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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-10 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-211876, filed on 12/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the recited limitation “likely to exceed” in Line 4 is indefinite because the term “likely to exceed” is subjective and lacks a clear, objective standard. It is unclear to the examiner how much deviation counts as “likely” (e.g. 10%, 1 degree, 5 cm, or something else). Hence, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the recited limitation “likely to exceed” in Line 5 is indefinite because the term “likely to exceed” is subjective and lacks a clear, objective standard. It is unclear to the examiner how much deviation counts as “likely” (e.g. 10%, 1 degree, 5 cm, or something else). Hence, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the recited limitation “likely to exceed” in Line 12 is indefinite because the term “likely to exceed” is subjective and lacks a clear, objective standard. It is unclear to the examiner how much deviation counts as “likely” (e.g. 10%, 1 degree, 5 cm, or something else). Hence, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2021/0262196 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Ito teaches An excavator (see at least Abstract Fig. 1) comprising:
a lower traveling body; (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0032-0036]: The excavator 100 includes a lower traveling body 1.)
an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body in a turnable manner ((see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0032-0036]: The upper turning body 3 is driven by a turning hydraulic motor 2A or electric motor to turn relative to the lower traveling body 1.); and
a control device configured to perform facing control such that the upper turning body faces a target work surface, by applying a turning force to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to turn the lower traveling body or the upper turning body (see at least Abstract [0102-0113]: When the MC switch is pressed down, the automatic control unit 54 may automatically rotate the turning hydraulic motor 2A in order to cause the upper turning body 3 to front-face the target work surface. The control in which the upper turning body 3 is caused to front-face the target work surface by the controller is referred to as “front-face control”.), wherein
the control device provides a report when the upper turning body is likely to exceed a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns. (see at least Fig. 4A-B, 7-11 [0093-0113, 0179-0205]: The machine guidance unit 50 , for example, calculates the distance between the bucket 6 and the target work surface based on the acquired information, notifies the operator of the extent of the distance between the bucket 6 and the target work surface based on the sound from the sound output device 43 and the image displayed on the display device 40 , and automatically controls the operation of the attachment so that the leading end of the attachment (specifically, the working portion such as the claw tip or the back surface of the bucket 6 ) coincides with the target work surface. That is, the controller determines whether the upper turning body is likely to exceed the position facing the target work surface in the facing control based on distance calculation and reports to the operator when the upper turning body is likely to exceed the position facing the target work surface vis sound or visual display.)
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Kawai et al. (US 2010/0264106 A1 hereinafter Kawai).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches An excavator (see at least Abstract Fig. 1) comprising:
a lower traveling body; (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0032-0036]: The excavator 100 includes a lower traveling body 1.)
an upper turning body mounted on the lower traveling body in a turnable manner (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0032-0036]: The upper turning body 3 is driven by a turning hydraulic motor 2A or electric motor to turn relative to the lower traveling body 1. ; and
a control device configured to perform facing control such that the upper turning body faces a target work surface, by applying a turning force to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to turn the lower traveling body or the upper turning body (see at least Abstract [0102-0113]: When the MC switch is pressed down, the automatic control unit 54 may automatically rotate the turning hydraulic motor 2A in order to cause the upper turning body 3 to front-face the target work surface. The control in which the upper turning body 3 is caused to front-face the target work surface by the controller is referred to as “front-face control”.) , wherein
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach the control device controls a turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body based on a turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work surface.
Kawai is directed to slewing stop control system and method for slewing type work machine, Kawai teaches the control device controls a turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body based on a turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work surface. (see at least Abstract Fig. 4 [0010-0012, 0024, 0041-0086]: The apparatus according to the invention is provided in a slewing type working machine having a slewing structure and a slewing motor for slewing the slewing structure to control the slewing stop of the slewing structure so as to stop the slewing structure at a predetermined slewing stop angular position. The apparatus is capable of determining a target slewing velocity based on a remaining slewing angle from an actual position of a slewing structure up to a slewing stop angular position and further performing an automatic control to restart the slewing structure unexpectedly stopped before the slewing stop angular position due to disturbance to safely move it to the slewing stop angular position.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straight facing control system of Ito’s excavator to incorporate the technique of determining and controlling a turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body based on a turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work position as taught by Kawai with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system and method that improves slewing type work machine’s turning control toward a target orientation.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the control device limits the turning speed when the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body exceeds a predetermined speed.
Kawai is directed to slewing stop control system and method for slewing type work machine, Kawai teaches wherein the control device limits the turning speed when the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body exceeds a predetermined speed. (see at least Abstract Fig. 4 [0010-0012, 0024, 0041-0086]: The controller calculates a target slewing angular velocity (ωo) in correspondence with the remaining slewing angle to a predetermined stop angular position. The target slewing angular velocity is decreased (i.e. limited) proportionally to the decrease in the remaining slewing angle. When the slewing upper structure reaches the stop angular position, the controller resets the target slewing angular velocity to zero to reliably prevent further slewing beyond the permissible area. The control valve is actively regulated to generate only the target slewing angular velocity regardless of the control lever operation (that is, the controller overrides lever input and limits speed according to the programmed control logic). Examiner notes that although Kawai does not use the exact wording “limit the turning speed when the speed exceeds a predetermined speed”, Kawai clearly teaches a control strategy where the controller computes a desired/target turning speed based on a predetermined target orientation and remaining angle to that orientation, the controller actively restricts the actual slewing speed to that target speed through control valve commands even if the operator continues to input command for higher speed; and the controller forces the target angular velocity zero when reaching the stop position which effectively limiting the turning speed to prevent overshoot.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straight facing control system of Ito’s excavator to incorporate the technique of limiting the turning speed when the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body exceeds a predetermined speed as taught by Kawai with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system and method that improves slewing type work machine’s turning control toward a target orientation.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 2,
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined speed is obtained based on the turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work surface.
Kawai is directed to slewing stop control system and method for slewing type work machine, Kawai teaches wherein the predetermined speed is obtained based on the turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work surface. (see at least Abstract Fig. 4 [0010-0012, 0024, 0041-0086]: The controller calculates a target slewing angular velocity (ωo) in correspondence with the remaining slewing angle to a predetermined stop angular position. The target slewing angular velocity is decreased (i.e. limited) proportionally to the decrease in the remaining slewing angle. When the slewing upper structure reaches the stop angular position, the controller resets the target slewing angular velocity to zero to reliably prevent further slewing beyond the permissible area. The control valve is actively regulated to generate only the target slewing angular velocity regardless of the control lever operation (that is, the controller overrides lever input and limits speed according to the programmed control logic). That is, Kawai teaches a turning speed of the upper structure is obtained as a function of the remaining angle to a desired facing direction.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straight facing control system of Ito’s excavator to incorporate the technique of determining a turning speed of the upper structure as a function of the remaining angle to a desired facing direction as taught by Kawai with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system and method that improves slewing type work machine’s turning control toward a target orientation.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 2,
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the control device applies, to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to which the turning force is being applied, a turning force opposite to the turning force currently being applied to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body, when a difference between the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body when starting the facing control and the predetermined speed, is greater than a predetermined value.
Kawai is directed to slewing stop control system and method for slewing type work machine, Kawai teaches wherein the control device applies, to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to which the turning force is being applied, a turning force opposite to the turning force currently being applied to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body, when a difference between the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body when starting the facing control and the predetermined speed, is greater than a predetermined value. (see at least Abstract Fig. 4 [0010-0012, 0024, 0041-0086]: The controller determines a target (predetermined) slewing angular velocity based on a remaining slewing angle to a target orientation, compares the actual slewing speed with the target speed, and determines whether deceleration is required based on the magnitude of deviation between the two to determine a braking start timing and initiate deceleration when conditions indicate overshoot would occur. When the actual turning speed exceeds the target speed by more than an allowable amount, the controller initiates braking/deceleration control by regulating the hydraulic valve to apply a torque opposite to the current turning direction, thereby reducing the slewing speed and bringing the upper turning structure toward the target orientation. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straight facing control system of Ito’s excavator to incorporate the technique of applying a braking torque opposite to the current slewing direction when the actual slewing angular velocity exceeds a target angular velocity by more than an allowable amount as part of a deceleration control for positioning an upper turning body as taught by Kawai with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system and method that improves slewing type work machine’s turning control toward a target orientation.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the control device provides a report to an operator of the excavator, when the upper turning body is likely to exceed a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns. (see at least [0093-0113]: The machine guidance unit communicates to an operator through the display device or the sound output device, work information as a distance between a target work surface and a leading end of an attachment. The machine guidance unit calculates the distance between the bucket and the target work surface based on the acquired information, notifies the operator of the extent of the distance between the bucket and the target work surface via visual or audio output device.)
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1
Ito further teaches wherein the control device provides a report to an operator of the excavator, when the upper turning body exceeds a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns. (see at least [0093-0113]: The machine guidance unit communicates to an operator through the display device or the sound output device, work information as a distance between a target work surface and a leading end of an attachment. The machine guidance unit calculates the distance between the bucket and the target work surface based on the acquired information, notifies the operator of the extent of the distance between the bucket and the target work surface via visual or audio output device.)
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1, wherein the control device
Ito further teaches provides a first report to an operator of the excavator, when the upper turning body is likely to exceed a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns (see at least [0093-0113]: The information transmitting unit 53 transmits (notifies) various kinds of information to an operator of the excavator 100 through predetermined notification means such as the display device 40 or the sound output device 4. The information transmitting unit 53 may shorten the intervals between the intermittent sounds as the vertical distance decreases and may increase the intervals between the intermittent sounds as the vertical distance increases. Further, the information transmitting unit 53 may use continuous sounds and may represent the difference in the magnitude of the vertical distance by changing the pitch, intensity, or the like of the sound.) , and
provides a second report that is in a mode different from the first report to the operator of the excavator, when the upper turning body exceeds a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns. (see at least [0093-0113]: The information transmitting unit 53 transmits (notifies) various kinds of information to an operator of the excavator 100 through predetermined notification means such as the display device 40 or the sound output device 4. The information transmitting unit 53 may shorten the intervals between the intermittent sounds as the vertical distance decreases and may increase the intervals between the intermittent sounds as the vertical distance increases. Further, the information transmitting unit 53 may use continuous sounds and may represent the difference in the magnitude of the vertical distance by changing the pitch, intensity, or the like of the sound.)
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the control device turns the lower traveling body or the upper turning body in an opposite direction until the upper turning body faces the target work surface, when the upper turning body exceeds a position facing the target work surface when the lower traveling body or the upper turning body turns. (see at least Fig. 4A-B, 7-11 [0105-0113, 0179-0205]: The machine guidance unit 50 determines whether a front-face deviation is occurring based on the information on the target work surface stored in advance in the storage device 47 and the output of the positioning device P 1 as the orientation detecting device. The machine guidance unit 50 performs front-face control (upon determining a deviation exists and no obstacle exists) by outputting control command to control valves that cause the upper turning body or the lower traveling body of the excavator to be in a state of front-facing the target work surface.)
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Ito in view of Kawai teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the control device performs the facing control when an operation for turning the lower traveling body or the upper turning body is performed while a predetermined switch is operated, in conjunction with the target work surface being located below an operating element of the excavator for working on the target work surface. (see at least Fig. 4A-B, 7-11 [0105-0113, 0179-0205]: When the MC switch or the like is pushed down and the upper turning body is not turning in a direction in which the attachment moves away from the target work surface, the front-facing process is performed where the machine guidance unit 50 determines whether a front-face deviation is occurring based on the information on the target work surface stored in advance in the storage device 47 and the output of the positioning device P 1 as the orientation detecting device. The machine guidance unit 50 performs front-face control (upon determining a deviation exists and no obstacle exists) by outputting control command to control valves that cause the upper turning body or the lower traveling body of the excavator to be in a state of front-facing the target work surface.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667