DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-7 as originally presented and filed on 12/09/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is December 25, 2023 (20231225).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-218209 filed on December 25, 2023 (20231225).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 12/09/2024 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
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 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 (POSITA) 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 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5908458 A to Rowe; Patrick S. et al. (hereinafter Rowe) in view of US 20230034265 A1 to RENNER; Anton et al. (hereinafter Renner).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 1 Rowe teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
539
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
367
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
357
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
484
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a shovel for moving an object to a predetermined place by repeating a series of operations including an excavation operation and a dumping operation (given the BRI a POSITA would see shown in the figures above a shovel connotes “excavating machine 10” capable of being used in the intended manner as explained in for example the following citation:
“3) A typical excavating machine 10 as an example of a mobile manipulator to which the present invention can be applied is illustrated in FIG. 3 and details of a manipulator arm or work implement 12 are illustrated in FIG. 1. In a conventional fashion, the work implement 12 is mounted on a mobile platform 14. The manipulator arm or work implement 12 has four degrees of freedom, and the tracked mobile platform 14 (FIG. 3) provides two additional degrees of freedom. Such an excavator is used for mass excavation to move large amounts of earth into trucks which haul the earth away. Manual operation of such excavators proceeds very rapidly with good excavator operators loading several hundred trucks per day.”),
the shovel comprising:
a lower traveling body (given the BRI connotes the mobile platform 14 shown in Fig. 3 as explained in for example only the following citation:
“(4) The work implement 12 includes a boom 16, stick 18 and bucket 20. The boom 16 is typically mounted on the mobile platform 14 by means of a boom pivot pin 22. The stick 18 is pivotally connected to the end of the boom 16, and the bucket 20 is pivotally attached to the stick 18. The bucket 20 includes a rounded portion 26 and bucket teeth 24.”);
an upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body (given the BRI connotes the upper part of mobile platform 14 where the manipulator arm 12 is connected as shown in Fig. 3 as explained in for example:
“(6) Movement of the work implement 12 illustrated in detail in FIG. 1 will be described. The work implement 12 illustrated in FIG. 3 has a slightly different construction, but is capable of the same movements. The boom 16 is raised by retracting the boom hydraulic cylinder(s) 28 and lowered by extending the same cylinder(s) 28. Retracting the stick hydraulic cylinders 30 moves the stick 18 away from the excavating machine 10 and extending the stick hydraulic cylinder(s) 30 moves the stick 18 toward the machine 10. Finally, the bucket 20 is rotated away from the excavating machine 10 when the bucket hydraulic cylinder 32 is retracted and rotated toward the machine 10 when the same cylinder 32 is extended.”);
an attachment attached to the upper swivel body (given the BRI connotes work implement 12 and bucket 20 in figs. 1 and 3 as explained above);
a sensor attached to the upper swivel body (as shown in fig. 3 sensor 39 as explained in for example:
“12) In general, the sensors 39 provide the perceptual information 40 to perceptual modules 42, 44, 46, 48. These modules receive the perceptual information 40 from, e.g., cameras or laser range finders, and perform analysis of the inputs from the sensors 39 to generate external parameters. For example, the truck recognizer 42 determines the location, orientation and measurements of a truck 58 to be loaded. The external parameters that the truck recognizer 42 sends to the truck loading software 50 are the coordinates of the four corners of the truck bed and the height of the walls of the truck 58.”);
Rowe does not appear to expressly disclose a control device configured to calculate, based on an output of the sensor, an excavation reactive force generated by the excavation operation and an excavation weight, which is a weight of an object taken into a bucket and moved to the predetermined place,
wherein the control device is further configured to set a target value related to the excavation reactive force of a second excavation operation subsequently performed one or more times, based on a relationship between the excavation reactive force calculated during a first excavation operation performed one or more times and the excavation weight.
In analogous art Renner teaches a control device configured to calculate, based on an output of the sensor, an excavation reactive force generated by the excavation operation and an excavation weight, which is a weight of an object taken into a bucket and moved to the predetermined place (in for example paras:
“[0038] Alternatively, or additionally, the item of machinery can have at least one sensor for detecting a current fill level and/or fill weight of the tool. This makes it possible, for example, to detect a current filling of an excavator bucket. It can be provided that, when a maximum fill quantity is reached, a current, automatic digging process is terminated, for example in order to empty the bucket at a specific unloading position. Alternatively, the fill weight could be determined by a suitable algorithm that uses information from various sources such as position and orientation estimation, terrain information, trajectory travelled, etc.”),
wherein the control device is further configured to set a target value related to the excavation reactive force of a second excavation operation subsequently performed one or more times, based on a relationship between the excavation reactive force calculated during a first excavation operation performed one or more times and the excavation weight (as explained in for example claims:
“1. A method for monitoring and/or performing a movement of an item of machinery, wherein the item of machinery comprises the following: a movement device with a tool for picking up material, which comprises at least two components, each of which is movable via at least one actuator, and a control system by means of which the actuators can be controlled by way of open-loop and/or closed-loop control, comprising the following steps: 1) detecting status information concerning at least one current position and/or current speed and/or current acceleration of at least two components, 2) calculating torques that are applied to components due to a current configuration of the item of machinery, under consideration of the detected status information and under consideration of component information of the components, 3) detecting torques actually applied to components, 4) comparing the calculated and detected torques and determining a force vector actually applied at a defined application point of the item of machinery on the basis of said comparison, and 5) executing an action depending on the calculated force vector.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the status information is detected by means of sensors arranged on the movement device, wherein the item of machinery has one or more of the following sensors: at least one pressure sensor for measuring a hydraulic pressure applied to an actuator, at least one torque transducer, at least one angle sensor for measuring a current angle of a component, at least one position sensor for measuring a current position of a component, at least one inertial sensor for measuring a current speed and/or acceleration of a component, at least one sensor for detecting a current fill level and/or fill weight of the tool, at least one acoustic sensor for detecting a noise of the item of machinery during operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the weight sensors and load sensing disclosed in Renner with the autonomous functions taught in Rowe with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “ensured the maximum load was observed” as taught by Renner Para:
“[0041] Alternatively, or additionally, it can be provided that the force vector actually applied is multiplied by a weighting factor. In this way, uncertainties in the model on which the determination of the theoretical torques is based can be taken into account and thus a maximum load limit of the movement device can be reliably observed. The weighting factor can depend on a current state of the movement device or the item of machinery or on the determined force vector actually applied.”.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the shovel according to claim 1, wherein the shovel is configured to operate such that the weight of the object moved to the predetermined place becomes a target weight by repeating the series of operations including the excavation operation and a dumping operation, and the control device is further configured to set the target value related to the excavation reactive force during the second excavation operation based on a relationship between the excavation reactive force and the excavation weight calculated during the first excavation operation, a cumulative weight which is the weight of the object already moved to the predetermined place, and the target weight (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that the most efficient operation is when the bucket is loaded to its maximum limit as explained in for example only Renner para:
“[0042] In a further possible embodiment it is provided that the action executed comprises the issuance of a warning or an alert, in particular visually and/or acoustically. In this way, for example, the operator of the item of machinery can be informed that a maximum force (e.g. digging force) has been exceeded, a maximum filling of the tool has been reached, a safety range with regard to the tilt resistance of the item of machinery has been exceeded, or a trajectory has been adjusted. Furthermore, it can be provided that a message or a signal is sent to an external device or a cloud.”).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the shovel according to claim 2, wherein the control device is further configured to calculate a number of excavation operation times necessary for the weight of the object moved to the predetermined place to reach the target weight based on the relationship between the excavation reactive force and the excavation weight calculated during the first excavation operation, the cumulative weight, and the target weight, and set the target value related to the excavation reactive force during the second excavation operation based on the number of excavation operation times(see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that the most efficient operation is when the bucket is loaded to its maximum limit as explained in for example only Renner para:
“[0042] In a further possible embodiment it is provided that the action executed comprises the issuance of a warning or an alert, in particular visually and/or acoustically. In this way, for example, the operator of the item of machinery can be informed that a maximum force (e.g. digging force) has been exceeded, a maximum filling of the tool has been reached, a safety range with regard to the tilt resistance of the item of machinery has been exceeded, or a trajectory has been adjusted. Furthermore, it can be provided that a message or a signal is sent to an external device or a cloud.”).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation A shovel that operates such that a weight of an object moved to a predetermined place becomes a target weight by repeating a series of operations including an excavation operation and a dumping operation, the shovel comprising:
a lower traveling body;
an upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body;
an attachment attached to the upper swivel body;
a sensor attached to the upper swivel body;
and a control device configured to calculate, based on an output of the sensor, an excavation reactive force generated by the excavation operation and an excavation weight, which is a weight of an object taken into a bucket and moved to the predetermined place,
wherein the control device is further configured to set a target value related to an excavation reactive force during a second excavation operation subsequently performed one or more times based on a relationship between the excavation reactive force and the excavation weight calculated during a first excavation operation performed one or more times and the target weight (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that training of the machine may take more than one operation and that it may take more than one scoop to fill the bucket to maximum capacity as is known to a POSITA in the excavator art.).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the shovel according to claim 4, wherein the control device is further configured to set the target value related to the excavation reactive force during the second excavation operation based on the relationship between the excavation reactive force and the excavation weight calculated during the excavation operation performed one or more times before the first excavation operation and the target weight, in a case the excavation reactive force or the excavation weight calculated during the first excavation operation is an abnormal value (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 4 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference and Renner para [0042] above “. In this way, for example, the operator of the item of machinery can be informed that a maximum force (e.g. digging force) has been exceeded”).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the shovel according to claim 1, wherein in each of the second excavation operations, each being the second excavation operation, performed after the target value is set, the control device is further configured to notify an operator that a current excavation reactive force has reached the target value (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 5 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that per Renner para [0042] each time a maximum force has been exceeded the operator will be informed).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the shovel according to claim 1, wherein in each of the second excavation operations performed after the target value is set, the control device is further configured to automatically operate a predetermined actuator upon a current excavation reactive force reaching the target value (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Renner teaches reaching target reactive forces in for example para:
“[0047] In a further possible embodiment, it is provided that the determined force vector is compared with at least one comparison force vector and the action is executed on the basis of the stated comparison, wherein the at least one comparison force vector may correspond to a maximum possible force (e.g. a maximum possible digging force). If, for example, the amount of the determined force vector exceeds the amount of the comparison force vector, an adjustment or recalculation of a trajectory or even a termination of the current work process can be implemented. The issuance of a message is also conceivable.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of autonomous excavators at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20200011029 A1 to SANO; Yusuke et al. teaches, inter alia a SHOVEL, AND MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND ASSIST DEVICE FOR SHOVEL in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image5.png
328
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“A shovel includes a lower traveling body, an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment attached to the upper turning body, and a control device mounted on the upper turning body and configured to assist an excavating motion with the attachment. The control device is configured to derive a target excavation depth based on the hardness of an excavation target.”.
US 20200299935 A1 to IZUMIKAWA; Takeya teaches, inter alia a SHOVEL in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A shovel includes a cabin, a display device attached to the cabin, and a main pump. An internal combustion is configured to drive the main pump. An information acquiring device is provided. A controller is configured to calculate an amount of work based on the information acquired by the information acquiring device and to cause the display device to display the amount of work per predetermined period of time in a chronological order.”.
US 11391020 B2 to Ishii; Hiroki et al. teaches, inter alia a Work machine in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image6.png
519
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“There is provided a work machine that can limit operation of a work device by MC, and improves the responsiveness of a hydraulic actuator to operation of an operation device by an operator, and ensures operability equivalent to that of a work machine that does not have MC functions, and allows the hydraulic actuator for which the operation device is not being operated to automatically operate in either direction of the operation directions thereof. For this purpose, a drive system includes a selector valve 203a disposed between a secondary port 134a of an operation device 45a and a flow control valve 15a and between a proportional solenoid valve 54a and the flow control valve 15a and a selector valve 203b disposed between a secondary port 134b of the operation device 45a and the flow control valve 15a and between a proportional solenoid valve 54b and the flow control valve 15a. A controller 40 switches the selector valves 203a and 203b to either one of a first position and a second position on the basis of signals from pressure sensors 70a and 70b and pressure sensors 200a and 200b and target operation set in advance regarding the selector valves 203a and 203b.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260207