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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/16/2024. Claim(s) 1 - 13 are presently pending and are examined in this first action on the merits (FAOM).
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority based on Application JP2022-082015 filed 05/19/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
112(f)
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: Operation device which allows operation for moving …, detection part that detects .., alarm device capable of outputting an alarm, operation amount detector that detects operation amount, display device that displays.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anahara Keiichiro et. al. US 20220290411 (“Keiichiro”) in view Harunobu Ushijima et. al. US 20220251803 (“Ushijima”).
As per Claim 1,
Keiichiro discloses,
A safety device for a work machine including an operation device which allows an operation for moving the work machine to be applied to the operation device, the safety device ( see at least [0011] and FIG. 4 is a functional block diagram for schematically showing a configuration according to a periphery monitoring system of the hydraulic excavator while being extracted)
a detection part that detects a detection object present around the work machine (see at least Fig. 4, [0043] detection position determination section 20 a determines the detection position of the detected object on the basis of the detection results of the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, and outputs the determination result to the operation limiting control section 20 b and the sound output control section 20 c).
an alarm device capable of outputting an alarm (see at least [0048] The sound output control section 20 c controls the sound output device 30 on the basis of the determination result of the detection position determination section 20 a, and [0057] That is, for example, in a case where an alarm is sounding by detecting an object, if the operator is not aware of the alarm, or if the operator is aware of the alarm but becomes less conscious of the alarm with the elapse of a certain period of time, there is a risk that the operation lever is operated).
an operation amount detector that detects a target operation amount that is a magnitude of an alarm target operation included in the operation (see at least [0026] the operation device 4 includes operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b for electrically detecting the inclination amount of the operation lever in each direction, that is, the operation amount of the lever, and the operation amounts of the lever sensed by the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b are output to the controller 20, and [0038] In FIG. 4, the periphery monitoring system is configured from the plurality of sensor 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, the pressure sensors 23 c and 23 d, the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b).
a control part, which is configured to make the alarm device output an operation alarm only when the detection object detected by the detection part is present in an alarm area that is set around the work machine (see at least [0034] as shown in FIG. 3, detection ranges 14, 15, and 16 for detecting objects by the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c are set around the hydraulic excavator 1. The detection range 14 is a detection range defined on the basis of the swing range of the rear end of the upper swing structure 1 d in a case where the upper swing structure 1 d performs a swing operation with respect to the lower track structure 1 e. The detection range 15 is a detection range defined on the rear side of the lower track structure 1 e in the travel operation on the basis of the width and traveling speed (travelable speed) of the lower track structure 1 e. The detection range 16 is a detection range defined on the basis of the swing range of the tip end of the front work device 1A in a case where the upper swing structure 1 d performs a swing operation with respect to the lower track structure 1 e).
configured to make outputting the operation alarm stopped regardless of a presence or absence of the detection object when the target operation amount is equal to or less than the allowable operation amount (see at least [0048] The sound output control section 20 c controls the sound output device 30 on the basis of the determination result of the detection position determination section 20 a, the determination result of the operation limiting control section 20 b, and the sensed results of the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b to notify the operator of the detection content, and [0051] , the sound output control section 20 c determines whether or not the operation device 4 is operated on the basis of the sensed results from the operation amount sensor 4 a and 4 b (Step S130), and outputs the second state sound by controlling the sound output device 30 when the determination result is YES (Step S140), then terminating the process)
Keiichiro does not explicitly disclose,
the target operation amount exceeds a preset allowable operation amount
Ushijima teaches,
the target operation amount exceeds a preset allowable operation amount (see at least [0065] In the case where manipulation device 61 is manipulated during issuance of an alarm, i.e., when it is detected that an object to be recognized is present inside stop control region A2, main controller 40 restricts the operation of hydraulic actuator 80 corresponding to the manipulation of manipulation device 61, and [0077] Even when a human is present inside stop control region A2, but when the operator can visually check no presence of a human at the position where the operation of work implement 2 is influenced, the operation of work implement 2 is permitted to thereby allow the operator to freely move work implement 2).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Ushijima teaches a work machine with a surrounding area monitoring device using cameras to detect objects and to restrict an operation of the work machine if an object is present inside a set region.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with manipulation device, an actuator, a surrounding area monitoring device, and a controller taught by Ushijima, with a reasonable expectation of success, to restricts an operation of the actuator corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device(0006) and improve manipulability of the hydraulic excavator (0077).
As per Claim 2,
Keiichiro discloses,
wherein the allowable operation amount is smaller than an operation amount by which a target part, which is a part to be moved by the alarm target operation in the work machine, is actually started to move (see at least Fig. 4, and [0056] On the other hand, in the present embodiment, in a case where an object is detected by the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, when the possibility of contact between the work machine and the object potentially increases, such as when the operation limiting control is OFF (disabled), when the operation limiting control is abnormal, or when the operation device 4 is operated, the detection of the object is notified to the operator by the first state sound (the sound whose warning intensity is relatively stronger than the second state), thus the operator can more surely notice the alarm. Further, when the operation limiting control is normal and the operation device 4 is not operated, the detection of the object is notified to the operator by the second state sound (the sound whose warning intensity is relatively weaker than the first state) different from the first state sound, thus the botheration for the operator can be suppressed while securing the effectiveness of the alarm in the periphery monitoring).
As per Claim 3,
Keiichiro discloses,
further comprising a display device that displays an image visually recognizable by an operator ([0043] a display device capable of displaying various kinds of information may be provided as a warning device)
the control part is configured to make the display device display a warning image indicating a presence of the detection object regardless of the target operation amount when the detection object is present in the alarm area (see at least [0043] a warning may be issued to the operator by way of a first state display and a second state display that are different in warning intensity. In this case, a warning is issued to the operator by displaying, for example, the first state display that is stronger in warning intensity than the second state display, and the second state display).
Keiichiro does not explicitly disclose,
displays an image visually recognizable by an operator
Ushijima teaches,
displays an image visually recognizable by an operator (see at least [0033] From the images captured by camera 20, surrounding area monitoring controller 30 produces surrounding images of hydraulic excavator 100 and causes a monitor 31 to display the produced images, and [0063] When the presence of an object such as a human is sensed inside stop control region A2 during issuance of a warning, an alarm is issued. An alarm may visually call operator's attention with an icon indicating this alarm and displayed on monitor 31. An alarm may acoustically call operator's attention with a buzzer and the like).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Ushijima teaches a work machine with a surrounding area monitoring device using cameras to detect objects and to restrict an operation of the work machine if an object is present inside a set region.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with manipulation device, an actuator, a surrounding area monitoring device, and a controller taught by Ushijima, with a reasonable expectation of success, to restricts an operation of the actuator corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device(0006) and improve manipulability of the hydraulic excavator (0077).
As per Claim 4,
Keiichiro discloses,
The safety device for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the work machine includes a lower traveling body capable of performing a traveling motion and an upper turning body capable of performing a turning motion with respect to the lower traveling body (see at least Fig. 1, 1d lower track structure and Fig. 1, 1c upper swing structure)
the upper turning body allowing an operator to get on the upper turning body (see at least Fig. 1, 1f Operation room)
the alarm area includes at least an area backward of the upper turning body (see at least Fig. 1, 13a Rear sensor)
the alarm target operation includes a traveling operation for making the lower traveling body perform the traveling motion (see at least Fig. 4, 24a and 24b)
a turning operation for making the upper turning body perform the turning motion (see at least Fig. 4, 23a and 23b, [0037] FIG. 4 is a functional block diagram for schematically showing a configuration according to the periphery monitoring system of the hydraulic excavator according to the present embodiment while being extracted, and [0039] Here, the limiting devices ( solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b) and the warning device (sound output device 30) configure a part of a driving assist device for assisting the driving of the operator).
As per Claim 5,
Keiichiro does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the work machine further includes a work device supported by the upper turning body so as to protrude forward beyond the upper turning body and a working operation for moving the work device is included in the operation to be applied to the operation device, the working operation excluded from the alarm target operation
Ushijima teaches,
wherein the work machine further includes a work device supported by the upper turning body so as to protrude forward beyond the upper turning body and a working operation for moving the work device is included in the operation to be applied to the operation device, the working operation excluded from the alarm target operation (see at least Fig. 1, and [0017] As shown in FIG. 1, hydraulic excavator 100 includes a body 1 and a work implement 2 that operates with hydraulic pressure, [0022] Work implement 2 is supported by revolving unit 3. Work implement 2 is pivotally supported on revolving unit 3 to be operable in the up-down direction, and performs such work as excavation of soil, and [0069] Hydraulic excavator 100 is controlled such that traveling and revolving of hydraulic excavator 100 are restricted as described above but the operation of work implement 2 is not restricted also during issuance of an alarm).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Ushijima teaches a work machine with a surrounding area monitoring device using cameras to detect objects and to restrict an operation of the work machine if an object is present inside a set region.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with manipulation device, an actuator, a surrounding area monitoring device, and a controller taught by Ushijima, with a reasonable expectation of success, to restricts an operation of the actuator corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device(0006) and improve manipulability of the hydraulic excavator (0077).
As per Claim 6,
Keiichiro discloses,
wherein the alarm target operation is restricted to an operation in a direction of approaching a target part, which is a part to be moved by the operation, among operations to be applied to the operation device (see at least [0035] The sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c are, for example, infrared depth sensors that detect the distance and direction from the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c to an object, and [0047] when the operation limiting control is ON, an object is detected by the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, and a command signal is output from the operation limiting control section 20 b to the solenoid valve 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b in order to perform the operation limiting control of the swing operation and the travel operation, that is, when the control for limiting (decompressing) the pilot pressure to the directional control valve 28 or the like is performed, it is determined whether the operation limiting control is enabled (normal) or disabled (abnormal) by determining whether or not the pressure of the pilot pressure via the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is limited (decompressed) to a predetermined pressure or less. The operation limiting control section 20 b outputs the determination result of whether or not the operation limiting control is enabled, that is, whether each of the solenoid valves 23 a, 23 b, 24 a, and 24 b is normal or abnormal to the sound output control section 20 c).
As per Claim 7,
Keiichiro discloses,
wherein the control part is configured to make the alarm device output a detection alarm more restrained than the operation alarm when the detection object is present in the alarm area and the target operation amount is equal to or less than the allowable operation amount (see at least [0038] In FIG. 4, the periphery monitoring system is configured from the plurality of sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c, the pressure sensors 23 c and 23 d, the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b, [0048] The sound output control section 20 c controls the sound output device 30 on the basis of the determination result of the detection position determination section 20 a, the determination result of the operation limiting control section 20 b, and the sensed results of the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b to notify the operator of the detection content, and [0051] , the sound output control section 20 c determines whether or not the operation device 4 is operated on the basis of the sensed results from the operation amount sensors 4 a and 4 b (Step S130), and outputs the second state sound by controlling the sound output device 30 when the determination result is YES (Step S140), then terminating the process).
As per Claim 8,
Keiichiro discloses,
safety device for the work machine according to claim 7, wherein the detection alarm is an alarm that is more restrained than the operation alarm with respect to at least one of a place, a sound volume and a time (see at least [0056] the detection of the object is notified to the operator by the first state sound (the sound whose warning intensity is relatively stronger than the second state), thus the operator can more surely notice the alarm. Further, when the operation limiting control is normal and the operation device 4 is not operated, the detection of the object is notified to the operator by the second state sound (the sound whose warning intensity is relatively weaker than the first state) different from the first state sound, thus the botheration for the operator can be suppressed while securing the effectiveness of the alarm in the periphery monitoring).
As per Claim 10,
Keiichiro discloses,
safety device for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the control part is configured to perform a motion limitation control when a motion limitation target operation included in the alarm target operation is applied to the operation device (See at least [0040] The limiting device assists the driving of the operator by limiting the travel operation or swing operation of the hydraulic excavator 1 (that is, the operation limiting control is performed) under the control of the controller 20 according to the detection results of the sensors 13 a, 13 b, and 13 c. ]
the motion limitation control being a control of limiting a limitation target motion that is a motion of a target part that is moved by the motion limitation target operation (See at least [0006] a controller that controls operations of the machine body and the front work device on the basis of the operation signal from the operation device, and performs operation limiting control for limiting the operation of at least one of the machine body and the front work device when the object is detected by the sensor]
As per Claim 11,
Keiichiro does not disclose,
wherein the control part is configured to make the operation alarm stopped at a point in time when a preset alarm time has elapsed after the motion limitation control is started
Ushijima teaches,
wherein the control part is configured to make the operation alarm stopped at a point in time when a preset alarm time has elapsed after the motion limitation control is started (see at least [0062] When the presence of a human is not sensed any more inside sensing region A1 during issuance of a warning and this state of sensing no presence of a human is continued for a prescribed time period, for example, for five seconds, issuance of the warning is stopped and the system is returned to the standby state).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Ushijima teaches a work machine with a surrounding area monitoring device using cameras to detect objects and to restrict an operation of the work machine if an object is present inside a set region.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with manipulation device, an actuator, a surrounding area monitoring device, and a controller taught by Ushijima, with a reasonable expectation of success, to restricts an operation of the actuator corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device(0006) and improve manipulability of the hydraulic excavator (0077).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichiro and Ushijima as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Morita Taiji et. al JP 2019157409 (“Taiji”)
Keiichiro does not disclose,
wherein the alarm device is capable of outputting an alarm to each of inside and outside of an operation room of the work machine,
the control part is configured to make the alarm device output an alarm to both the inside and the outside of the operation room as the operation alarm when the detection object is present in the alarm area and the target operation amount exceeds the allowable operation amount, and
configured to make the alarm device output an alarm only to the inside of the operation room as the detection alarm when the detection object is present in the alarm area but the target operation amount is equal to or less than the allowable operation amount.
Taiji teaches,
wherein the alarm device is capable of outputting an alarm to each of inside and outside of a operation room of the work machine (see at least [0008] when it is determined that the swivel portion is within at least the regulated region range of the output buffer range and the regulated region range, the output operation of the internal alarm and the external alarm is controlled. It is provided with an alarm control unit that outputs an alarm inside and outside the work vehicle)
the control part is configured to make the alarm device output an alarm to both the inside and the outside of the operation room as the operation alarm when the detection object is present in the alarm area and the target operation amount exceeds the allowable operation amount (see at least [0120] the rotating lamp of the internal alarm device 90 rotates and lights in the interior 5i of the cab 5, and outside the cab 5, the first warning corresponding to the first alarm signal AS1 from the speaker of the first external alarm device 91. A voice message is output. Here, for example, a voice message such as “backhoe turning speed is being reduced” is output to an external worker or the like)
configured to make the alarm device output an alarm only to the inside of the operation room as the detection alarm when the detection object is present in the alarm area but the target operation amount is equal to or less than the allowable operation amount (see at least [0148] the sixth alarm process for operating only the internal alarm device 90 is performed, and [0151] That is, in the third and fourth hydraulic shock absorbing ranges 82A and 82B, an alarm is output only inside the backhoe 1, and only when the turning angle θt is within the restricted region range 80 and the bucket 32 is within the restricted region)
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Taiji teaches an alarm control unit for outputting an alarm inside and outside the work vehicle.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with an alarm control unit is provided that controls an alarm output operation of the internal alarm device and the external alarm device and outputs an alarm inside and outside the work vehicle when it is determined that the alarm is within the alarm output range by Taiji, with a reasonable expectation of success, to automatically alerted to the inside and outside of the work vehicle at a relatively low cost and without requiring manual labor (0007).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichiro and Ushijima as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Yoshihisa Kiyota et. al. US 20200291614 (“Kiyota”)
Keiichiro does not disclose,
wherein a stop area and a speed limitation area are set in the alarm area, and the control part is configured to forcibly stop the limitation target motion and make the alarm device output a first operation alarm when the motion limitation target operation is applied to the operation device with the detection object present in the stop area,
configured to limit a speed of the limitation target motion and make the alarm device output a second operation alarm that is more restrained than the first operation alarm as the operation alarm when the motion limitation target operation is applied to the operation device with the detection target present in the speed limitation area.
Kiyota teaches,
wherein a stop area and a speed limitation area are set in the alarm area, and the control part is configured to forcibly stop the limitation target motion and make the alarm device output a first operation alarm when the motion limitation target operation is applied to the operation device with the detection object present in the stop area (see at least ( see at least [0045] The shovel 500 can transmit various kinds of information (for example, an alarm output notification, an operation restriction notification, and the like, ... ), and [0157] the operation restriction unit 304 can restrict the operation of the operation element of the shovel 500 by controlling the pressure reducing valve. By controlling the pressure reducing valve, the operation restriction unit 304 may restrict the operation of the shovel 500 so as to reduce the operations of various kinds of operation elements in response to manipulation performed by the operator at a moderate level as compared with normally performed manipulation, without stopping the operation elements of the shovel 500)
configured to limit a speed of the limitation target motion and make the alarm device output a second operation alarm that is more restrained than the first operation alarm as the operation alarm when the motion limitation target operation is applied to the operation device with the detection target present in the speed limitation area (see at least [0216] In step S708, the alarm output unit 303 and the operation restriction unit 304 control the communication device 72 and the external notification device 74 to notify, to the outside of the shovel 500, that the alarm is output by the shovel 500 and operation is restricted, and the current process is terminated).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Kiyota teaches a shovel that outputs an alarm or restricts operation when the shovel detects a predetermined monitoring target within a predetermined range (a monitoring area described later) in the area surrounding the shovel, the shovel.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with a processor configured to output an alarm or restrict an operation of the work machine in response to detecting that: the monitoring target is in a sensor range in which the sensor can acquire the detection information; the monitoring target is in a predetermined range equal to or less than a predetermined distance from the work machine as taught by Kiyota, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the operations of various kinds of operation elements in response to manipulation performed by the operator at a moderate level as compared with normally performed manipulation (0157).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichiro and Ushijima as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Masashi Danguchi US 20230279638 (“Danguchi”)
Keiichiro does not disclose,
wherein, the work machine is switchable between an operation lock state where an operation applied to the operation device is invalidated and an operation lock release state where the operation is validated,
the control part is configured to make the alarm device output the operation alarm only when the work machine is in the operation lock release state and configured to stop the operation alarm regardless of the target operation amount when the work machine is in the operation lock state
Danguchi teaches,
wherein, the work machine is switchable between an operation lock state where an operation applied to the operation device is invalidated and an operation lock release state where the operation is validated (see at least [0007] The state switch processing unit, apart from a gate lock lever, is so configured as to be capable of switching between an enabled state and disabled state of the operation unit. The gate lock lever is so configured as to be capable of switching between an unlocked state capable of operating the work machine and a locked state incapable of operating the work machine)
the control part is configured to make the alarm device output the operation alarm only when the work machine is in the operation lock release state and configured to stop the operation alarm regardless of the target operation amount when the work machine is in the operation lock state (see at least [0119] information is presented when the actuator is allowed to act with the operation unit 35 in the enabled state, despite the object Ob 1 being present (person) around the work machine 3, because the work machine 3 is in the standby state (S1: Yes, S10: Yes). In short, the alarm processing unit 15, when the state switch processing unit 12 puts the operation unit 35 in the enabled state (S11), despite at least the gate lock lever 463 being in the unlocked state (S6: Yes), and the detection result meeting the given condition (S8: Yes), presents information on the detection result (S9). This makes it possible to alert the operator, because information on the detection result is presented, when the operation unit 35 is enabled, despite the object Ob 1 (person) being present around the work machine 3).
Thus, Keiichiro discloses a work machine with periphery monitoring system with two warning states and a warning intensity that changes between the first and second warning in other to reduce the botheration to the operator and Danguchi teaches a work machine control system having a “locked state” and an “unlocked state” where digging, swinging and forward/backward actions are prohibited when it is determined that the person detecting measure is detecting the person.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Keiichiro with the operable and inoperable state and the locked state and unlocked state of a work machine as taught by Danguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, to forcibly stop the actuator in the disabled state (0148).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights