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 (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No JP2023-217120, filed on December 22, 2023.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A working machine comprising: a lower traveling body; an upper swivel body rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body;
a sensor attached to the upper swivel body;
and a control device configured to calculate an excavation reaction force generated by an excavation operation each time the excavation operation is performed based on output of the sensor,
and output a notice indicating that a condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground when change of the excavation reaction force satisfies a predetermined condition.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is an apparatus claim same as claims 2-7.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “a working machine comprising: a lower traveling body; an upper swivel body rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body; insignificant extra solution activity, data gathering] falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1-8 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claim recites the additional elements of “a control device configured to calculate an excavation reaction force generated by an excavation operation each time the excavation operation is performed based on output of the sensor” steps which is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the system claim 8 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-7 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 are not patent-eligible.
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 to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hisateru et al (JP2019214085A), (hereinafter Hisateru) in view of Kaiso et al (US 2018/0245315 A1), (hereinafter Kaiso).
Regarding claim 1, Hisateru discloses a working machine comprising: (see Hisateru page 2 “the construction machine 1 includes an upper swing body 10, a working unit 20, and a lower traveling body 30”),
a lower traveling body (see Hisateru page 2 “the construction machine 1 includes an upper swing body 10, a working unit 20, and a lower traveling body 30”),
an upper swivel body rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body (see Hisateru page 2 “The upper revolving unit 10 is configured to be rotatable with respect to the lower traveling unit 30, and rotates left and right with respect to the lower traveling unit 30 in accordance with an operation by an operator. In addition, the upper swing body 10 rotatably supports the working unit 20 via a joint, and rotates the working unit 20 around the joint in accordance with an operation by an operator”),
a sensor attached to the upper swivel body (see Hisateru page 2 “The boom cylinder 211, the arm cylinder 221, and the bucket cylinder 231 are provided with position sensors D1 to D3 for detecting the positions of the respective hydraulic cylinders (positions indicating the extension or bending of the boom 21, the arm 22, and the bucket 23)”),
and a control device configured to calculate an excavation reaction force generated by an excavation operation each time the excavation operation is performed based on output of the sensor (see Hisateru pages 2-7 “The main body 12 includes a control unit 121 for controlling the entire construction machine 1… the control unit 121 is configured by an information processing device such as a built-in microcomputer or a PLC”, “The position acquisition unit 201 acquires information on the position of each movable member in the working unit 20 from the position sensors D1 to D3”, “Specifically, the coordinate conversion unit 203 converts an input vector having the position of each movable member in the working unit 20 and the position of each movable member in the operation unit 11A into an element for calculating a position control target value. The state of the force for calculating the control target value of the force, while converting the input vector having the elements of the force of each movable member in the working unit 20 and the force of each movable member in the operation unit 11A into an output vector composed of a state value…”, “The force domain calculation unit 204 executes a calculation in the force domain” and “Bilateral control is performed between the operation and the operation of the working unit 20 to move the bucket 23 in the horizontal direction. Thereby, the operator can control the construction machine 1 based on the real haptics control more easily” regarding the force calculation occurs continuously during operation (i.e., each time operation is performed)),
but Hisateru fails to explicitly teach output a notice indicating that a condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground when change of the excavation reaction force satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, Kaiso teaches output a notice indicating that a condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground when change of the excavation reaction force satisfies a predetermined condition (see Kaiso paras “0129”, “0213” and “0223-0226” “Thus, since the chart by reaction direction and region 201 displays the number of times of obstacle sensing in each region together with the construction machine image 210, it is possible to allow a manager to grasp at once in which region, an obstacle has been sensed”, “the control unit generates a second report image displaying, for each of the sensor reaction directions, the number of times of sensing of the obstacle together with a construction machine image indicative of the construction machine based on sensor reaction information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period, and displays the second report image on the display”, “the control unit generates a second report image displaying, for each sensor reaction direction, the number of times of sensing of the obstacle together with the construction machine image based on sensor reaction information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period, and generates a third report image displaying the number of times of sensing of an obstacle on a time zone basis based on time information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period” and “This configuration enables visual recognition of the number of times of obstacle sensing in each divided region because the number of times of obstacle sensing is displayed in the divided region which is obtained by dividing the monitoring region image indicative of a monitoring region according to a sensor reaction direction” regarding the display differentiates regions where obstacle sensing has occurred from regions where it has not indicating different conditions),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to “alert on a display if there a foreign matter or an obstacle in front of the construction machine” as taught by Kaiso (paras. [0223-0226]) in order to manage road safety and presenting information useful for safety of subsequent work.
Regarding claim 8, Hisateru discloses a remote-control system for a working machine comprising: (see Hisateru page 2 “the construction machine 1 includes an upper swing body 10, a working unit 20, and a lower traveling body 30”),
the working machine having a lower traveling body (see Hisateru page 2 “the construction machine 1 includes an upper swing body 10, a working unit 20, and a lower traveling body 30”),
an upper swivel body rotatably mounted on the lower traveling body, an attachment attached to the upper swivel body (see Hisateru page 2 “The upper revolving unit 10 is configured to be rotatable with respect to the lower traveling unit 30, and rotates left and right with respect to the lower traveling unit 30 in accordance with an operation by an operator. In addition, the upper swing body 10 rotatably supports the working unit 20 via a joint, and rotates the working unit 20 around the joint in accordance with an operation by an operator”),
and a sensor attached to the upper swivel body (see Hisateru page 2 “The boom cylinder 211, the arm cylinder 221, and the bucket cylinder 231 are provided with position sensors D1 to D3 for detecting the positions of the respective hydraulic cylinders (positions indicating the extension or bending of the boom 21, the arm 22, and the bucket 23)”),
and an external device configured to assist remote-control of the working machine, wherein the external device includes a control device for calculating an excavation reaction force generated by an excavation operation each time the excavation operation is performed based on output of the sensor (see Hisateru pages 2-7 “The main body 12 includes a control unit 121 for controlling the entire construction machine 1… the control unit 121 is configured by an information processing device such as a built-in microcomputer or a PLC”, “The position acquisition unit 201 acquires information on the position of each movable member in the working unit 20 from the position sensors D1 to D3”, “Specifically, the coordinate conversion unit 203 converts an input vector having the position of each movable member in the working unit 20 and the position of each movable member in the operation unit 11A into an element for calculating a position control target value. The state of the force for calculating the control target value of the force, while converting the input vector having the elements of the force of each movable member in the working unit 20 and the force of each movable member in the operation unit 11A into an output vector composed of a state value…”, “The force domain calculation unit 204 executes a calculation in the force domain” and “Bilateral control is performed between the operation and the operation of the working unit 20 to move the bucket 23 in the horizontal direction. Thereby, the operator can control the construction machine 1 based on the real haptics control more easily” regarding the force calculation occurs continuously during operation (i.e., each time operation is performed)),
but Hisateru fails to explicitly teach outputting a notice indicating that a condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground when change of the excavation reaction force satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, Kaiso teaches outputting a notice indicating that a condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground when change of the excavation reaction force satisfies a predetermined condition (see Kaiso paras “0129”, “0213” and “0223-0226” “Thus, since the chart by reaction direction and region 201 displays the number of times of obstacle sensing in each region together with the construction machine image 210, it is possible to allow a manager to grasp at once in which region, an obstacle has been sensed”, “the control unit generates a second report image displaying, for each of the sensor reaction directions, the number of times of sensing of the obstacle together with a construction machine image indicative of the construction machine based on sensor reaction information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period, and displays the second report image on the display”, “the control unit generates a second report image displaying, for each sensor reaction direction, the number of times of sensing of the obstacle together with the construction machine image based on sensor reaction information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period, and generates a third report image displaying the number of times of sensing of an obstacle on a time zone basis based on time information included in the approach information output from the construction machine in the specific period” and “This configuration enables visual recognition of the number of times of obstacle sensing in each divided region because the number of times of obstacle sensing is displayed in the divided region which is obtained by dividing the monitoring region image indicative of a monitoring region according to a sensor reaction direction” regarding the display differentiates regions where obstacle sensing has occurred from regions where it has not indicating different conditions),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to “alert on a display if there a foreign matter or an obstacle in front of the construction machine” as taught by Kaiso (paras. [0223-0226]) in order to manage road safety and presenting information useful for safety of subsequent work.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hisateru et al (JP2019214085A), (hereinafter Hisateru) in view of Kaiso et al (US 2018/0245315 A1), (hereinafter Kaiso) in further view of Sano et al (US 2021/0010229 A1), (hereinafter Sano).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hisateru fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force changes by a certain magnitude or more within a predetermined duration.
However, Sano teaches wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force changes by a certain magnitude or more within a predetermined duration (see Sano paras “0178” and “0232-0235” “the controller 30 can calculate the work reaction force FR by using the above formula and a calculation map based on the above formula. Also, the controller 30 can calculate, as the magnitude of the pressing force, the magnitude of the vertical component FR1 of the work reaction force FR by calculating the work reaction force FR during the compaction work of the shovel 100” and “information about a time at which compaction work at each compaction position is started (hereinafter referred to as “start determination time”), information about some of the positions of the shovel body of the shovel 100 at the start determination time, information about work content of the shovel 100 at the start determination time, information about work environment at the start determination time, information about the movement of the shovel 100 measured at the start determination time and in a period of time before and after the start determination time, and the like”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to control an operation of the arm and the end attachment according to a lowering operation of the boom to cause an end portion of the work part to perform the compaction of the ground on the basis of the detection information of the sensor as taught by Sano (paras. [0178] - [0232-0236]) in order to improve the accuracy of the compaction force in order to finish the ground with a better quality.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hisateru fails to explicitly teach wherein the condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground includes a condition that there is a buried object in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation, there is a cavity in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation, and there is an object softer than the ground in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation.
However, Sano teaches wherein the condition of ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation is different from the condition of other ground includes a condition that there is a buried object in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation, there is a cavity in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation, and there is an object softer than the ground in the ground neighboring the ground being excavated by the excavation operation (see Sano paras “0069” and “0153” “The image-capturing device S6 may function as an object detection device. In this case, the image-capturing device S6 may detect an object around the shovel 100. Examples of objects that are detected by the image-capturing device S6 include topographic features (inclination, holes, and the like)” and “In the compaction work performed by the shovel 100, when the pressing force applied by the bucket 6 is too strong, the shovel body (the lower traveling body 1) of the shovel 100 is greatly lifted, which could lead to damage to the component parts depending on the cases. On the contrary, when the pressing force is too weak, soft ground may be formed. The force (pressing force) exerted on the ground by the back surface of the bucket 6 changes according to the pose of the attachment. Therefore, it is difficult even for an experienced operator to maintain an appropriate pressing force applied to the ground with the back surface of the bucket 6 during the compaction work”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to control an operation of the arm and the end attachment according to a lowering operation of the boom to cause an end portion of the work part to perform the compaction of the ground on the basis of the detection information of the sensor as taught by Sano (paras. [0069] - [0153]) in order to improve the accuracy of the compaction force in order to finish the ground with a better quality.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hisateru fails to explicitly teach wherein the other ground includes ground on which the excavation operation has already been performed.
However, Sano teaches wherein the other ground includes ground on which the excavation operation has already been performed (see Sano para “0151” “when the height of the compacted ground surface is equal to or more than the target height even after the ground surface sinks due to the pressing of the bucket 6, the operator judges that a sufficient compaction force has been successfully applied, and proceeds to compaction work for a subsequent location”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to control an operation of the arm and the end attachment according to a lowering operation of the boom to cause an end portion of the work part to perform the compaction of the ground on the basis of the detection information of the sensor as taught by Sano (para. [0151]) in order to improve the accuracy of the compaction force in order to finish the ground with a better quality.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hisateru et al (JP2019214085A), (hereinafter Hisateru) in view of Kaiso et al (US 2018/0245315 A1), (hereinafter Kaiso) in further view of Augustine (US 6,836,982 B1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hisateru fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force increases exponentially.
However, Augustine teaches wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force increases exponentially (see Augustine col 8, lines 34-58 “force generator 16 may exert a first magnitude of feedback force on input device 14 that corresponds to the magnitude of force required to swing work implement 218 relative to vertical axis 234. When work implement 218 contacts an obstruction that causes a pressure spike in the hydraulic actuator, the feedback force exerted by force generator 16 on input device 14 may increase proportionately” and “Force generator 16 may exert the feedback force on the joystick in the opposite direction that acts to move the joystick back to a center position. If the moving work implement 218 contacts an obstruction, the magnitude of the feedback force exerted on the joystick may increase to thereby move the joystick back to the center position. This may indicate to the user that the force required to continue moving work implement 218 in the desired is direction is greater than the maximum force that may be generated by work machine 200. In this manner, control system 10 may provide tactile feedback to a remotely located operator of work machine 200”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine for providing tactile feedback to an operator of a remotely controlled work machine as taught by Augustine (col 8, lines 34-58) in order to allow the operator to efficiently operate the machine.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hisateru et al (JP2019214085A), (hereinafter Hisateru) in view of Kaiso et al (US 2018/0245315 A1), (hereinafter Kaiso) in further view of Hamada et al (US 2016/0224026 A1), (hereinafter Hamada).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hamada fails to explicitly teach wherein the control device is configured to cause a display device to display a message instructing a cessation of the excavation operation as the notice.
However, Hamada teaches wherein the control device is configured to cause a display device to display a message instructing a cessation of the excavation operation as the notice (see Hamada paras “0014” and “0072” “the vehicle travel system further comprises a warning unit that, with reference to positional information on an obstacle located around the loading point or the travel route, produces a warning if an interference with the obstacle is expected when the haulage vehicle travels along the travel route displayed in superimposition on the setting screen or if an interference with the obstacle is expected when the haulage vehicle stops at the loading point and along the direction of the haulage vehicle image displayed in superimposition on the setting screen” and “the warning unit 1508 produces a warning if an interference with the obstacle is expected when the haulage vehicle travels along the travel route displayed on the setting screen or if an interference with the obstacle is expected when the haulage vehicle stops at the loading point and along the direction of the haulage vehicle image displayed on the setting screen. It may be configured, for example, to display an icon and/or character information on the setting screen 120 or to produce a warning sound”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to allow the haulage vehicle to travel along and stop on the travel route as taught by Hamada (paras [0014] – [0072]) in order to avoid an interference with an obstacle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Hisateru et al (JP2019214085A), (hereinafter Hisateru) in view of Kaiso et al (US 2018/0245315 A1), (hereinafter Kaiso) in further view of Teranishi et al (US 2022/0219954 A1), (hereinafter Teranishi).
Regarding claim 5, modified Teranishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force increases exponentially.
However, Teranishi teaches wherein the predetermined condition is that the excavation reaction force increases exponentially (see Teranishi paras “0007”, “0092” and “0255” “in order to avoid hindrance of the checking work, the operator may forget to perform the manipulation of releasing stop of the automatic control function of the image display after the checking work”, “, if a function of automatic control of display of the monitoring image in response to the detection of the obstacle is stopped in response to the manipulation by the operator, the operator may forget to perform the manipulation of releasing stop of the automatic control function of display of the monitoring image after the checking work” and “the notable image, which is the monitoring image of the area where the obstacle is detected, is displayed on the display device 7”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Hisateru for a work machine, control device of work machine and control method of work machine to monitor the area in which the obstacle is detected out of the one or more monitoring areas as taught by Teranishi (paras [0007] – [0092]) in order to achieve both safety and work efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664