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 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: external measuring device, information processing device, control device, a carrier machine information acquisition device.
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.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. More specifically, the phrase “carrier machine is terminated is acquired…” is unclear as to whether the loading task is terminated or acquired or the status of the task is acquired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOSO (US 20240112459 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HOSO discloses a work machine (¶0007, “a working machine”) for loading a target object onto a carrier machine (¶0007, “performs a loading work to a container”), comprising:
an external measuring device (¶0007, “The container measurement system includes: a distance image acquisition part” ) that measures a surrounding environment of a body of the work machine (¶0007, “for acquiring a distance image of the container”, examiner construes container is surrounding environment of a body of the work machine since the container is located outside the work machine. FIG. 1 shows the working machine 20 and the container 12 on the vehicle 10);
an information processing device (¶0037, “The image processing part 61”) that recognizes the carrier machine present around the body based on a measurement result of the external measuring device (¶0037, “preprocesses the image acquired by the two-dimensional information acquisition section 42”, ¶0033, “The two-dimensional information acquisition section 42 acquires (captures) two-dimensional information (image) showing the container 12”); and
a control device that controls an operation of the body based on a recognition result of the information processing device (¶0056, “The three-dimensional information about the container 12 is adoptable for … automatic operation of the working machine 20”); and
a carrier machine information acquisition device (¶0038, “The position coordinate estimation part 62”) that acquires a position (¶0038, “extracts (recognizes, estimates) positions of feature points F (F1 to F8) in the image and positions of links L (L1 to L9) in the image”) and vehicle class information of the carrier machine from an external source (¶0038, “a program for extracting a specific shape from an image. For instance, the program adopts a deep learning technique. In this manner, the position coordinate estimation part 62 acquires two-dimensional information including the image showing the container 12”. Examiner construes the image from the camera as external source. FIG. 4 shows the shape of the container taken by a camera 40 shown in FIG. 3), wherein the information processing device corrects a recognition result of the carrier machine based on the position and the vehicle class information of the carrier machine acquired by the carrier machine information acquisition device (FIG. 8, S7 superimpose shape of container and two dimensional coordinates, S8, detect three dimensional shape of the container, S12, specify kind of container, S13, correct the three dimensional information about the container”),
wherein the control device controls the operation of the body based on the corrected recognition result of the carrier machine (¶0056, “The three-dimensional information about the container 12 is adoptable … for automatic operation of the working machine”).
Regarding claim 2, HOSO discloses wherein the information processing device includes: a recognition section that recognizes the carrier machine from the measurement result of the external measuring device and calculates a recognition area as an area where the recognized carrier machine is present (FIG. 4, ¶0045, “three-dimensional information about the container 12 detected by the feature point position detection part 66”);
an area estimation section that calculates an estimated area as an area where the carrier machine is estimated to be present based on the position and the vehicle class information of the carrier machine acquired by the carrier machine information acquisition device (FIG. 8, S1-S12); and
a correction section that corrects the recognition area based on the estimated area (FIG. 8, S13).
Regarding claim 5, HOSO discloses wherein the carrier machine information acquisition device further acquires information on a position adjustment amount of the carrier machine, wherein the area estimation section calculates the estimated area using the position adjustment amount acquired by the carrier machine information acquisition device (¶0055).
Regarding claim 12, Hoso teaches wherein the external measuring device acquires point cloud data of the surrounding environment as the measurement result, wherein the information processing device further includes a filter section that extracts the point cloud data within a predetermined area including the estimated area from the point cloud data acquired by the external measuring device, wherein the recognition section recognizes the carrier machine from the point cloud data extracted by the filter section and calculates the recognition area (¶0034).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSO (US 20240112459 A1) in view of KAWANISHI (JPWO2021124445A1).
Regarding claim 3, HOSO does not explicitly disclose but, KAWANISHI teaches wherein the information processing device calculates a confidence of the recognition result by comparing the recognition area with the estimated area, wherein the correction section corrects the recognition area according to the calculated confidence (page 13, lines 9-17).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the confidence level taught in KAWANISHI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the success of gripping posture of the machine at different positions.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSO (US 20240112459 A1) in view of KAWANISHI (JPWO2021124445A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Lewis (US 20160223350).
Regarding claim 4, HOSO does not explicitly but, Lewis teaches wherein the information processing device calculates an overlap degree indicating a degree of overlap between the recognition area and the estimated area as the confidence, wherein the correction section corrects the recognition area according to the calculated overlap degree (¶0089).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the degree of overlap taught in Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in efficiency through accurate navigation and thus, dangers of injury or property damage resulting from a collision can be mitigated.
Regarding claim 6, Lewis further teaches wherein the information processing device further includes a task acquisition section that acquires a next task to be performed by the work machine (¶0104), wherein the correction section changes a correction method of the recognition area according to the acquired task (¶0179).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the task acquisition section taught in Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in efficiency through accurate navigation and thus, dangers of injury or property damage resulting from a collision can be mitigated.
Regarding claim 7, Lewis further teaches wherein when a loading task for loading the target object onto the carrier machine is acquired, the correction section corrects the recognition area such that the recognition area becomes an area encompassing the recognition area and the estimated area (¶0104, 0051)).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the loading task taught in Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in efficiency through accurate navigation and thus, dangers of injury or property damage resulting from a collision can be mitigated.
Regarding claim 8, Lewis further teaches comprising a bucket that holds the target object, wherein the carrier machine information acquisition device further acquires information regarding a position adjustment amount of the carrier machine, wherein when a loading task for loading the target object onto the carrier machine is acquired, the correction section calculates a position of the bucket when loading the target object from the bucket onto the carrier machine based on the position adjustment amount acquired by the carrier machine information acquisition device, the recognition area, and the estimated area, wherein the control device controls a loading operation of the target object onto the carrier machine based on the position of the bucket calculated by the correction section (Fig. 21, ¶0209).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the position adjustment amount of the carrier machine taught in Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in efficiency through accurate navigation and thus, dangers of injury or property damage resulting from a collision can be mitigated.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSO (US 20240112459 A1) in view of KAWANISHI (JPWO2021124445A1), Lewis (US 20160223350) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of KAWAMOTO (US 20220101552 A1).
Regarding claim 9, HOSO does not explicitly disclose but, KAWAMOTO teaches wherein when a reaching task to be performed after the loading task for loading the target object onto the carrier machine is terminated is acquired, the correction section corrects the recognition area such that the recognition area becomes an area encompassed by an area where the recognition area and the estimated area overlap (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the loading task taught in KAWAMOTO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in robustness of processing of specifying a loading/unloading target of a transporting material from a captured image.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSO (US 20240112459 A1) in view of TSUJI (CN 107532411 A).
Regarding claim 10, HOSO does not explicitly disclose but, TSUJI teaches when the recognition result of the carrier machine is determined to be not correctable, the information processing device notifies a user of that the recognition result is not correctable and displays a screen on the display device to allow the user to confirm whether or not the operation of the body is allowed to be continued; when a confirmation result on whether or not the operation of the body is allowed to be continued is received from the user, the information processing device outputs the confirmation result to the control device, wherein the control device controls the operation of the body according to the confirmation result (page 04, lines 24-29).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the loading task taught in TSUJI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in the efficiency of loading and unloading operation.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSO (US 20240112459 A1) in view of KAWAMOTO (US 20220101552 A1).
Regarding claim 11, HOSO does not but, KAWAMOTO teaches comprising a terrain information acquisition device that acquires terrain information around the work machine, wherein the information processing device further includes a posture estimation section that estimates a posture of the carrier machine based on the terrain information acquired by the terrain information acquisition device, wherein the area estimation section calculates the estimated area using the posture of the carrier machine estimated by the posture estimation section (¶0146).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the loading into the carrier machine disclosed in HOSO with the loading task taught in KAWAMOTO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in robustness of processing of specifying a loading/unloading target of a transporting material from a captured image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Talmaki (US 20190180627 A1) discloses a system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite is provided. The system includes a controller coupled to a position detection module and a speed detection module. The controller receives a position signal and a speed signal associated with the machine. The controller identities a load location based on a relative distance between the machine and a loading tool and the speed of the machine. The controller monitors a velocity of the machine as the machine moves away from the identified load location, gathers data related to a plurality of stops made by the machine, and builds a heuristic model. The controller selects one stop from the plurality of stops as a dump location based on a distance between the respective dump location and the load location, a duration of stopping of the machine, and a confidence score associated with the respective dump location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664