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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: NW and 1302. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 36 line 6 reads “the plurality… include” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “the plurality… includes” to improve clarity.
Page 45 line 30 reads “when there are a plurality” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “when there is a plurality” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 lines 3-4 and claim 5 lines 2-3 read "the plurality… include" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "the plurality… includes" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Propose” is understood as used be synonymous to “display” in light of at least page 42 lines 26-30 of the specification where an example of proposing a movement is displaying the proposed movement in step S106.
The movements detailed in claim 2 are interpreted in light of page 36 line 2 to page 37 line 17 of the specification. Particularly, it is understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the movements include at least the following: a sweep-out movement is reasonably interpreted as including using a back of a bucket in a forward motion, a horizontal leveling movement is reasonably interpreted as including using a back of a bucket in a backward motion, a compaction movement is reasonably interpreted as including using a back of a bucket in a downward motion, and a broom-turning movement is reasonably interpreted as including using a back of a bucket in a side to side motion. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of these movements may also use their prima facie understanding of the utilized terminology and is not limited to the specific examples provided in the specification. Examiner merely notes these possible interpretations for clarity of the record as they may not be readily apparent to a reader viewing the terms prima facie.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, the phrase “the plurality of candidate movements being of different types” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E). It is unclear if movement types indicate merely that the candidate movements are routed differently (i.e. follow different paths) and thus are of different types, if the movement types are meant to symbolize different operational functions of the machine (e.g. compaction vs leveling), if the movement types are meant to indicate utilization of different attachments (e.g. using a broom vs a bucket), or if the movement types are otherwise defined. The specification provides examples of movement types being e.g. sweep-out, broom-turning, compaction, and leveling; but it is still unclear if this is meant to indicate that the movement types are meant to be operational categories or if movement types are meant to be directions of movement (see claim interpretation for example). Thus, it is unclear what “types” is intended to convey, and the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “types” will be understood as indicating different movement routing.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the determination of the proposed movement from among a plurality of candidate movements in a predetermined. Without this determination step, it is unclear how the movement is meant to be proposed if it has not been determined. Determination of the movement is thus essential to the performance of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The term “relatively highly ” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively highly skilled” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Page 32 lines 16-20 attempt to provide a definition for a skilled operator:
“Specifically, the movement log of an operator who has been operating the shovel 100 for a long time and is a relatively experienced operator (hereinafter, for convenience, “skilled operator”) is obtained and provided to the information processing device 200.”
However, the attempt to define a skilled operator merely relies on additional relative terminology (“long time” and “relatively experienced”). No clarity is thus provided for how long an operator must work a machine before they can be considered having operated it for a long time. Does the operator need to work the machine for an hour? A day? A year? Multiple years? The definition of a “long time” is unclear and thus indefinite. Further, no clarity is provided for how experienced an operator must be to be considered “relatively experienced”. Does the operator need to have completed onboarding job training? Does the operator need to have a certification to use the machine? Does the operator need to have a specific job title? The definition of “relatively experienced” is unclear and thus indefinite. Therefore, no meaningful understanding can be apprised from the specification for the relative terminology and the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, any operator capable of operating a work machine will be considered “relatively highly skilled”.
The term “relatively low suitability” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Page 64 line 33 to page 65 line 11 attempts to define a relatively low suitability:
“For example, the movement having a relatively low reliability (suitability) is a movement of the shovel 100 or a target trajectory of the bucket 6 which is estimated based on the trained model LM and has a reliability (suitability) lower than a predetermined reference. Further, the movement having a relatively low reliability (suitability) may be a movement of the shovel 100 or a target trajectory of the bucket 6… including an inappropriate movement or target trajectory.”
One definition of a relatively low suitability attempts to provide clarity by indicating that the suitability is lower than a reference; however, examiner posits that this merely restates that prima facie definition of “relatively low” (i.e. the suitability is lower relative to any previously determined reference). It is not clear what the reference is, how it is defined, or what the reference is referencing. Thus, this cannot be considered as a definite definition but a mere restating of the relative limitation. The second definition of a relatively low suitability attempts to provide clarity by indicating that a movement with a relatively low suitability has an inappropriate movement or trajectory. This relies on another relative term (inappropriate) without proper definition. Is an inappropriate trajectory/movement one which is physically impossible to perform with a given machine? Is it one which can cause injury or harm to surrounding workers? Is it one which may damage the machine? As the specification does not define “inappropriate”, the term is indefinite. Thus, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a “relatively low” suitability will be understood as a suitability lower than other, previously calculated suitabilities (i.e. lower than a predetermined reference).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the display unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the display unit will be understood as having antecedent basis to the display device.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, claim limitations "display unit to display" and "display unit configured to display an image " have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if the term "display" in the limitations is meant to be merely descriptive of the function performed by the unit (i.e. the unit performs a display function) or if it meant to indicate the structural composition of the unit (i.e. the unit comprises a display). The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
acquire data relating to a shape of a work target around a work machine; and
propose, to a user, a movement from among a plurality of candidate movements in a predetermined work of the work machine, based on the acquired data, the plurality of candidate movements being of different types from each other.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a non-transitory computer-readable medium (hereinafter CRM), a processor, and circuitry, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can observe the topography of a piece of land that they wish to excavate with an excavator (a). The person can then mentally determine a movement/trajectory/operation/ route/etc. that is best fitted for the condition of the land in order to obtain a construction goal, wherein the determined movement/trajectory/operation/route/etc. can be “proposed” via mentally imagining of drawing on a paper the movement/trajectory/operation/ route/etc. (b). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the CRM, processor, and circuitry is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The work machine is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere general linking of the judicial exception to a generic work machine. The abstract idea can be practically applied with any work machine and may further be practically applied by any vehicle or robot performing movement/ trajectory/operation/route/etc. planning. Thus, the abstract idea is merely generally linked to a generic work machine. General linking cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the CRM, processor, and circuitry are generically claimed and the work machine is generally linked as detailed above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claim 2 merely indicates what type of movements may be determined in the abstract idea and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 details additional aspects of the abstract idea. The trained model is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to use the trained model as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, the training of the model by machine learning is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic training cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 4-8 detail additional aspects of the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 11 disclose a generic display unit used for displaying trajectories and a shape of a work target. Display unit is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, the display steps can still practically be performed within the mind (via imagination) or by pen and paper (via drawing the displayed image) and thus can be considered part of the abstract idea. If they are not considered part of the abstract idea, these display steps can instead be considered insignificant extra post-solution activity of mere display. The limitation of displaying data is a well understood, routine, and convention (WURC) activity because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the mere display of data without any limitations specifying how a result is achieved is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 10 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites performing autonomous execution of a proposed movement in response to the input of a user. This is considered a real control operation beyond what is WURC which is more than generally linked or applied to the abstract idea and thus incorporates the abstract idea into a practical application. To overcome the 101, examiner recommends amending the limitations of claim 10 into the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikani et al. US 11346080 B1 (hereinafter Kikani) as modified by Tsukamoto et al. US 20180313062 A1 (hereinafter Tsukamoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13,
Kikani teaches
A work machine (Figures 2A-2B) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, wherein when executed by a processor of an assistance device, causes the assistance device to execute a process (col. 27 lines 35-43 discloses the method is performed by a program, stored in memory, executed by a processor), the process including:
acquiring data relating to a shape of a work target around a work machine (col. 4 lines 4-23 discloses determining the state of a work site; col. 11 lines 27-48 discloses that collected data can include surface positions and a map of the terrain; see also col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 13 where sensor data includes point cloud data representing a three-dimensional map; a three-dimensional map of a terrain inherently comprises the shape of an area); and
determining a movement from among a plurality of candidate movements in a predetermined work of the work machine, based on the data acquired in the acquiring (col. 8 lines 29-46 disclose earth moving actions are performed to execute an earth moving routine; col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 disclose selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; see also col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding additional information on generation of candidate tool paths and selection of a tool path), the plurality of candidate movements being of different types from each other (col. 8 lines 17-46 discloses earth moving actions are subdivided earth moving routines wherein routines and actions can have different functional operations; it is also understood that different tool paths as detailed in at least col. 19 lines 39-67 are of a different “type”, i.e. are different paths).
Examiner notes that the processor is considered as teaching the circuitry required for claims 1 and 12.
Kikani does not explicitly teach
proposing, to a user, a movement.
While, this may be implicitly obtained from the teaching of Kikani (col. 10 lines 28-59 disclose that a remote operator with a user interface can monitor performance of all operations implying that the performance of the routine including any tool paths are observable on the user interface), Tsukamoto is relied upon to teach this limitation.
Tsukamoto teaches
acquiring data relating to a shape of a work target around a work machine (¶ 0045 discloses obtaining the current shape of the ground); and
proposing, to a user, a movement from among a plurality of candidate movements in a predetermined work of the work machine (¶ 0057 discloses displaying a recommended line for performing excavation on a display device; see also ¶ 0063 and ¶ 0076), based on the data acquired in the acquiring (¶ 0052 discloses the recommended line is calculated based on the current shape; see also ¶ 0072-0075).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display a tool path determined based on ground shape as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Examiner notes that Tsukamoto may be used solely in an alternative rejection for the claims, but for the purpose of improved obviousness reasoning in the dependent claims, Kikani is primarily relied upon.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry is further configured to:
estimate a movement suitable for the shape of the work target around the work machine from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data relating to the shape of the work target around the work machine (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; see also col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding optimizing a tool path based on the state of the work site), using a trained model (col. 19 lines 39-67 discloses a machine learning model for determining an optimal tool path) trained by machine learning with training data relating to movements of the work machine, the movements of the work machine corresponding to the shape of the work target (col. 20 lines 19-28 discloses training the tool path model on training data indicating when actions were performed in different environmental conditions as measured by sensor data; see also col. 11 lines 36-48 regarding environmental data including terrain maps obtained from sensor data) and being operated by a relatively highly skilled operator (col. 5 lines 25-38, for example, disclose that control can be performed according to manual operator control; see also col. 9 lines 25-62, for example, that disclose that the model is iteratively trained and updated based on any newly acquired data indicating that any manual operations performed by the user would also be added to the training data), and
wherein the circuitry determines the movement from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on an estimation result (col. 19 lines 39-67 discloses that an optimized tool path is selected).
Kikani does not explicitly teach that
the circuitry proposes the movement.
Tsukamoto further does not teach that
the circuitry proposes the movement (¶ 0057 discloses displaying a recommended line for performing excavation on a display device; see also ¶ 0063 and ¶ 0076).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the further teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display a determined tool path as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry determines a plurality of movements from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; col. 19 lines 9-28 discloses generation of one or more candidate tool paths wherein an earth moving action may involve execution of multiple tool paths).
Kikani does not explicitly teach that
the circuitry proposes, to the user, a plurality of movements.
Tsukamoto further teaches that
the circuitry proposes, to the user, a plurality of movements from among the plurality of candidate movements (¶ 0076 discloses displaying a plurality of line recommendations), based on the acquired data (see ¶ 0072-0075 regarding calculation of the recommendations based on ground shape).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the further teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display tool paths determined based on ground shape as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry determines the movement from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data, together with one or more trajectories of a work part of the work machine by the proposed movement (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; col. 19 lines 9-28 discloses generation of one or more candidate tool paths wherein an earth moving action may involve execution of multiple tool paths; see also col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding additional information on generation of candidate tool paths and selection of a tool path).
Kikani does not explicitly teach
the circuitry proposes the movement together with one or more trajectories.
Tsukamoto teaches
the circuitry proposes the movement from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data, together with one or more trajectories of a work part of the work machine by the proposed movement (¶ 0076 discloses displaying first, second, and third line recommendations on a display for the work tool; see also Figure 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display tool paths determined based on ground shape as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches
a display device (col. 10 lines 38-59 “graphical user interface”).
Kikani does not teach that
the circuitry causes the display unit to display the one or more trajectories of the work part by the proposed movement from among the plurality of candidate movements in a superimposed manner on an image representing a situation around the work machine.
Tsukamoto further teaches that
the circuitry causes the display unit to display the one or more trajectories of the work part by the proposed movement from among the plurality of candidate movements in a superimposed manner on an image representing a situation around the work machine (¶ 0076 discloses displaying first, second, and third line recommendations on a display; Figure 7 shows that the line recommendations 72-74 are superimposed on an image showing the work situation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the further teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display tool path(s) determined based on ground shape superimposed on an image showing an excavation process as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches
a display unit (col. 10 lines 38-59 “graphical user interface”),
wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
set a point serving as a target in the shape of the work target during movement of the work machine (col. 8 line 29-46 discloses that a routine can be associated with a target location such as trenching from one point to another point); and
generate a trajectory of a work part of the work machine, based on the acquired data (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; see also col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding additional information on generation of candidate tool paths and selection of a tool path), a target shape of the work target (col. 8 lines 29-46 discloses earth moving actions are selected to accomplish a routine), and the set point (col. 8 lines 29-46 discloses earth moving actions are selected to accomplish a routine such as scooping dirt from a target location to fulfill a routine of trenching from one point to another).
Kikani does not teach
a display unit configured to display an image representing the shape of the work target, based on the acquired data.
Tsukamoto further teaches
a display unit configured to display an image representing the shape of the work target, based on the acquired data (¶ 0059 discloses displaying a current shape; see also Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can further display a ground shape as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikani as modified by Tsukamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naganami et al. JP 2003113618 A (hereinafter Naganami; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the predetermined work is a ground leveling work at a work site (col. 4 lines 28-50 discloses earth moving can include performing leveling).
Kikani does not teach that
when the predetermined work is a ground leveling work at a work site, the plurality of candidate movements include at least two of a sweep-out movement, a horizontal leveling movement, a rolling compaction movement, or a broom-turning movement.
Naganami teaches that
when the predetermined work is a ground leveling work at a work site, the plurality of candidate movements include at least a sweep-out movement (¶ 0008 discloses that, to level the ground, a machine may drag a bucket forward) and a horizontal leveling movement (¶ 0008 discloses that, to level the ground, a machine may drag a bucket backward).
Kikani and Naganami both share the same base device (an earthmoving vehicle) and at least one base function (ground leveling). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Naganami. As in Naganami, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to scrape a bucket forward or backwards to perform Kikani's leveling operation with an earth moving vehicle with the predictable result of leveling an area of a construction site as needed in Kikani while providing an improvement of preventing damage to a leveled ground if a bucket has claws as disclosed in Naganami (¶ 0008).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikani and Tsukamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. US 20170174215 A1 (hereinafter Tseng).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 4 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the plurality of proposed movements include a movement having a suitability for the shape of the work target around the work machine, from among the plurality of candidate movements (col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding optimizing a tool path based on the state of the work site).
Kikani does not teach that
the plurality of proposed movements include a movement having a relatively low suitability.
Tseng teaches that
the plurality of proposed movements include a movement having a relatively low suitability (¶ 0065 discloses that generated routes are ranked according to a score indicating suitability for a determined operation mode wherein the routes are then displayed to the operator in order of ranking; ¶ 0067 discloses either the operator or computer can select a route; examiner understands that displaying a plurality of routes according to their ranking would thus include displaying routes with rankings lower than other routes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tseng such that the evaluation of tool paths to determine an optimal path as taught by Kikani can further include displaying a plurality of routes in order of their ranking as taught by Tseng wherein the ranking is determined according to how optimal a tool path is for a state of the environment (i.e. suitability for the shape of the work target) as suggested by Kikani. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of ongoing operations and expand operator influence on the operation of the vehicle such that an operator can choose a route regardless of the computer’s ranking in situations wherein a computer’s decision making is fallible while also reducing operator decision fatigue by presenting routes in an order of how optimal the routes are.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry determines one or a plurality of movements from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; col. 19 lines 9-28 discloses generation of one or more candidate tool paths wherein an earth moving action may involve execution of multiple tool paths), together with a suitability of the proposed one or the proposed plurality of movements for the shape of the work target around the work machine (col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding optimizing a tool path based on the state of the work site).
Kikani does not explicitly teach that
the circuitry proposes one or a plurality of movements together with a suitability of the proposed one or the proposed plurality of movements.
Tseng teaches that
the circuitry proposes one or a plurality of movements together with a suitability of the proposed one or the proposed plurality of movements (¶ 0065 discloses that generated routes are ranked according to a score indicating suitability for a determined operation mode wherein the routes are then displayed to the operator in order of ranking; ¶ 0067 discloses either the operator or computer can select a route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tseng such that the evaluation of tool paths to determine an optimal path as taught by Kikani can further include displaying a plurality of routes in order of their ranking as taught by Tseng wherein the ranking is determined according to how optimal a tool path is for a state of the environment (i.e. suitability for the shape of the work target) as suggested by Kikani. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of ongoing operations and expand operator influence on the operation of the vehicle such that an operator can choose a route regardless of the computer’s ranking in situations wherein a computer’s decision making is fallible while also reducing operator decision fatigue by presenting routes in an order of how optimal the routes are.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry determines the movement from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data, together with a plurality of trajectories of the work part by the proposed movement (col. 11 line 49 to col. 12 line 13 discloses selecting an earth moving action and accompanying tool path based on collected sensor data; col. 19 lines 9-28 discloses generation of one or more candidate tool paths wherein an earth moving action may involve execution of multiple tool paths) and a suitability for the shape of the work target around the work machine on a per plurality of trajectories basis (col. 19 lines 39-67 regarding optimizing a tool path based on the state of the work site).
Kikani does not explicitly teach
the circuitry proposes the movement together with a plurality of trajectories.
Tsukamoto further teaches
the circuitry proposes the movement from among the plurality of candidate movements, based on the acquired data, together with a plurality of trajectories of the work part by the proposed movement (¶ 0076 discloses displaying first, second, and third line recommendations on a display for the work tool; see also Figure 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the further teachings of Tsukamoto such that the user interface monitored by a remote operator of Kikani can display tool paths determined based on ground shape as taught by Tsukamoto. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness regarding ongoing operations.
Kikani does not teach
the circuitry proposes one or a plurality of movements together with a suitability.
Tseng teaches that
the circuitry proposes one or a plurality of movements together with a suitability (¶ 0065 discloses that generated routes are ranked according to a score indicating suitability for a determined operation mode wherein the routes are then displayed to the operator in order of ranking; ¶ 0067 discloses either the operator or computer can select a route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tseng such that the evaluation of tool paths to determine an optimal path as taught by Kikani can further include displaying a plurality of routes in order of their ranking as taught by Tseng wherein the ranking is determined according to how optimal a tool path is for a state of the environment (i.e. suitability for the shape of the work target) as suggested by Kikani. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of ongoing operations and expand operator influence on the operation of the vehicle such that an operator can choose a route regardless of the computer’s ranking in situations wherein a computer’s decision making is fallible while also reducing operator decision fatigue by presenting routes in an order of how optimal the routes are.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kikani reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kikani further teaches that
the circuitry is further configured to:
cause, when a movement of the work machine is proposed, the work machine to automatically execute the proposed movement (col. 10 lines 28-59 disclose that a remote operator with a user interface can monitor performance of all operations; col. 2 lines 1-14, for example, discloses that an earth moving vehicle autonomously performs an action by executing a selected tool path), in response to an input of an instruction from the user (col. 11 line 48 to col. 12 line 13, for example, disclose that an operator can specify the routine wherein a tool path for a defined earth moving action is determined therefrom based on sensor data; see also col. 8 lines 17-46 where routines are subdivided into actions).
Alternatively, if the user input is meant to be interpreted as a user agreeing to perform a proposed movement (which Kikani does not explicitly disclose), Tseng can be relied upon.
Tseng teaches that
the circuitry is further configured to:
cause, when a movement of the work machine is proposed, the work machine to automatically execute the proposed movement (¶ 0068 discloses autonomously executing a selected routed in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode), in response to an input of an instruction from the user (¶ 0067 discloses that an operator may select a route from an HMI).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Kikani to incorporate the teachings of Tseng such that at least the optimal tool path of Kikani can be presented to an operator for operator selection as taught by Tseng wherein autonomous operation of the machine according to the tool path as taught by Kikani can be initiated following reception of route selection by a user as taught by Tseng. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of ongoing operations and expand operator influence on the operation of the vehicle such that an operator can choose a route to be executed by a work machine regardless of the computer’s ranking in situations wherein a computer’s decision making is fallible.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeLuca et al. US 20200217679 A1 discloses displaying a plurality of routes in a ranked order.
Hirayama et al. US 20210363727 A1 discloses determining a topography and determining a travel path from a plurality of travel paths based on the topography. Examiner notes that an alternative rejection in view of this reference can be made to at least reject the independent claims, so any amendments to overcome the modified Kikani reference should also be made to overcome this reference.
Kikani et al. US 11346086 B1 teaches all of the limitations previously sited regarding the relied upon Kikani reference above. Examiner notes that an alternative rejection in view of this reference can be made to at least reject the independent claims, so any amendments to overcome the modified Kikani reference should also be made to overcome this reference.
Ono US 20200199843 A1 discloses performing a leveling operation by sweeping a bucket side to side.
Otoh et al. US 20220251806 A1 discloses displaying a list of preset operations to a user including leveling, turning, boom raising, and more wherein, when an operator selects an operation, instructions to perform the operation are transmitted to the excavator for execution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272 2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am 3:15 pm PT Monday Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571 270 7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866 217 9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800 786 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 272 1000.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights