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 application number 18/863,793 filed on 11/07/2024, in which claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-141377, filed on 09/06/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim this application to be a 371 of PCT/JP2023/026577, filed on 07/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/07/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over PG Pub./ Patent Publication No. JP-2009041342(A) to Gei et al. (hereinafter “Gei”) in view of Patent Publication No. WO-2020122044-A1 to Mura et al. (hereinafter “Mura”), which are both found in the IDS submitted on 11/07/2024
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Gei’s & Mura‘s reference a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
As per claim 1, Gei discloses a work machine (Gei, in at least Fig(s), 1-3, and ¶¶6, 16 & 24-68, discloses the blade control device 1 for controlling the raising and lowering of a blade that is arranged to be able to move up and down between the front wheels and rear wheels of a vehicle body) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gei’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
a vehicle body (Gei, in at least Fig(s), 1 [reproduced here for convenience] & 2-3, and ¶¶6, 16 & 24-68, discloses the vehicle body of the motor grader M, wherein the blade control device 1 for controlling the raising and lowering of a blade that is arranged to be able to move up and down between the front wheels and rear wheels of a vehicle body);
PNG
media_image2.png
332
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gei’s Fig. 3 (emphasis added)
a work implement movably supported relative to the vehicle body (Gei, in at least Fig(s), 1, 2 [reproduced here for convenience] & 3, and ¶¶6, 16 & 24-68, discloses the blade control device 1 for controlling the raising and lowering of a blade of the motor grader M that is arranged to be able to move up and down between the front wheels and rear wheels of a vehicle body);
PNG
media_image3.png
328
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gei’s Fig. 2 (emphasis added)
an actuator connected to the work implement, the actuator being configured to cause the work implement to move (Gei, in at least Fig(s), 1-3, and ¶¶6, 16-17 & 24-68, discloses the hydraulic unit 40 and a cylinder 50 for allowing the height of the blade 9 to change from the present height Htn to the set finished height Hk, and raises and lowers the blade 9. Gei further discloses the hydraulic unit 40 discharges pressurized oil to the cylinder 50 based on a control signal received from the drive control unit 36 to extend and retract the cylinder 50); and
a controller configured to perform an automatic control to control the actuator so that a height of the work implement in a gravity direction is maintained even when a posture of the vehicle body changes (Gei, in at least Fig(s), 1-3 & 4 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶6, 16, 24-68 & 75, discloses the drive control unit 36 that controls the hydraulic unit 40, and generates a control signal corresponding to the change variation amount α, wherein the hydraulic unit 40 discharges pressurized oil to the cylinder 50 based on a control signal received from the drive control unit 36 to extend and retract the cylinder 50. Gei further discloses, in Fig(s).4a-c, the motor grader M is advanced in the direction of the arrow to advance the blade 9, and the layer of sediment covering the reference surface B1 is leveled to the set finished height Hk to create the finished surface B2. Gei also discloses the blade control device 1 of the present invention is mounted on a motor grader M, or bulldozers and the like, which allows for control of the blade's height relative to the reference plane, thus preventing the blade from damaging the reference plane during operation, wherein the blade is reliably controlled even if the height or slope of the reference surface changes [i.e., a height of the work implement in a gravity direction is maintained even when a posture of the vehicle body changes]),
PNG
media_image4.png
742
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gei’s Fig. 4 (emphasis added)
While Gei, in certain embodiments, inherently/ implicitly requires turning off automatic control while work machine is not working, it does not explicitly recite to determine whether the work machine is in a non-working state in which the work machine does not perform work with the work implement, and stop the automatic control when the work machine is in the non-working state. Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶5-6 & 57, that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of work machine/vehicle control systems, teaches to determine whether the work machine is in a non-working state in which the work machine does not perform work with the work implement, and stop the automatic control when the work machine is in the non-working state (Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶5-6 & 57, teaches a work machine that are capable of saving works by an operator during traveling, wherein the work machine including a vehicular main body including a traveling unit, a work implement attached to the vehicular main body, and a controller that automatically controls operations by the work implement, wherein the controller cancels automatic control of operations by the work implement based on a traveling state of the traveling unit, wherein the traveling state herein refers to a state that the operator is performing an operation to run traveling unit 5 (hydraulic excavator 100)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gei in view of Mura with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would save work done by an operator during traveling of a work machine (see at least Mura’s ¶¶5-7).
As per claim 2, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Gei further discloses comprising:
an operating device manually operable by an operator to cause the work implement to move, the controller being configured to control the actuator according to a manual operation of the operating device upon stopping the automatic control (Gei, in at least Fig.3, and ¶¶36 & 52, discloses the operator inputs the set finished height Hk of the blade 9 relative to the reference surface B1, the thrust angle of the blade 9, the cutting angle, and other information into the input section 31 of the controller 30, wherein the controller 30, which is a control means, is for controlling the height of the blade 9).
As per claim 3, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Mura further discloses wherein the vehicle body is configured to switch a travel mode between forward, reverse, and neutral, and the controller is configured to determine whether the work machine is in the non-working state according to the travel mode of the vehicle body (Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶5-6, 57 & 62, teaches the controller cancels automatic control of operations by the work implement based on a traveling state of the traveling unit, wherein the traveling state herein refers to a state that the operator is performing an operation to run traveling unit 5 (hydraulic excavator 100), wherein a state that at least any one of first travel control lever 251 and second travel control lever 252 has been moved from a neutral position as a result of the operation by the operator and set at a position other than the neutral position is defined as the traveling state).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gei in view of Mura with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would save work done by an operator during traveling of a work machine (see at least Mura’s ¶¶5-7).
As per claim 4, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated.
Mura further discloses wherein the controller is configured to stop the automatic control when the travel mode is switched from forward to neutral or from neutral to reverse (Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶5-6, 57 & 62, teaches the controller cancels automatic control of operations by the work implement based on a traveling state of the traveling unit, wherein the traveling state herein refers to a state that the operator is performing an operation to run traveling unit 5 (hydraulic excavator 100), wherein a state that at least any one of first travel control lever 251 and second travel control lever 252 has been moved from a neutral position as a result of the operation by the operator and set at a position other than the neutral position is defined as the traveling state).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gei in view of Mura with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would save work done by an operator during traveling of a work machine (see at least Mura’s ¶¶5-7).
As per claim 5, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Mura further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the work machine is in the non-working state according to a position of the work implement (Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶5-6, 57 & 62, teaches the controller cancels automatic control of operations by the work implement based on a traveling state of the traveling unit, wherein the traveling state herein refers to a state that the operator is performing an operation to run traveling unit 5 (hydraulic excavator 100), wherein control of processing for excavation by work implement includes stop control to automatically stop operations by work implement 2 at a position where work implement 2, e.g., a part of bucket 8 such as cutting edge 8a, comes in contact with design topography D).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gei in view of Mura with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would save work done by an operator during traveling of a work machine (see at least Mura’s ¶¶5-7).
As per claim 8, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Mura further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a predetermined reactivation condition is satisfied after the automatic control is stopped, and reactivate the automatic control when the predetermined reactivation condition is satisfied (Mura, in at least Fig(s) 4, and ¶¶105-106, teaches the controller 26 cancels automatic control of operations by work implement 2 on condition that traveling of traveling unit 5 has continued for a prescribed time period, wherein the controller 26 determines, based on an operation condition of traveling unit 5, that an active state of automatic control of operations by work implement 2 does not have to be maintained, and automatically cancels automatic control of work implement 2. The operator can freely operate work implement 2 during traveling without performing an operation to manually cancel automatic control of work implement 2. Therefore, hydraulic excavator 100 with the features in the embodiment achieves saving of works by the operator while traveling unit 5 travels).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gei in view of Mura with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would save work done by an operator during traveling of a work machine (see at least Mura’s ¶¶5-7).
Claim(s) 7 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gei (JP-2009041342(A)) and Mura (WO-2020122044-A1), which are both found in the IDS submitted on 11/07/2024, and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-2023/0311952-A1 to Kikuchi (hereinafter “Kikuchi”)
As per claim 7, Gei as modified by Mura teaches the work machine according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
While both Gei and Mura are silent on claim 7 limitations, Kikuchi, in at least Fig(s). 5, and ¶¶7-8 & 12, that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of work machine/vehicle control systems, teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire a vehicle speed of the work machine, and stop the automatic control when the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed threshold (Kikuchi, in at least Fig(s). 5, and ¶¶7-8 & 12, teaches when the speed of the vehicle is greater than the predetermined speed threshold, i.e., S105 “Yes”, the processor stops autonomous driving control of the vehicle, i.e., S104).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gei & Mura further in view of Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - work machine/vehicle control systems - and the combination would raise the level of safety at takeover (see at least Kikuchi’s ¶¶7-8).
As per claim(s) 9-13, 15 & 16, the claim(s) is/are directed towards method(s) that recite(s) to perform similar step(s) performed by the work machine(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7 & 8. The cited portions of Gei, Mura & Kikuchi used in the rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 7 & 8 disclose/teach the same limitations of claim(s) 9-13, 15 & 16. Therefore, claim(s) 9-13, 15 & 16 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1-5, 7 & 8 as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 & 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892 forms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights