whether the posture change has occurred; and
when determining that the work implement is statically determinate, calculate updated values of the conversion parameters on the basis of the posture data of the work implement at the plurality of time points during the predetermined time.
However, Cook, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller (Cook: robot controller 100 and IMU 102 in Fig. 1) is configured to:
acquire posture data of the work implement sensed at a plurality of time points by the posture sensor during a predetermined time (Cook ¶ [0034]: When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable; Cook ¶ [0072]: For example, when in the STATIONARY_WITHOUT_VIBRATION state, the IMU runs the stability detection with adaptive noise level. This involves use of a stability detection algorithm which is looking at the amount of dynamic motion present in the gyroscope and accelerometer signals during a period of time. The “on table” stability detector has a fixed threshold to allow for some amount of sensor “noise” and vibration, while still being declared stationary. The noise level used in that process is either the nominal value of the sensor for the first time, or the stationary noise level saved during the most recent previous stationary state) after an instruction to calibrate the conversion parameters has been given (Cook ¶ [0051]: The IMU may determine its ZRO status (e.g., the current ZRO estimate is likely accurate or the current ZRO estimate is likely not accurate) and send a MotionRequest flag to the robot controller in accordance with its ZRO status. For instance, when there is a need to recalibrate ZRO, the sensor can request the robot to stop, or to remain stopped if the robot is already stopped);
analyze the acquired posture data of the work implement at the plurality of time points to determine whether a posture change of the work implement has occurred during the predetermined time (Cook ¶ [0072]: For example, when in the STATIONARY_WITHOUT_VIBRATION state, the IMU runs the stability detection with adaptive noise level. This involves use of a stability detection algorithm which is looking at the amount of dynamic motion present in the gyroscope and accelerometer signals during a period of time. The “on table” stability detector has a fixed threshold to allow for some amount of sensor “noise” and vibration, while still being declared stationary. The noise level used in that process is either the nominal value of the sensor for the first time, or the stationary noise level saved during the most recent previous stationary state);
determine whether the work implement is statically determinate or not based on whether the posture change has occurred (Cook ¶ [0034]: If the noise level of the sensors is known, a determination that the robot is stable (e.g., such that a bias estimation may be performed) may be based on whether (1) the peak-to-peak variation of the samples in a window is within a first threshold (hereinafter termed the sample threshold) and (2) the window mean does not change more than a second threshold (herein termed the mean threshold). When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable); and
when determining that the work implement is statically determinate, calculate updated values of the conversion parameters on the basis of the posture data of the work implement at the plurality of time points during the predetermined time (Cook ¶ [0033]: Stability detection is desirable for ZRO calibration purposes. When the robot/sensors are stable, the average of the gyroscope output data over a time window essentially is an estimate of the ZRO. The accuracy of this estimate depends on the gyroscope noise level and the length of the time window over which the noise is observed. In other embodiments, the ZRO estimation may be much more complicated than simply taking the average of the gyroscope output data over a time window; Cook ¶ [0072]: the IMU performs a process to recalibrate the ZRO, such as a simple window average algorithm or the more complex process) after the instruction to calibrate the conversion parameters has been given (Cook ¶ [0051]: The IMU may determine its ZRO status (e.g., the current ZRO estimate is likely accurate or the current ZRO estimate is likely not accurate) and send a MotionRequest flag to the robot controller in accordance with its ZRO status. For instance, when there is a need to recalibrate ZRO, the sensor can request the robot to stop, or to remain stopped if the robot is already stopped).
Examiner interprets the limitation that states “when determining that the work is statically determinate, calculate updated values of the conversion parameters on the basis of the posture data of the work implement at the plurality of time points during the predetermined time” to mean that updated conversion parameters are calculated after the predetermined time when posture data is captured and not during the predetermined time based on the specification at ¶ [0060]-[0066] and at FC109 in Fig. 6.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato to include the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a more accurate estimation of whether a robot or vehicle is stationary to calibrate sensors (Cook ¶ [0028]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0293972 by Tamazato (herein after "Tamazato"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0026214 by Cook et al. (herein after "Cook"), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0298316 by Iwamura et al. (herein after "Iwamura").
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tamazato and Cook discloses determining that a work implement is statically determinate at a time of calibrating conversion parameters (see claim 1) but fails to particularly disclose wherein the construction machine includes an informing device capable of outputting information inputted from the controller, and the controller is configured to output information prompting an operator to carry out recalibration to the informing device when determining that the work implement is not statically determinate at time of calibrating the conversion parameters.
However, Iwamura, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the construction machine includes an informing device (Iwamura: display unit 71B in Fig. 3) capable of outputting information inputted from the controller (Iwamura: display controller 72 in Fig. 3), and the controller is configured to output information prompting an operator to carry out recalibration to the informing device (Iwamura ¶ [0139]: A calibration result of the work parameter(s) is displayed on the display unit 71B of the display input device 71 to show whether the calibration is successfully performed or another calibration needs to be performed).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato modified by the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook to further include the display unit for prompting an operator to perform another calibration of Iwamura with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately calibrate an estimated position of a blade edge of a bucket (Iwamura ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tamazato and Cook discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of a non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures (Tamazato ¶ [0103] – [0106]: As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the prism is held on a blade tip 25 of the bucket, and the world geodesic coordinate 3 of the blade tip is measured by the total station (TS) 6. The measurements is made from a side of the backhoe. Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth. As shown in FIG. 8, while the boom 12 and the arm are fixed, the bucket 14 only is rotated, and two P.sub.i of the blade tip 25 of the bucket are measured in the global geodesic system. Then, the arm 13 is rotated, the above is performed. The total number of measurement points is 4. Next, the boom 12 is rotated, and the above is repeated. The total number of measurement points is 8) where a rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth);
not calculate the updated values when it is determined that the coordinate axes of the external measuring device are not appropriate (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth) even when determining that the work implement is statically determinate at a time where the conversion parameters are calibrated (Cook ¶ [0034]: If the noise level of the sensors is known, a determination that the robot is stable (e.g., such that a bias estimation may be performed) may be based on whether (1) the peak-to-peak variation of the samples in a window is within a first threshold (hereinafter termed the sample threshold) and (2) the window mean does not change more than a second threshold (herein termed the mean threshold). When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable). Examiner interprets the total station of Tamazato to only measure the boom, arm, and bucket positions with a fixed depth meaning no calculation of updated values will occur if the depth varies even when the work implement is statically determinate for a period of time.
It is noted that the combination of Tamazato and Cook fails to particularly disclose determine that coordinate axes of the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a horizontal direction in the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a first threshold.
However, Iwamura, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of a non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures where a rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Iwamura ¶ [0149]: The measuring person first places the external measurement device 84 at a position squarely facing a lateral side of the boom pin 37 at a predetermined distance; Iwamura ¶ [0152] – [0154]: The measuring person measures a lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37 shown in FIG. 14 using the external measurement device 84 (Step S4). After completion of the measurement of the lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37, an operator operates the boom 31 and the arm 32 to position the boom 31 and the arm 32 in a plurality of work attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the bucket pin 39 provided to the distal end of the arm 32 in each work attitude (Step S5). The position of the bucket pin 39 is measured in each of three attitudes: a position P2 where the boom 31 is fully raised; a position P3 where the boom 31 and the arm 32 are both extended in a work direction; and a position P4 where the boom 31 is extended in the work direction with the arm 32 being retracted. It should be noted that the position of the bucket pin 39 may be measured in any attitude different from the three attitudes. Next, the operator operates the bucket 33 to position the bucket 33 in a plurality of bucket attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 (Step S6). The position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 is measured in each of two attitudes with the blade edge P being situated at: a position P5 where the bucket 33 is extended; and a position P6 where the bucket 33 is retracted. It should be noted that the bucket 33 may be measured in any attitude different from the two attitudes);
determine that coordinate axes of the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a horizontal direction in the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a first threshold (Iwamura ¶ [0174]: The second calibration unit 89 determines whether or not J.sub.2 of the equation (9) falls within a predetermined acceptable range (Step S17); Iwamura ¶ [0176]: When the convergence calculation is repeated for the predetermined number of times (N), the first calibration unit 88 commands the display unit 71B to display information for informing the measuring person and the operator of a failure of the convergence calculation to inhibit the process from further proceeding (Step S19)). Examiner interprets a convergence calculation to fall outside of an acceptable range if positions P5 (x5, y5), and P6 (x6, y6) are associated with y-coordinates that change too greatly when converted from the global coordinate system to the vehicle body coordinate system.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato modified by the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook to further include the determination of whether a convergence calculation falls within a second acceptable range of Iwamura with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately calibrate an estimated position of a blade edge of a bucket (Iwamura ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tamazato and Cook discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of rotation central position and non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures (Tamazato ¶ [0103] – [0106]: As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the prism is held on a blade tip 25 of the bucket, and the world geodesic coordinate 3 of the blade tip is measured by the total station (TS) 6. The measurements is made from a side of the backhoe. Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth. As shown in FIG. 8, while the boom 12 and the arm are fixed, the bucket 14 only is rotated, and two P.sub.i of the blade tip 25 of the bucket are measured in the global geodesic system. Then, the arm 13 is rotated, the above is performed. The total number of measurement points is 4. Next, the boom 12 is rotated, and the above is repeated. The total number of measurement points is 8) where the rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth);
not calculate the updated values when it is determined that the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth) even when determining that the work implement is statically determinate at a time where the conversion parameters are calibrated (Cook ¶ [0034]: If the noise level of the sensors is known, a determination that the robot is stable (e.g., such that a bias estimation may be performed) may be based on whether (1) the peak-to-peak variation of the samples in a window is within a first threshold (hereinafter termed the sample threshold) and (2) the window mean does not change more than a second threshold (herein termed the mean threshold). When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable). Examiner interprets the total station of Tamazato to only measure the boom, arm, and bucket positions with a fixed depth meaning no calculation of updated values will occur if the depth or measured y-coordinate values vary even when the work implement is statically determinate for a period of time.
It is noted that the combination of Tamazato and Cook fails to particularly disclose determine that the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a distance between the rotation central position and the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a second threshold.
However, Iwamura, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of rotation central position and non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures where the rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Iwamura ¶ [0152] – [0154]: The measuring person measures a lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37 shown in FIG. 14 using the external measurement device 84 (Step S4). After completion of the measurement of the lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37, an operator operates the boom 31 and the arm 32 to position the boom 31 and the arm 32 in a plurality of work attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the bucket pin 39 provided to the distal end of the arm 32 in each work attitude (Step S5). The position of the bucket pin 39 is measured in each of three attitudes: a position P2 where the boom 31 is fully raised; a position P3 where the boom 31 and the arm 32 are both extended in a work direction; and a position P4 where the boom 31 is extended in the work direction with the arm 32 being retracted. It should be noted that the position of the bucket pin 39 may be measured in any attitude different from the three attitudes. Next, the operator operates the bucket 33 to position the bucket 33 in a plurality of bucket attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 (Step S6). The position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 is measured in each of two attitudes with the blade edge P being situated at: a position P5 where the bucket 33 is extended; and a position P6 where the bucket 33 is retracted. It should be noted that the bucket 33 may be measured in any attitude different from the two attitudes);
determine that the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a distance between the rotation central position and the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a second threshold (Iwamura ¶ [0166]: The first calibration unit 88 determines whether or not the value of the equation (8) falls within a predetermined acceptable range (Step S12); Iwamura ¶ [0168]: When the convergence calculation is repeated for the predetermined number of times (N), the first calibration unit 88 commands the display unit 71B to display information for informing the measuring person and the operator of a failure of the convergence calculation to inhibit the process from further proceeding (Step S14)). Examiner interprets a convergence calculation (equation 8) to fall outside of an acceptable range if positions P2 (x2, z2), P3 (x3, z3), and P4 (x4, z4) contain values in the x-z plane and/or parameters derived from equations 4 and 5, including measured lengths of the boom, arm, and bucket, that vary too greatly. If the lengths or distances between measured points include change amounts that are too large, the convergence calculation will fall outside an acceptable range and the calibration calculations will not continue.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato modified by the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook to further include the determination of whether a convergence calculation falls within a first acceptable range of Iwamura with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately calibrate an estimated position of a blade edge of a bucket (Iwamura ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tamazato and Cook discloses wherein the construction machine includes an informing device capable of outputting information inputted from the controller (Tamazato ¶ [0074]: A controller 18 and a control box 19, which are liquid crystal display screens, are installed in a control compartment 10), and
the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of a rotation central position and a non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures (Tamazato ¶ [0103] – [0106]: As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the prism is held on a blade tip 25 of the bucket, and the world geodesic coordinate 3 of the blade tip is measured by the total station (TS) 6. The measurements is made from a side of the backhoe. Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth. As shown in FIG. 8, while the boom 12 and the arm are fixed, the bucket 14 only is rotated, and two P.sub.i of the blade tip 25 of the bucket are measured in the global geodesic system. Then, the arm 13 is rotated, the above is performed. The total number of measurement points is 4. Next, the boom 12 is rotated, and the above is repeated. The total number of measurement points is 8) where the rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth);
not calculate the updated values when it is determined that the coordinate axes measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate or the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate (Tamazato ¶ [0103]: Stability of accuracy can be expected, because only the side position is measured from TS at the same depth; The Examiner interprets the total station of Tamazato to only measure the boom, arm, and bucket positions with a fixed depth meaning no calculation of updated values will occur if the depth or measured y-coordinate values vary even when the work implement is statically determinate for a period of time) even when determining that the work implement is determined as statically determinate at a time where the conversion parameters are calibrated (Cook ¶ [0034]: If the noise level of the sensors is known, a determination that the robot is stable (e.g., such that a bias estimation may be performed) may be based on whether (1) the peak-to-peak variation of the samples in a window is within a first threshold (hereinafter termed the sample threshold) and (2) the window mean does not change more than a second threshold (herein termed the mean threshold). When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable), and
.
It is noted that the combination of Tamazato and Cook fails to particularly disclose determine that coordinate axes of the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a horizontal direction in the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a first threshold;
determine that coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a distance between the rotation central position and the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a second threshold; and
output information prompting an operator to carry out recalibration to the informing device when determining that the work implement is not statically determinate, the coordinate axes measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate, or the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate.
However, Iwamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the construction machine includes an informing device capable of outputting information inputted from the controller (Iwamura ¶ [0139]: A calibration result of the work parameter(s) is displayed on the display unit 71B of the display input device 71 to show whether the calibration is successfully performed or another calibration needs to be performed), and
the controller is configured to:
acquire coordinates of a rotation central position and a non-rotation central position of the working implement, the coordinates having been measured by the external measuring device at a plurality of postures where the rotation central position of the work implement is not moved (Iwamura ¶ [0152] – [0154]: The measuring person measures a lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37 shown in FIG. 14 using the external measurement device 84 (Step S4). After completion of the measurement of the lateral-side center position P1 of the boom pin 37, an operator operates the boom 31 and the arm 32 to position the boom 31 and the arm 32 in a plurality of work attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the bucket pin 39 provided to the distal end of the arm 32 in each work attitude (Step S5). The position of the bucket pin 39 is measured in each of three attitudes: a position P2 where the boom 31 is fully raised; a position P3 where the boom 31 and the arm 32 are both extended in a work direction; and a position P4 where the boom 31 is extended in the work direction with the arm 32 being retracted. It should be noted that the position of the bucket pin 39 may be measured in any attitude different from the three attitudes. Next, the operator operates the bucket 33 to position the bucket 33 in a plurality of bucket attitudes. The measuring person measures the position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 (Step S6). The position of the blade edge P of the bucket 33 is measured in each of two attitudes with the blade edge P being situated at: a position P5 where the bucket 33 is extended; and a position P6 where the bucket 33 is retracted. It should be noted that the bucket 33 may be measured in any attitude different from the two attitudes);
determine that coordinate axes of the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a horizontal direction in the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a first threshold (Iwamura ¶ [0174]: The second calibration unit 89 determines whether or not J.sub.2 of the equation (9) falls within a predetermined acceptable range (Step S17); Iwamura ¶ [0176]: When the convergence calculation is repeated for the predetermined number of times (N), the first calibration unit 88 commands the display unit 71B to display information for informing the measuring person and the operator of a failure of the convergence calculation to inhibit the process from further proceeding (Step S19); The Examiner interprets a convergence calculation to fall outside of an acceptable range if positions P5 (x5, y5), and P6 (x6, y6) are associated with y-coordinates that change too greatly when converted from the global coordinate system to the vehicle body coordinate system.);
determine that coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate when a change amount in a distance between the rotation central position and the non-rotation central position at the postures exceeds a second threshold (Iwamura ¶ [0166]: The first calibration unit 88 determines whether or not the value of the equation (8) falls within a predetermined acceptable range (Step S12); Iwamura ¶ [0168]: When the convergence calculation is repeated for the predetermined number of times (N), the first calibration unit 88 commands the display unit 71B to display information for informing the measuring person and the operator of a failure of the convergence calculation to inhibit the process from further proceeding (Step S14); Examiner interprets a convergence calculation (equation 8) to fall outside of an acceptable range if positions P2 (x2, z2), P3 (x3, z3), and P4 (x4, z4) contain values in the x-z plane and/or parameters derived from equations 4 and 5, including measured lengths of the boom, arm, and bucket, that vary too greatly. If the lengths or distances between measured points include change amounts that are too large, the convergence calculation will fall outside an acceptable range and the calibration calculations will not continue.); and
output information prompting an operator to carry out recalibration to the informing device when determining that the work implement is not statically determinate, the coordinate axes measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate, or the coordinates measured by the external measuring device are not appropriate (Iwamura ¶ [0139]: A calibration result of the work parameter(s) is displayed on the display unit 71B of the display input device 71 to show whether the calibration is successfully performed or another calibration needs to be performed; Iwamura ¶ [0168]: When the convergence calculation is repeated for the predetermined number of times (N), the first calibration unit 88 commands the display unit 71B to display information for informing the measuring person and the operator of a failure of the convergence calculation to inhibit the process from further proceeding).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato modified by the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook to further include the determination of whether convergence calculations fall within acceptable ranges and the output for prompting recalibration of Iwamura with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately calibrate an estimated position of a blade edge of a bucket (Iwamura ¶ [0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0293972 by Tamazato (herein after "Tamazato"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0026214 by Cook et al. (herein after "Cook"), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0002914 by Yoshida et al. (herein after "Yoshida").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tamazato and Cook discloses wherein the construction machine includes an informing device capable of outputting information inputted from the controller (Tamazato ¶ [0074]: A controller 18 and a control box 19, which are liquid crystal display screens, are installed in a control compartment 10), (Cook ¶ [0034]: If the noise level of the sensors is known, a determination that the robot is stable (e.g., such that a bias estimation may be performed) may be based on whether (1) the peak-to-peak variation of the samples in a window is within a first threshold (hereinafter termed the sample threshold) and (2) the window mean does not change more than a second threshold (herein termed the mean threshold). When there are multiple sensors, (e.g. accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer inside an IMU,) the stability detection should be based on the measurement data from all the sensors, e.g., the robot may be deemed to be stable only when all the sensors are stable).
It is noted that the combination of Tamazato and Cook fails to particularly disclose the controller is configured to output information prompting an operator to have the external measuring device make measurements to the informing device when determining that the work implement is statically determinate at time of calibrating the conversion parameters.
However, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the construction machine includes an informing device capable of outputting information inputted from the controller (Yoshida ¶ [0048]: A monitor (a display device) 61 for displaying various pieces of information, a setting screen, and so on is disposed in a position that can easily be seen by the operator in the operation room 170), and the controller is configured to output information prompting an operator (Yoshida: Fig. 21) to have the external measuring device (Yoshida: total station 303 in Fig. 23) make measurements to the informing device (Yoshida ¶ [0103]: A calibration process of a construction machine which performs machine control, such as the hydraulic excavator 1 according to the present embodiment, is carried out by, for example, eliminating the difference between the position of the claw tip of the bucket 35 in a local coordinate system calculated from the detected values from the posture sensors 63, 65 and 67 disposed on the front work implement 30 and the machine body (the upper swing structure 20 and the lower track structure 10) and the position of the claw tip measured from outside the hydraulic excavator 1. Specifically, a plurality of predetermined postures (calibration postures) are obtained based on detected values from the posture sensors 63, 65 and 67, the differences between the positions of the claw tip of the bucket 35 at this time and the positions of the claw tip measured from outside the hydraulic excavator 1 are calculated, and the detected values from the posture sensors 63, 65 and 67 are corrected to eliminate those differences) when determining that the work implement is statically determinate at time of calibrating the conversion parameters (Yoshida ¶ [0098]: In step S216, the calibration posture storing section 60a determines whether the present values of the boom angle, the arm angle, and the bucket angle respectively with respect to all of the boom 31, the arm 33, and the bucket 35 are equal to the angle target values or not (step S216). If the determined result is NO, then the processing of steps S211 through S215a, S211 through S215b, S211 through S215c is repeated. If the determined result from step S216 is YES, then the calibration posture storing section 60a controls the monitor controller 62 to display, in a screen 153 (FIG. 21) on the monitor 61, information indicating to the operator that the calibration posture controlling process is completed and the front work implement 30 has taken a calibration posture (e.g., character information 153a representing “CALIBRATION POSTURE COMPLETE”) (step S217)).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning calibration system and method of Tamazato modified by the calibration after a stability detection function determines that IMU sensor values are stable for a period of time of Cook to further include the display with an operator prompt to perform outside measurements when a work implement is in a calibration posture of Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to shorten the time required for calibration by improving the operability for adjusting a calibration posture (Yoshida ¶ [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
WO 2022/200220 discloses a system and method for calibrating IMU sensors of an agricultural vehicle using a GNSS reference station that measures various locations of the agricultural vehicle at multiple postures in order to account for sensor error.
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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights