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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 11/13/2024. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 11/16/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claims 1-10 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 11/13/2024.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to Title
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 Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office reviewed the claims for terms containing limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), and no terms are being interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. 29LA
Claims 1-4, and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANO et al., US 20250129566, herein further known as Sano, in view of NAKAOKA, US 20200041539, herein further known as Nakaoka.
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses a working machine (¶ [0031], digging machine) comprising: a machine body (¶ [0033], upper slewing body); a boom (¶ [0034] coupled to the machine body such that the boom is rotatable about a first lateral shaft (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about boom angle sensor S1, coupling pin, see also FIG 1); an arm coupled to a distal portion of the boom such that the arm is rotatable about a second lateral shaft (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about arm angle sensor S2, coupling pin, see also FIG 1); a bucket coupled to a distal portion of the arm (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about bucket angle sensor S3, coupling pin, see also FIG 1) and including an edge portion located away from a junction of the bucket and the arm, the edge portion being a leading edge when the bucket excavates earth (¶¶ [0129], [0132-0135], claw tip); a rotation sensor to measure rotation of a to-be-measured object which is at least one of the boom, the arm, or the bucket (¶¶ [0036-0039], angle sensors S1, S2, S3); and a controller (¶¶ [0130], [0215-0218]), configured or programmed to control rotation (¶¶ [0162-0169], controller adjusts rotation) of the to-be-measured object (¶¶ [0036-0039], boom, arm, bucket); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control rotation (¶¶ [0162-0169], controller adjusts rotation) of the to-be-measured object (¶¶ [0036-0039], boom, arm, bucket) based on an output value (¶ [0130], controller 30 acquired information… from S1, S2, S3).
However, Sano does not explicitly state applying a correction function directly or indirectly to a difference between a target angular velocity and an actual angular velocity, the correction function being based on the actual angular velocity.
Nakaoka teaches applying a correction function directly or indirectly to a difference between a target angular velocity and an actual angular velocity, the correction function being based on the actual angular velocity (¶¶ [0071], [0082-0084], posture estimation see also FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, [0180], position-and-posture signal including a posture angle of the boom 613, the arm 614, or the bucket, and claim 1 and claim 9, wherein the reference observation sensor equates to applicant angle sensor(s)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sano the applying a correction function directly or indirectly to a difference between a target angular velocity and an actual angular velocity, the correction function being based on the actual angular velocity as taught by Nakaoka.
One would be motivated to modify Sano in view of Nakaoka for the reasons stated in Nakaoka paragraph [0071], more robust methods and system to reduce bias error in the output of the angular velocity sensor when it monotonously increases, and thus increase estimation accuracy of the posture of the object. Furthermore, the more robust methods and system may decrease the feedback gain which causes the bias estimation value of the angular velocity sensor to change without intention, and thereby reduce the azimuth of the posture drift.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sano and Nakaoka discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Sano discloses further the rotation sensor is operable to measure rotation of the boom, which is the to-be-measured object (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about boom angle sensor S1), about the first lateral shaft (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about boom coupling pin, see also FIG 1); and the controller is configured or programmed to control rotation of the boom (¶¶ [0162-0169], controller adjusts rotation), and the actual angular velocity of the boom that is derived based on the measurement result from the rotation sensor (¶¶ [0143], boom command value β1r, may be angular velocities or angular accelerations of the boom 4, [0183], [0189], [0191], [0201], [0215-0218], angular velocity ω.sub.boom of the boom).
However, Sano does not explicitly state based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the boom.
Nakaoka teaches based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the boom (¶¶ [0071], [0082-0084], posture estimation see also FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, [0171], position-and-posture signal including a posture angle of the boom 613, and claim 1 and claim 9, wherein the reference observation sensor equates to applicant angle sensor(s)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sano the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the boom as taught by Nakaoka.
One would be motivated to modify Sano in view of Nakaoka for the reasons stated in Nakaoka paragraph [0071], more robust methods and system to reduce bias error in the output of the angular velocity sensor when it monotonously increases, and thus increase estimation accuracy of the posture of the object. Furthermore, the more robust methods and system may decrease the feedback gain which causes the bias estimation value of the angular velocity sensor to change without intention, and thereby reduce the azimuth of the posture drift.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sano and Nakaoka discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Sano discloses further the rotation sensor is operable to measure rotation of the arm, which is the to-be-measured object (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about arm angle sensor S2), about the second lateral shaft (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about arm coupling pin, see also FIG 1); and the controller is configured or programmed to control rotation of the arm (¶¶ [0162-0169], controller adjusts rotation), and the actual angular velocity of the arm that is derived based on the measurement result from the rotation sensor (¶¶ [0143], arm command value, may be angular velocities or angular accelerations of the arm 5, [0183], [0188-0189], , angular velocity ω.sub.arm of the arm).
However, Sano does not explicitly state based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the arm.
Nakaoka teaches based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the arm (¶¶ [0071], [0082-0084], posture estimation see also FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, [0171], position-and-posture signal including a posture angle of the arm 614, and claim 1 and claim 9, wherein the reference observation sensor equates to applicant angle sensor(s)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sano the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the arm as taught by Nakaoka.
One would be motivated to modify Sano in view of Nakaoka for the reasons stated in Nakaoka paragraph [0071], more robust methods and system to reduce bias error in the output of the angular velocity sensor when it monotonously increases, and thus increase estimation accuracy of the posture of the object. Furthermore, the more robust methods and system may decrease the feedback gain which causes the bias estimation value of the angular velocity sensor to change without intention, and thereby reduce the azimuth of the posture drift.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sano and Nakaoka discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Sano discloses further the rotation sensor is operable to measure rotation of the bucket, which is the to-be-measured object (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about bucket angle sensor S3), about the third lateral shaft (¶¶ [0036-0039], rotate about bucket coupling pin, see also FIG 1); and the controller is configured or programmed to control rotation of the bucket (¶¶ [0162-0169], controller adjusts rotation), and the actual angular velocity of the bucket that is derived based on the measurement result from the rotation sensor (¶¶ [0143], bucket command value, may be angular velocities or angular accelerations of the bucket 6, [0183], [0188-0189], , angular velocity/accelerations of the bucket).
However, Sano does not explicitly state based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the bucket.
Nakaoka teaches based on the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the bucket (¶¶ [0071], [0082-0084], posture estimation see also FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, [0171], position-and-posture signal including a posture angle of the bucket 615, and claim 1 and claim 9, wherein the reference observation sensor equates to applicant angle sensor(s)).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sano the output value obtained by applying the correction function based on the actual angular velocity directly or indirectly to the difference between the target angular velocity for the bucket as taught by Nakaoka.
One would be motivated to modify Sano in view of Nakaoka for the reasons stated in Nakaoka paragraph [0071], more robust methods and system to reduce bias error in the output of the angular velocity sensor when it monotonously increases, and thus increase estimation accuracy of the posture of the object. Furthermore, the more robust methods and system may decrease the feedback gain which causes the bias estimation value of the angular velocity sensor to change without intention, and thereby reduce the azimuth of the posture drift.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sano and Nakaoka discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Sano discloses further the rotation sensor includes a potentiometer (¶ [0039]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sano, and Nakaoka, in view of UDAGAWA, JP 2014096954, herein further known as Udagawa.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sano and Nakaoka discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Sano does not explicitly state correction function includes a proportional component and a derivative component obtained by decomposing the actual angular velocity.
Udagawa teaches correction function includes a proportional component and a derivative component obtained by decomposing the actual angular velocity (¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sano the correction function includes a proportional component and a derivative component obtained by decomposing the actual angular velocity as taught by Udagawa.
One would be motivated to modify Sano in view of Udagawa for the reasons stated in Udagawa more robust methods and system for improving the drive unit, a variable displacement hydraulic pump to always supply a constant flow rate of pressure oil to the actuator that drives used on the working machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666