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 .
This is a Non-Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on October 25th, 2024 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claim 14 has been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 25th, 2024 and June 10th, 2025 has been considered and entered.
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:
“a position information acquisition part that periodically acquires” in at least claim 1
“a control part … is configured to preform” in at least claim 1
“an imaging device that generates” in at least claim 12
“a position information generation unit that processes” in at least claim 12
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.
The published specification fails to provide a corresponding structure for a “position information acquisition part” and a “control part” and provides corresponding structure for an “imaging device” in paragraph 50 and provides corresponding structure for a “position information generation unit” in paragraph 56.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI”. See MPEP 2181 II B.
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 limitation “a position information acquisition part” and a “control part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient structure for the corresponding limitations. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). See MPEP 2163.03, section VI. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Contingent Limitations
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 1: “the control part is configured to perform the safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied, and configured to release the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed after the control change inhibition is started”
Claim 2: “the control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times after the start of the control change inhibition”
Claim 3: “the safety control includes a speed limitation control, which is a control of limiting a speed of a limitation target motion that is preset among motions of the work machine at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position that is set for the work machine to the detection object, when the object distance is within a preset speed limitation range, and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting a limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information”
Claim 4: “the work machine includes a hydraulic circuit for performing the limitation target motion; the hydraulic circuit is configured to limit the limitation target motion in accordance with a limitation command that is input to the hydraulic circuit; and the control part is configured to generate the limitation command and to input the limitation command to the hydraulic circuit when performing the speed limitation control and configured to inhibit, as the control change inhibition, the limitation command from being changed”
Claim 13: “the control part is configured to execute the safety control when the detection object is detected in a monitoring area set around the work machine and configured to maintain the safety control that has been performed in an in-area detection state where the detection object is detected in the monitoring area, as the control change inhibition, when the detection object is shifted from the in-area detection state to an in-area non-detection state where the detection object is not detected in the monitoring area”
Claim 14: “that the monitoring area includes a stop area and a speed limitation area; the control part is configured to execute a forcible stop control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the stop area, the forcible stop control being a control of forcibly stopping a limitation target motion preset among motions of the work machine, and configured to execute a speed limitation control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the speed limitation area, the speed limitation control being a control of limiting the speed of the limitation target motion at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position set for the work machine to the detection object; and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting the limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(6) as noted above is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 1 the claims recite the abstract idea of monitoring an area of a work machine and conditionally control the work machine, and mentally determine “perform the safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied, and configured to release the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed after the control change inhibition is started”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally monitoring an area of a work machine and conditionally control the work machine provided by the work machine’s sensors while operating, or alternatively, mentally monitoring an area of a work machine and conditionally control the work machine based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper monitor an area of a work machine and conditionally control the work machine.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of a position information acquisition part, a control part, an imaging device, and a position information generation unit are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “a position information acquisition part that periodically acquires position information on a position of a detection object around the work machine; and a control part” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a position information acquisition part, a control part, an imaging device, and a position information generation unit does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 2-15 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “for performing a safety control of a work machine. . . control part” claim 1).
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ushijima (US 20220251803 A1) (“Ushijima”).
With respect to claim 1, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (1) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 1, Ushijima teaches a safety device for performing a safety control of a work machine, comprising:
a position information acquisition part that periodically acquires position information on a position of a detection object around the work machine (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 57-58 “Camera 20 obtains images of the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100 excluding visible region A3. Camera 20 can obtain images showing the inside of sensing region A1, and can also obtain images showing the inside of stop control region A2. Surrounding area monitoring controller 30 determines whether or not the images obtained by camera 20 show an obstacle as an object to be recognized (for example, a human), to thereby detect whether an object to be recognized is present or not in the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100. From surrounding area monitoring controller 30, main controller 40 receives an electrical signal indicating the result of detecting whether an object to be recognized is present or not in the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100. Camera 20 and surrounding area monitoring controller 30 constitute a surrounding area monitoring device in the embodiment. From the images showing the inside of sensing region A1 that are obtained by camera 20, surrounding area monitoring controller 30 detects whether an object to be recognized such as a human is present or not inside sensing region A1. From the images showing the inside of stop control region A2 as a set region that are obtained by camera 20, surrounding area monitoring controller 30 detects whether an object to be recognized such as a human is present or not inside stop control region A2.”); and
a control part, wherein the control part is configured to perform the safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information (See at least Ushijima Paragraph 59 “Main controller 40 performs an object sensing function. The object sensing function in the present embodiment is a function of restricting the operation of hydraulic excavator 100 upon detection that an object to be recognized such as a human is present inside stop control region A2. FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram showing each process performed by the object sensing function.” | Paragraph 61 “In the standby state, upon sensing that an object such as a human is present inside sensing region A1, a warning is issued. A warning may visually call operator's attention with an icon indicating this warning and displayed on monitor 31. A warning may acoustically call operator's attention with a buzzer and the like.” | Paragraph 63 “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. The buzzer issuing a warning may be the same device as the buzzer issuing an alarm. In order to allow an operator to recognize issuance of an alarm, for example, the interval of sounds intermittently issued from a buzzer may be shortened or the volume of a buzzer sound may be changed.”),
configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied, and configured to release the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed after the control change inhibition is started (See at least Ushijima FIG. 4 and Paragraph 62 “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.” | Paragraph 64 “When the presence of a human is not sensed any more inside stop control region A2 during issuance of an alarm 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 alarm is changed to issuance of a warning.”).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 1 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (1).
With respect to claim 2, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (2) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 2 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (2).
With respect to claim 2, Ushijima teaches that the control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times after the start of the control change inhibition (See at least Ushijima FIG. 4 and Paragraph 62 “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.” | Paragraph 64 “When the presence of a human is not sensed any more inside stop control region A2 during issuance of an alarm 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 alarm is changed to issuance of a warning.”).
With respect to claim 6, Ushijima teaches an alarm unit, wherein the safety control includes a control of making the alarm unit output an alarm (See at least Ushijima Paragraph 61 “In the standby state, upon sensing that an object such as a human is present inside sensing region A1, a warning is issued. A warning may visually call operator's attention with an icon indicating this warning and displayed on monitor 31. A warning may acoustically call operator's attention with a buzzer and the like.” | Paragraph 63 “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. The buzzer issuing a warning may be the same device as the buzzer issuing an alarm. In order to allow an operator to recognize issuance of an alarm, for example, the interval of sounds intermittently issued from a buzzer may be shortened or the volume of a buzzer sound may be changed.”).
With respect to claim 7, Ushijima teaches that the control change inhibition is to continue the safety control based on the previous information regardless of the current information (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 62-63 “”).
With respect to claim 10, Ushijima teaches that the change inhibition condition further includes that a difference between the current information and the previous information exceeds a preset allowable difference (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 62-63 “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. 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. The buzzer issuing a warning may be the same device as the buzzer issuing an alarm. In order to allow an operator to recognize issuance of an alarm, for example, the interval of sounds intermittently issued from a buzzer may be shortened or the volume of a buzzer sound may be changed.”)
With respect to claim 11, Ushijima teaches that the change inhibition condition further includes that the position information about the detection object related to the current information has already been acquired more than or equal to a preset number of times (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 62-63 “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. 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. The buzzer issuing a warning may be the same device as the buzzer issuing an alarm. In order to allow an operator to recognize issuance of an alarm, for example, the interval of sounds intermittently issued from a buzzer may be shortened or the volume of a buzzer sound may be changed.”)
With respect to claim 12, Ushijima teaches that the position information acquisition part includes an imaging device that generates a captured image containing the detection object and a position information generation unit that processes the captured image to thereby generate the position information (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 57-58 “Camera 20 obtains images of the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100 excluding visible region A3. Camera 20 can obtain images showing the inside of sensing region A1, and can also obtain images showing the inside of stop control region A2. Surrounding area monitoring controller 30 determines whether or not the images obtained by camera 20 show an obstacle as an object to be recognized (for example, a human), to thereby detect whether an object to be recognized is present or not in the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100. From surrounding area monitoring controller 30, main controller 40 receives an electrical signal indicating the result of detecting whether an object to be recognized is present or not in the surrounding area of hydraulic excavator 100. Camera 20 and surrounding area monitoring controller 30 constitute a surrounding area monitoring device in the embodiment. From the images showing the inside of sensing region A1 that are obtained by camera 20, surrounding area monitoring controller 30 detects whether an object to be recognized such as a human is present or not inside sensing region A1. From the images showing the inside of stop control region A2 as a set region that are obtained by camera 20, surrounding area monitoring controller 30 detects whether an object to be recognized such as a human is present or not inside stop control region A2.”).
With respect to claim 13, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (5) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 13 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (5).
With respect to claim 13, Ushijima teaches that the control part is configured to execute the safety control when the detection object is detected in a monitoring area set around the work machine and configured to maintain the safety control that has been performed in an in-area detection state where the detection object is detected in the monitoring area, as the control change inhibition, when the detection object is shifted from the in-area detection state to an in-area non-detection state where the detection object is not detected in the monitoring area (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 61-62 “In the standby state, upon sensing that an object such as a human is present inside sensing region A1, a warning is issued. A warning may visually call operator's attention with an icon indicating this warning and displayed on monitor 31. A warning may acoustically call operator's attention with a buzzer and the like. 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.”).
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 3-5, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushijima (US 20220251803 A1) (“Ushijima”) in view of Chiba (US 20220282459 A1) (“Chiba”).
With respect to claim 3, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (3) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 3 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (3).
With respect to claim 3, Ushijima fails to explicitly disclose that the safety control includes a speed limitation control, which is a control of limiting a speed of a limitation target motion that is preset among motions of the work machine at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position that is set for the work machine to the detection object, when the object distance is within a preset speed limitation range, and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting a limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information.
Chiba, however, teaches that the safety control includes a speed limitation control, which is a control of limiting a speed of a limitation target motion that is preset among motions of the work machine at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position that is set for the work machine to the detection object, when the object distance is within a preset speed limitation range, and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting a limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information (See at least Chiba FIGS. 7-8 and Paragraphs 70-71 “FIG. 7 is a table showing the relation between a detection of an object in each area of the operation assistance function and a notification sound level of the buzzer 28. When an object is detected outside of the notification area 38, there is no notification from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the notification area 38, there is a notification at a low sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the deceleration area 39, there is a notification at a medium sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the stop area 40, there is a notification at a high sound level from the buzzer 28. This allows the operator or the like to intuitively understand where the object (detected object) is located. FIG. 8 is a graph showing the relation between a distance from the hydraulic excavator 1 to an object and a deceleration factor of the hydraulic excavator 1 of the operation assistance function. When an object is detected inside of the deceleration area and the stop area, decreasing the deceleration factor according to the distance from the hydraulic excavator 1 to the object can prevent the hydraulic excavator 1 from coming into contact with the object. Herein, the deceleration factor indicates how much a required speed of the actuator determined based on the operation amount of the control lever 32 should be reduced, and the speed limit of the actuator can be obtained by the product of the required speed and the deceleration factor. For example, when the deceleration factor is 1, the required speed of the actuator is not limited. When the deceleration factor is 0, the speed limit is 0, and the operation of the actuator stops.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ushijima to include that the safety control includes a speed limitation control, which is a control of limiting a speed of a limitation target motion that is preset among motions of the work machine at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position that is set for the work machine to the detection object, when the object distance is within a preset speed limitation range, and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting a limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information, as taught by Chiba as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe movement of the work machine (Chiba Paragraph 10 “According to the present invention, it is possible to reduce the inconvenience to an operator or the like of setting an area of the operation assistance function and an area of the work assistance function, and prevent a collision of the work machine with an object in a work area.”).
With respect to claim 4, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (4) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 4 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (4).
With respect to claim 4, Ushijima in view of Chiba teach that the work machine includes a hydraulic circuit for performing the limitation target motion; the hydraulic circuit is configured to limit the limitation target motion in accordance with a limitation command that is input to the hydraulic circuit; and the control part is configured to generate the limitation command and to input the limitation command to the hydraulic circuit when performing the speed limitation control and configured to inhibit, as the control change inhibition, the limitation command from being changed (See at least Ushijima Paragraph 66 “In this case, the determination that manipulation device 61 has been manipulated is made by detecting a manipulation signal. In the system configuration shown in FIG. 2, pressure gauge 65 detects pilot pressure fluctuations, and then, the detection signal thereof is input into main controller 40. Thereby, main controller 40 detects a manipulation signal. Main controller 40 having detected the manipulation signal immediately outputs a control signal to solenoid valve 63 so as to bring solenoid valve 63 into a closed state. Solenoid valve 63 in a closed state blocks pilot oil path 57 to thereby prevent fluctuations of the pilot pressure supplied to pilot port 72 of main valve 70, so that the spool of main valve 70 stops. Thereby, even when manipulation device 61 is manipulated, hydraulic oil is no longer supplied from hydraulic pump 51 to hydraulic actuator 80, with the result that the operation of hydraulic actuator 80 is restricted.”) (See at least Chiba FIG. 3 and Paragraph 34 “FIG. 23 is a diagram illustrating an area of the operation assistance function according to the second embodiment (second example).” | Paragraph 49 “For example, a turning flow rate control valve 34 is a flow rate control valve for controlling the amount of oil supplied to the turning motor 14. When the turning flow rate control valve 34 moves to the left in the figure, oil is supplied so that the turning motor 14 rotates to the left. The rotation speed of the turning motor 14 can be controlled according to the movement amount of the turning flow rate control valve 34. Meanwhile, when the turning flow rate control valve 34 moves to the right in the figure, oil is supplied so that the turning motor 14 rotates to the right.” | Paragraphs 73-74 “The deceleration factor calculation unit 41 calculates a deceleration factor based on the detection information from the detection device 25 and the operation assistance area information set on the monitor 31 (setting information on each area of the operation assistance function) (see FIG. 8). The required speed calculation unit 42 calculates a required speed of each actuator based on an operation signal (operation amount) from the control lever 32. The speed limit calculation unit 43 calculates and outputs a speed limit of each actuator based on the deceleration factor received from the deceleration factor calculation unit 41, the required speed received from the required speed calculation unit 42, and the operation assistance enabled/disabled state set on the monitor 31 (whether the operation assistance function is in an enabled state or disabled state). When the operation assistance function is in an enabled state, the speed limit calculation unit 43 sets the speed limit of each actuator by multiplying the required speed of each actuator received from the required speed calculation unit 42 by the deceleration factor received from the deceleration factor calculation unit 41. When the operation assistance function is in a disabled state, the speed limit calculation unit 43 outputs the required speed of each actuator received from the required speed calculation unit 42 directly as the speed limit. The flow rate control valve control unit 44 calculates a control amount of the flow rate control valve of each actuator based on the speed limit received from the speed limit calculation unit 43, and outputs a control instruction to the solenoid proportional pressure reducing valve corresponding to each actuator. With such a configuration, the operation assistance function of the controller 27 can control each actuator so as to decelerate or stop the operation of the hydraulic excavator 1 when an object is detected in each area of the operation assistance function set in advance based on the detection information from the detection device 25.”).
With respect to claim 5, Ushijima in view of Chiba teach that the work machine includes a lower traveling body and an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body capably of turning; the hydraulic circuit includes a circuit for turning the upper turning body; the position information acquired by the position information acquisition part includes information about the object distance, which is a distance from a reference position set for the upper turning body to the detection object; the limitation target motion includes at least a turning motion of the upper turning body; and the limitation command includes a turning limitation command for limiting the turning motion (See at least Ushijima FIG. 1 and Paragraphs 66-68 “In this case, the determination that manipulation device 61 has been manipulated is made by detecting a manipulation signal. In the system configuration shown in FIG. 2, pressure gauge 65 detects pilot pressure fluctuations, and then, the detection signal thereof is input into main controller 40. Thereby, main controller 40 detects a manipulation signal. Main controller 40 having detected the manipulation signal immediately outputs a control signal to solenoid valve 63 so as to bring solenoid valve 63 into a closed state. Solenoid valve 63 in a closed state blocks pilot oil path 57 to thereby prevent fluctuations of the pilot pressure supplied to pilot port 72 of main valve 70, so that the spool of main valve 70 stops. Thereby, even when manipulation device 61 is manipulated, hydraulic oil is no longer supplied from hydraulic pump 51 to hydraulic actuator 80, with the result that the operation of hydraulic actuator 80 is restricted. When manipulation device 61 is a traveling-motion manipulation device manipulated to cause hydraulic excavator 100 to travel and when it is detected that the traveling-motion manipulation device is manipulated during issuance of an alarm, main controller 40 restricts the operation of traveling motor 5M. Traveling motor 5M is an example of hydraulic actuator 80 corresponding to the manipulation of the traveling-motion manipulation device. Main controller 40 performs control to prevent traveling motor 5M from driving, and, if traveling motor 5M is operating, to stop the operation of traveling motor 5M to thereby prevent hydraulic excavator 100 from moving. When manipulation device 61 is a revolving-motion manipulation device manipulated to operate revolving unit 3 to revolve and when it is detected that the revolving-motion manipulation device is manipulated during issuance of an alarm, main controller 40 restricts the operation of revolving motor 3M. Revolving motor 3M is an example of hydraulic actuator 80 corresponding to the manipulation of the revolving-motion manipulation device. Main controller 40 performs control to prevent revolving motor 3M from driving, and, if revolving motor 3M is operating, to stop the operation of revolving motor 3M to thereby prevent revolving motion of revolving unit 3.”).
With respect to claim 8, Ushijima in view of Chiba teach that the control change inhibition is to limit the speed of the limitation target motion based on position information obtained by reducing the variation from the previous information to the current information (See at least Ushijima Paragraph 59 “Main controller 40 performs an object sensing function. The object sensing function in the present embodiment is a function of restricting the operation of hydraulic excavator 100 upon detection that an object to be recognized such as a human is present inside stop control region A2. FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram showing each process performed by the object sensing function” | Paragraph 68 “When manipulation device 61 is a revolving-motion manipulation device manipulated to operate revolving unit 3 to revolve and when it is detected that the revolving-motion manipulation device is manipulated during issuance of an alarm, main controller 40 restricts the operation of revolving motor 3M. Revolving motor 3M is an example of hydraulic actuator 80 corresponding to the manipulation of the revolving-motion manipulation device. Main controller 40 performs control to prevent revolving motor 3M from driving, and, if revolving motor 3M is operating, to stop the operation of revolving motor 3M to thereby prevent revolving motion of revolving unit 3.”) (See at least Chiba Paragraph 73 “The deceleration factor calculation unit 41 calculates a deceleration factor based on the detection information from the detection device 25 and the operation assistance area information set on the monitor 31 (setting information on each area of the operation assistance function) (see FIG. 8). The required speed calculation unit 42 calculates a required speed of each actuator based on an operation signal (operation amount) from the control lever 32. The speed limit calculation unit 43 calculates and outputs a speed limit of each actuator based on the deceleration factor received from the deceleration factor calculation unit 41, the required speed received from the required speed calculation unit 42, and the operation assistance enabled/disabled state set on the monitor 31 (whether the operation assistance function is in an enabled state or disabled state). When the operation assistance function is in an enabled state, the speed limit calculation unit 43 sets the speed limit of each actuator by multiplying the required speed of each actuator received from the required speed calculation unit 42 by the deceleration factor received from the deceleration factor calculation unit 41. When the operation assistance function is in a disabled state, the speed limit calculation unit 43 outputs the required speed of each actuator received from the required speed calculation unit 42 directly as the speed limit. The flow rate control valve control unit 44 calculates a control amount of the flow rate control valve of each actuator based on the speed limit received from the speed limit calculation unit 43, and outputs a control instruction to the solenoid proportional pressure reducing valve corresponding to each actuator.”).
With respect to claim 9, Ushijima in view of Chiba teach that the control change inhibition is to directly reduce the relaxation itself of the limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information (See at least Chiba Paragraph 70 “FIG. 7 is a table showing the relation between a detection of an object in each area of the operation assistance function and a notification sound level of the buzzer 28. When an object is detected outside of the notification area 38, there is no notification from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the notification area 38, there is a notification at a low sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the deceleration area 39, there is a notification at a medium sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the stop area 40, there is a notification at a high sound level from the buzzer 28. This allows the operator or the like to intuitively understand where the object (detected object) is located.”).
With respect to claim 14, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (6) as noted above, such as a control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 14 are performed by a park assist control part (Specification Paragraph 6 “The control part is configured to perform a safety control when current information, which is the position information currently acquired, is varied from previous information, which is the position information - previously acquired, in a direction of approaching the work machine, the safety control corresponding to the current information, and configured to execute a control change inhibition of inhibiting the safety control from being changed in response to a variation in the position information when a change inhibition condition including that the current information is varied from the previous information in a direction of separating from the work machine is satisfied. The control part releases the control change inhibition at a point in time when a predetermined time has elapsed, for example, the position information has been acquired a predetermined number of times, after the start of the control change inhibition”). Ushijima discloses the same structure (Ushijima Paragraph 31 “Hydraulic excavator 100 is equipped with a main controller 40. Main controller 40 controls the operation of hydraulic excavator 100. The control of hydraulic excavator 100 by main controller 40 will be described later.”) such that Ushijima discloses a structure capable of performing limitation (6).
With respect to claim 14, Ushijima fails to explicitly disclose that the monitoring area includes a stop area and a speed limitation area; the control part is configured to execute a forcible stop control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the stop area, the forcible stop control being a control of forcibly stopping a limitation target motion preset among motions of the work machine, and configured to execute a speed limitation control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the speed limitation area, the speed limitation control being a control of limiting the speed of the limitation target motion at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position set for the work machine to the detection object; and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting the limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information.
Chiba, however, teaches that the monitoring area includes a stop area and a speed limitation area; the control part is configured to execute a forcible stop control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the stop area, the forcible stop control being a control of forcibly stopping a limitation target motion preset among motions of the work machine, and configured to execute a speed limitation control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the speed limitation area, the speed limitation control being a control of limiting the speed of the limitation target motion at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position set for the work machine to the detection object; and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting the limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information (See at least Chiba FIGS. 7-8 and Paragraphs 70-71 “FIG. 7 is a table showing the relation between a detection of an object in each area of the operation assistance function and a notification sound level of the buzzer 28. When an object is detected outside of the notification area 38, there is no notification from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the notification area 38, there is a notification at a low sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the deceleration area 39, there is a notification at a medium sound level from the buzzer 28. When an object is detected inside of the stop area 40, there is a notification at a high sound level from the buzzer 28. This allows the operator or the like to intuitively understand where the object (detected object) is located. FIG. 8 is a graph showing the relation between a distance from the hydraulic excavator 1 to an object and a deceleration factor of the hydraulic excavator 1 of the operation assistance function. When an object is detected inside of the deceleration area and the stop area, decreasing the deceleration factor according to the distance from the hydraulic excavator 1 to the object can prevent the hydraulic excavator 1 from coming into contact with the object. Herein, the deceleration factor indicates how much a required speed of the actuator determined based on the operation amount of the control lever 32 should be reduced, and the speed limit of the actuator can be obtained by the product of the required speed and the deceleration factor. For example, when the deceleration factor is 1, the required speed of the actuator is not limited. When the deceleration factor is 0, the speed limit is 0, and the operation of the actuator stops.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ushijima to include that the monitoring area includes a stop area and a speed limitation area; the control part is configured to execute a forcible stop control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the stop area, the forcible stop control being a control of forcibly stopping a limitation target motion preset among motions of the work machine, and configured to execute a speed limitation control as the safety control when the detection object is detected in the speed limitation area, the speed limitation control being a control of limiting the speed of the limitation target motion at a degree increased with a decrease in an object distance, which is a distance from a reference position set for the work machine to the detection object; and the control change inhibition includes inhibiting the limitation of the speed of the limitation target motion from being relaxed in response to the variation from the previous information to the current information, as taught by Chiba as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe movement of the work machine (Chiba Paragraph 10 “According to the present invention, it is possible to reduce the inconvenience to an operator or the like of setting an area of the operation assistance function and an area of the work assistance function, and prevent a collision of the work machine with an object in a work area.”).
With respect to claim 15, Ushijima in view of Chiba teach that the change inhibition condition further includes that a difference between the object distance according to the current information and the object distance according to the previous information exceeds a preset allowable difference (See at least Ushijima Paragraphs 62-63 “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. 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. The buzzer issuing a warning may be the same device as the buzzer issuing an alarm. In order to allow an operator to recognize issuance of an alarm, for example, the interval of sounds intermittently issued from a buzzer may be shortened or the volume of a buzzer sound may be changed.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights