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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/6/2024. Claims 8-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/6/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…the load…acting on the arm transitions from exceeding a predetermined load threshold to falling below the predetermined load threshold…”;
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the load acting on the arm…transitions from exceeding a predetermined load threshold to falling below the predetermined load threshold…”;
Claim 10 as currently presented states “…if the calculated loaded amount exceeds a predetermined loading threshold…”;
Claim 12 as currently presented states "...the loaded amount is smaller than a predetermined loading threshold...";
The Examiner is interpreting the predetermined load threshold (claims 8-9) as being a threshold amount for determining the end of an Excavation Step (force/load between the ground and arm, indicative of arm/bucket no longer in contact with the ground), whereas the Examiner is interpreting the predetermined loading threshold (claims 10 and 12) as being a threshold amount for determining that the haulage vehicle has been completely filled.
Claims 8-9 as currently presented refer to “a first threshold angle”, which appears to be an angle that releases a work target object from a bucket into a haulage machine;
Claims 8 and 10 as currently presented refer to “a second threshold angle”, which appears to be a bucket angle relative to a horizontal plane that allows retention of a work target object inside a bucket;
Claims 13 as currently presented refers to “a predetermined angle threshold”, which appears to be a bucket angle relative to a horizontal plane;
The Examiner is interpreting the “a second threshold angle” similar to the “a predetermined angle threshold”.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…the time…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a time…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…the load of the work target object filled inside the bucket…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load of the work target object filled inside the bucket…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…the load on the boom…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load on the boom…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…a relative angle…the angle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a relative angle…the relative angle…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 as currently presented states “…the release of the work target object…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a release of the work target object…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the operator’s action…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…an operator’s action…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the loaded amount…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a loaded amount…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the time when the load acting on the arm…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a time when the load acting on the work arm…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the load of the work target object filled inside of the bucket…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load of the work target object filled inside of the bucket…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the load on the boom…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load on the boom…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…the time when a relative angle between the bucket and the arm…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a time when a relative angle between the bucket and the arm…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 9 as currently presented states “…rotate to the left and right…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…rotate to a left and right direction…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…the load of the work target object inside the bucket…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load of the work target object inside the bucket…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…the load on the boom…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a load on the boom…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…the cargo bed…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a cargo bed…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…an angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 9, and claim 13, the claims as currently presented states “…calculate the loaded amount by adding the hauled weight calculated during the haulage step…” however it is not clear what the hauled weight is added to, if the loaded amount is calculated by summing all recorded hauled weights, or if the loaded amount is added to a different preexisting tally of recorded amounts. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the aforementioned limitation as summing all recorded hauled weights.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shull (US-2020/0224392; already of record from IDS) in view of Fukasu et al. (US-2014/0231153; hereinafter Fukasu; already of record from IDS) and Nakamura et al. (US-2020/0283992; hereinafter Nakamura; already of record from IDS), and further in view of Currier (US-2020/0263384; already of record from IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Shull discloses a work machine (see Shull at least [0013]-[0014]) comprising:
a machine body (see Shull at least Fig 1 and [0014] "...As shown in FIG. 1, a loading machine 11 is configured with a trigger system 12 (e.g., which may be included in an engine control module (ECM) of loading machine 11)...");
a work arm that includes a boom provided on the machine body, an arm provided at a tip of the boom, and a bucket provided at a tip of the arm, the work arm performing loading of a work target object onto a haulage machine (see Shull at least Fig 1);
a posture detection device for detecting a posture of the work arm (see Shull at least [0043] "...For example, sensor 53 may include a weight sensor (e.g., to detect a weight of material in a bucket of loading machine 11), a position sensor (e.g., an angle sensor to detect an angular position of a bucket of loading machine 11, a proximity sensor to detect a position of the bucket relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a speed sensor (e.g., to detect an angular speed of the bucket of loading machine 11, to detect a speed of the bucket of the machine relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a GPS sensor, and/or the like) and/or another type of sensing device...");
a load detection device for detecting a load acting on the work arm (see Shull at least [0043] "...For example, sensor 53 may include a weight sensor (e.g., to detect a weight of material in a bucket of loading machine 11), a position sensor (e.g., an angle sensor to detect an angular position of a bucket of loading machine 11, a proximity sensor to detect a position of the bucket relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a speed sensor (e.g., to detect an angular speed of the bucket of loading machine 11, to detect a speed of the bucket of the machine relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a GPS sensor, and/or the like) and/or another type of sensing device...");
…
a controller (see Shull at least [0048] "A given component (e.g., one of the devices, systems, or modules described herein, such as trigger system 12, transition system 14, computation module 51, communication module 52, sensors 53, communication module 54, initiation module 55, sensors 56, engine system 57, and/or the like) is implemented as a processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component...") that is configured to:
calculate a loaded amount of the work target object loaded onto the haulage machine (see Shull at least [0016] "…For example, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information when trigger system 12 tracks a load deposited during each pass such that trigger system 12 maintains a running total of the amount of material loaded into hauling machine 13 (e.g., based on sensing a weight of each load provided to the hauling machine during each pass)..."),
determine a start of a haulage step, which involves a hauling of the work target object onto the haulage machine by the work arm (see Shull at least Fig 1-2 and [0014] "...For example, as indicated in FIG. 1, a given pass may include loading machine 11 acquiring material while a bucket of loading machine 11 is at a dig position 16, swinging the bucket (e.g., along an angular swing path 17) to a dump position 18 over a bed of hauling machine 13, and dumping the material from the bucket in the bed of hauling machine 13...") …
calculate a hauled weight, which is the load of the work target object filled inside the bucket, based on the posture of the work arm detected by the posture detection device and the load on the boom detected by the load detection device during the haulage step (see Shull at least Fig 1-2 and [0014] "...For example, as indicated in FIG. 1, a given pass may include loading machine 11 acquiring material while a bucket of loading machine 11 is at a dig position 16, swinging the bucket (e.g., along an angular swing path 17) to a dump position 18 over a bed of hauling machine 13, and dumping the material from the bucket in the bed of hauling machine 13..." and [0016] "Additionally, or alternatively, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information based on computing the current load information during the loading of hauling machine 13. For example, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information when trigger system 12 tracks a load deposited during each pass such that trigger system 12 maintains a running total of the amount of material loaded into hauling machine 13 (e.g., based on sensing a weight of each load provided to the hauling machine during each pass). In such a case, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information during a most recent pass (e.g., before a most recent material dump into hauling machine 13, while loading machine 11 is swinging the bucket to the dump position, and/or the like)."),
determine a start of a loading step, which involves loading the work target object onto the haulage machine by the work arm (see Shull at least Fig 1-2 and [0014] "...For example, as indicated in FIG. 1, a given pass may include loading machine 11 acquiring material while a bucket of loading machine 11 is at a dig position 16, swinging the bucket (e.g., along an angular swing path 17) to a dump position 18 over a bed of hauling machine 13, and dumping the material from the bucket in the bed of hauling machine 13...") … calculated from the posture of the work arm detected by the posture detection device during the haulage step (see Shull at least [0043] "...For example, sensor 53 may include a weight sensor (e.g., to detect a weight of material in a bucket of loading machine 11), a position sensor (e.g., an angle sensor to detect an angular position of a bucket of loading machine 11, a proximity sensor to detect a position of the bucket relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a speed sensor (e.g., to detect an angular speed of the bucket of loading machine 11, to detect a speed of the bucket of the machine relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a GPS sensor, and/or the like) and/or another type of sensing device...") …
calculate the loaded amount by adding the hauled weight calculated during the haulage step each time the loading step is initiated (see Shull at least [0016] "Additionally, or alternatively, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information based on computing the current load information during the loading of hauling machine 13. For example, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information when trigger system 12 tracks a load deposited during each pass such that trigger system 12 maintains a running total of the amount of material loaded into hauling machine 13 (e.g., based on sensing a weight of each load provided to the hauling machine during each pass). In such a case, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information during a most recent pass (e.g., before a most recent material dump into hauling machine 13, while loading machine 11 is swinging the bucket to the dump position, and/or the like)."),
start adding the hauled weight for each loading step … during the haulage step (see Shull at least [0016] "Additionally, or alternatively, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information based on computing the current load information during the loading of hauling machine 13. For example, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information when trigger system 12 tracks a load deposited during each pass such that trigger system 12 maintains a running total of the amount of material loaded into hauling machine 13 (e.g., based on sensing a weight of each load provided to the hauling machine during each pass). In such a case, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information during a most recent pass (e.g., before a most recent material dump into hauling machine 13, while loading machine 11 is swinging the bucket to the dump position, and/or the like)." and [0043] "...For example, sensor 53 may include a weight sensor (e.g., to detect a weight of material in a bucket of loading machine 11), a position sensor (e.g., an angle sensor to detect an angular position of a bucket of loading machine 11, a proximity sensor to detect a position of the bucket relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a speed sensor (e.g., to detect an angular speed of the bucket of loading machine 11, to detect a speed of the bucket of the machine relative to hauling machine 13, and/or the like), a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a GPS sensor, and/or the like) and/or another type of sensing device...") …
end adding of the hauled weight for each loading step…during the loading step (see Shull at least [0016] "Additionally, or alternatively, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information based on computing the current load information during the loading of hauling machine 13. For example, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information when trigger system 12 tracks a load deposited during each pass such that trigger system 12 maintains a running total of the amount of material loaded into hauling machine 13 (e.g., based on sensing a weight of each load provided to the hauling machine during each pass). In such a case, trigger system 12 may determine the current load information during a most recent pass (e.g., before a most recent material dump into hauling machine 13, while loading machine 11 is swinging the bucket to the dump position, and/or the like).") …
However, Shull does not explicitly disclose the following:
…a horn switch for instructing operation of a horn that emits a warning sound via an operator's action…
…the time when the load detected by the load detection device acting on the arm transitions from exceeding a predetermined load threshold to falling below the predetermined load threshold…
…based on a relative angle between the bucket and the arm … when the angle exceeds a first threshold angle that indicates the release of the work target object from the bucket into the haulage machine…
…when an angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is greater than a second threshold angle that allows retention of the work target object inside the bucket… when the horn switch is operated…
…output the calculated loaded amount to an external terminal when the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is smaller than the second threshold angle … when the horn switch is operated.
Fukasu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a horn switch for instructing operation of a horn that emits a warning sound via an operator's action (see Fukasu at least [0085] "...For example, the operator of the loader 4 notifies the end of the loading work by sounding an alarm (horn) when the operator of the loader 4 ends the loading work, or transmitting a voice for giving a command to the transporter 2 by radio communication; and the operator of the loader 4 sends a signal, which means the determination of the end of the loading work, to the transporter-side in-vehicle device 30 by operating a predetermined operation button...")…
…
…
…when the horn switch is operated (see Fukasu at least [0085] "...For example, the operator of the loader 4 notifies the end of the loading work by sounding an alarm (horn) when the operator of the loader 4 ends the loading work, or transmitting a voice for giving a command to the transporter 2 by radio communication; and the operator of the loader 4 sends a signal, which means the determination of the end of the loading work, to the transporter-side in-vehicle device 30 by operating a predetermined operation button...")…
…when the horn switch is operated (see Fukasu at least [0085] "...For example, the operator of the loader 4 notifies the end of the loading work by sounding an alarm (horn) when the operator of the loader 4 ends the loading work, or transmitting a voice for giving a command to the transporter 2 by radio communication; and the operator of the loader 4 sends a signal, which means the determination of the end of the loading work, to the transporter-side in-vehicle device 30 by operating a predetermined operation button...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with a horn switch and horn such as taught by Fukasu with a reasonable expectation of success since such actions are commonly used to provide a notification that a work machine has completed an operation (see Fukasu at least [0085]).
However, neither Shull nor Fukasu explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the time when the load detected by the load detection device acting on the arm transitions from exceeding a predetermined load threshold to falling below the predetermined load threshold…
…based on a relative angle between the bucket and the arm … when the angle exceeds a first threshold angle that indicates the release of the work target object from the bucket into the haulage machine…
…when an angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is greater than a second threshold angle that allows retention of the work target object inside the bucket…
…output the calculated loaded amount to an external terminal when the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is smaller than the second threshold angle…
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the time when the load detected by the load detection device acting on the arm transitions from exceeding a predetermined load threshold to falling below the predetermined load threshold (see Nakamura at least Fig 6 and [0069]-[0070] "...According to the present embodiment, therefore, the operation determining section 50 determines that the hydraulic excavator 1 has started an excavating operation at the time when the arm cylinder bottom pressure exceeds the threshold value 1... According to the present embodiment, therefore, the operation determining section 50 determines that the hydraulic excavator 1 has finished an excavating operation and has started a carrying operation at the time when the arm cylinder bottom pressure drops below the threshold value 2...")…
…
…
…output the calculated loaded amount to an external terminal (see Nakamura at least [0136]-[0137] "...A controller 21 illustrated in FIG. 17 includes a work status determining section 64 for determining a work status of the front work implement 12 on the basis of whether a second set value has been calculated by the minimum integration load value calculating section 57 or not and whether an integration instruction has been output from the integration instruction output section 52 or not... The determined result from the work status determining section 64 may be output via the external communication unit 43 to a terminal such as an external computer or the like, so that the determined result IS appropriately referred to.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with a determination of load pressure along with the transmission of working data such as taught by Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately tracking a loading operation and ascertain results (see Nakamura at least [0004]).
However, neither Shull nor Fukasu nor Nakamura explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…based on a relative angle between the bucket and the arm … when the angle exceeds a first threshold angle that indicates the release of the work target object from the bucket into the haulage machine…
…when an angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is greater than a second threshold angle that allows retention of the work target object inside the bucket…
…when the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is smaller than the second threshold angle…
Currier, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…based on a relative angle between the bucket and the arm … when the angle exceeds a first threshold angle that indicates the release of the work target object from the bucket into the haulage machine (see Currier at least Fig 4-9 and [0028] "...The first position 400, shown in FIG. 4, illustrates the implement 118 having a loading angle of α, e.g. horizontal; the second position 500, shown in FIG. 5, is a fully racked position with the implement 118 having a rack angle of β; the third position 600, shown in FIG. 6, is a fully dump position with the implement 118 having a dump angle of γ; the fourth position 700, shown in FIG. 7, is a partial dump position 700 of the bulk dump sequence with the implement 118 having an dump angle of δ; the fifth position 800, shown in FIG. 8, is a partial rack position between the bulk dump sequence and the slow dump sequence with the implement 118 having an rack angle of ε; the sixth position 900, shown in FIG. 9, is a partial spill position and a partial rack position during a slow dump sequence with implement 118 having a dump angle of ζ.sub.i and a rack angle η.sub.i.")…
…when an angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is greater than a second threshold angle that allows retention of the work target object inside the bucket (see Currier at least Fig 4-9 and [0028] "...The first position 400, shown in FIG. 4, illustrates the implement 118 having a loading angle of α, e.g. horizontal; the second position 500, shown in FIG. 5, is a fully racked position with the implement 118 having a rack angle of β; the third position 600, shown in FIG. 6, is a fully dump position with the implement 118 having a dump angle of γ; the fourth position 700, shown in FIG. 7, is a partial dump position 700 of the bulk dump sequence with the implement 118 having an dump angle of δ; the fifth position 800, shown in FIG. 8, is a partial rack position between the bulk dump sequence and the slow dump sequence with the implement 118 having an rack angle of ε; the sixth position 900, shown in FIG. 9, is a partial spill position and a partial rack position during a slow dump sequence with implement 118 having a dump angle of ζ.sub.i and a rack angle η.sub.i.")…
…when the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is smaller than the second threshold angle (see Currier at least Fig 4-9 and [0028] "...The first position 400, shown in FIG. 4, illustrates the implement 118 having a loading angle of α, e.g. horizontal; the second position 500, shown in FIG. 5, is a fully racked position with the implement 118 having a rack angle of β; the third position 600, shown in FIG. 6, is a fully dump position with the implement 118 having a dump angle of γ; the fourth position 700, shown in FIG. 7, is a partial dump position 700 of the bulk dump sequence with the implement 118 having an dump angle of δ; the fifth position 800, shown in FIG. 8, is a partial rack position between the bulk dump sequence and the slow dump sequence with the implement 118 having an rack angle of ε; the sixth position 900, shown in FIG. 9, is a partial spill position and a partial rack position during a slow dump sequence with implement 118 having a dump angle of ζ.sub.i and a rack angle η.sub.i.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle sensor which detects an angular position of a bucket as disclosed by Shull with angle thresholds indicative of a machine's operation status such as taught by Currier with a reasonable expectation of success so as to improve a monitoring of a loading process by a work machine, and to allow for adjustments to dumping rates (see Currier at least [0006]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Shull in view of Fukasu and Nakamura and Currier teach the work machine according to claim 8, wherein
the controller is configured to end up adding the hauled weight after a next loading step (see Shull at least [0016]) and output the calculated loaded amount to the external terminal (see Nakamura at least [0136]-[0137]), during the haulage step after the adding the hauled weight for each initiated loading step has begun (see Shull at least [0016]), when the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is greater than the second threshold angle (see Currier at least [0028]) and the horn switch is operated, if the horn switch is operated within a predetermined time from the start of the haulage step during which the horn switch was operated (see Fukasu at least [0085]), and if the calculated loaded amount exceeds a predetermined loading threshold (see Shull at least [0017] "...Next, trigger system 12 may determine whether the amount of material that is expected to be loaded in the upcoming pass, when added to the current load of hauling machine 13, will result in hauling machine 13 being fully loaded (e.g., such that hauling machine 13 will be loaded with an amount of material that matches, within a threshold amount, the identified full load of hauling machine 13)...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with the transmission of working data such as further taught by Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the angle sensor which detects an angular position of a bucket as disclosed by Shull with angle thresholds indicative of a machine's operation status such as taught by Currier with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with a horn switch and horn such as taught by Fukasu with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Shull in view of Fukasu and Nakamura and Currier teach the work machine according to claim 8, wherein
the controller is configured to reset the calculated loaded amount to zero each time (see Shull at least [0014]-[0016]; running total monitored on each pass, tracking each material dump into hauling machine) the loaded amount is output to the external terminal (see Nakamura at least [0136]-[0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with the transmission of working data such as further taught by Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Shull in view of Fukasu and Nakamura and Currier teach the work machine according to claim 11, wherein
the controller is configured to start adding the hauled weight as the loaded amount during the loading step (see Shull at least [0014]-[0016]; running total monitored on each pass, tracking each material dump into hauling machine) if the angle of the bucket opening relative to a horizontal plane is smaller than the second threshold angle and the loaded amount is smaller than a predetermined loading threshold (see Currier at least [0028]), when the horn switch is operated after a certain period of time has passed since a previous addition of the hauled weight (see Fukasu at least [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the angle sensor which detects an angular position of a bucket as disclosed by Shull with angle thresholds indicative of a machine's operation status such as taught by Currier with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with a horn switch and horn such as taught by Fukasu with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Shull in view of Fukasu and Nakamura and Currier teach the analogous material of that in claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shull (US-2020/0224392; already of record from IDS) in view of Fukasu et al. (US-2014/0231153; hereinafter Fukasu; already of record from IDS) and Nakamura et al. (US-2020/0283992; hereinafter Nakamura; already of record from IDS) and Currier (US-2020/0263384; already of record from IDS), and further in view of Henderson et al. (US-5,864,060; hereinafter Henderson; already of record from IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Shull in view of Fukasu and Nakamura and Currier teach the analogous material of that in claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons. In addition to the combined teachings determining a haulage step versus a loading step, Shull discloses the following:
…the machine body includes a swing structure that can rotate to the left and right (see Shull at least Fig 1 and [0014] "...For example, as indicated in FIG. 1, a given pass may include loading machine 11 acquiring material while a bucket of loading machine 11 is at a dig position 16, swinging the bucket (e.g., along an angular swing path 17) to a dump position 18 over a bed of hauling machine 13, and dumping the material from the bucket in the bed of hauling machine 13...")…
However, neither Shull nor Fukasu nor Nakamura nor Currier explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…if the swing structure is stopped…
Henderson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…if the swing structure is stopped (see Henderson at least col 3 lines 50-66 "If the angular velocity is less than the first threshold, the body 108 is considered to be stopped, shown in a second control block 306. If the angular velocity is greater than the first threshold, then the body 108 is considered to be in motion, and control passes to the beginning of the method 300... Once the body 108 is stopped, the method 300 determines the duration of time the body 108 is stopped, shown in a third control block 308. Continuing to a second decision block 310, the method 300 determines how far the body 108 has rotated since the body 108 was last stopped. A purpose of this test is to insure that the body 108 is moving away from a potential load region 202 before making a determination regarding whether a loading or dumping operation was just performed.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine controls as disclosed by Shull with a detection of machine motion such as taught by Henderson with a reasonable expectation of success to improve a monitoring of a work machine during an operation cycle (see Henderson at least col 2 lines 18-26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blakeman et al. (US-2015/0176254) teaches the determination of an excavation mode versus a haulage mode according to a pressure reading indicative of a boom and tool position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663