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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 22 May 2026. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/28/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 25 February 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 25 February 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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 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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2021/0262196 A1) in view of Saigo et al. (US 2020/0232185 A1 hereinafter Saigo).
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 hardware processor 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 hardware processor is further configured to
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach control 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,
limit thee turning speed in response to determining the turning speed exceeds a predetermined speed; and
place no limit on the turning speed in response to determining that the turning speed is less than the predetermined speed.
Saigo is directed to system and method for controlling a loading machine, Saigo teaches control 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 Fig. 5-9 [0072-0134]: The control device can appropriately control the braking force of the swing motor while the swinging body is swing, and can control the swing body to stop toward the target stopping azimuth direction.)
limit thee turning speed in response to determining the turning speed exceeds a predetermined speed; (see at least Fig. 5-9 [0072-0134]: The controller determines whether the swing speed of the swing body 120 is lower than a predetermined speed based on the vehicle information acquired. In a case where the swing speed of the swing body is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (step S 13 : NO), the controller acquires the remaining swing angle for stopping at the target location and controls braking of the swing motor based on the current swing speed of swing body and the remaining swing angle. ) and
place no limit on the turning speed in response to determining that the turning speed is less than the predetermined speed. (see at least Fig. 5-9 [0072-0134]: The controller determines whether the swing speed of the swing body 120 is lower than a predetermined speed based on the vehicle information acquired. In a case where the swing speed of the swing body is lower than the predetermined speed (step S13: Yes), the movement processing unit 1107 generates the swing operation signal for controlling the opening of the direction control valve 704 to the maximum opening (step S 16 ). That is, the turning speed is not limited since there’s no swing motor braking involved.)
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 and limiting a turning speed when a swing speed is above a predetermined speed as taught by Saigo with reasonable expectation of success to provide a loading machine control device and a control method for accurately controlling an azimuth direction in which a swing body faces when swing is stopped (Saigo [0006]).
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Ito in view of Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1, further comprising:
Ito further teaches an attachment attached to the upper turning body, the attachment including an end attachment, (see at least Fig. 1)
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to provide a report to an operator of the excavator in response to determining, based on a distance between the end attachment and the target work surface, that the upper turning body or the lower traveling body continues to turn to cause the upper turning body to exceed a position facing the target work surface. (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 Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to provide a report to an operator of the excavator in response to determining that the upper turning body has exceeded a position facing the target work surface as a result of turning the lower traveling body or the upper turning body. (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 Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1, further comprising:
Ito further teaches an attachment attached to the upper turning body, the attachment including an end attachment, (see at least Fig. 1)
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to provide a first report to an operator of the excavator in response to determining, based on a distance between the end attachment and the target work surface, that the upper turning body or the lower traveling body continues to turn to cause the upper turning body to exceed a position facing the target work surface. (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.) and
provide a second report in a mode different from the first report to the operator of the excavator in response to determining that the upper turning body has exceeded a position facing the target work surface as a result of turning of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body. (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 Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, in response to determining that the upper tuning body has exceeded a position facing the target work surface as a result of turning the lower traveling body or the upper turning body in a first direction, turn the lower traveling body or the upper turning body in a second direction opposite to the first direction until the upper turning body faces the target work surface. (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 Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
Ito further teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform the facing control in response to determining that an operation for turning the lower traveling body or the upper turning body is performed while a predetermined switch is operated and that the target work surface is located below an operating element of the excavator to work 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.)
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Saigo and Kawai et al. (US 2010/0264106 A1 hereinafter Kawai).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Ito in view of Saigo teaches The excavator according to claim 1,
It may be alleged that the combination of Ito in view of Saigo 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 teachings of Ito and Saigo 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 1,
It may be alleged that the combination of Ito in view of Saigo does not explicitly teach apply, to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to which the turning force is currently applied, a turning force opposite in direction to the currently applied turning force in response to determining that a difference between the predetermined speed and the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body at a start of the facing control is greater than a predetermined value.
Kawai is directed to slewing stop control system and method for slewing type work machine, Kawai teaches apply, to the lower traveling body or the upper turning body to which the turning force is currently applied, a turning force opposite in direction to the currently applied turning force in response to determining that a difference between the predetermined speed and the turning speed of the lower traveling body or the upper turning body at a start of the facing control 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 teachings of Ito and Saigo 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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Izumikawa et al. (US 2020/0291606 A1 hereinafter).
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
an attachment attached to the upper turning body, the attachment including an end attachment, (see at least Fig. 1)
a hardware processor 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 hardware processor is further configured to provide a report in response to determining, based on a distance between a coordinate point of a center of a claw tip of the bucket and the target work surface, that the upper turning body or the lower traveling body continues to turn to cause the upper turning body to exceed a position facing the target work surface. (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. The position calculating unit 51 calculates a coordinate point in the reference coordinate system of the leading end of the attachment, specifically, the working portion such as the claw tip or the back surface of the bucket 6. For example, the distance calculating unit 52 calculates the distance between the leading end of the attachment, specifically, the working portion such as the claw tip or the back surface of the bucket 6 , and the target work surface. The distance calculating unit 52 may calculate an angle (relative angle) between the back surface as a working portion of the bucket 6 and 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. Examiner notes that Ito discloses calculating a distance between a coordinate point in the reference coordinate system of the claw tip to a target work surface but not to the specific of “a distance between a coordinate point of a center of a claw tip of the bucket and the target work surface”, therefore, prior art Izumikawa is introduced for teaching this limitation.)
It may be alleged that Ito does not explicitly teach determining, based on a distance between a coordinate point of a center of a claw tip of the bucket and the target work surface,
Izumikawa is directed to straight facing control system and method for a shovel, Izumikawa teaches determining, based on a distance between a coordinate point of a center of a claw tip of the bucket and the target work surface, (see at least [0054-0065]: The machine guidance device 50 , for example, calculates the distance between the bucket 6 and the target construction surface based on the obtained information and communicates the distance between the bucket 6 and the target construction surface to the operator of the shovel 100 by at least either sound or image display. The machine guidance device 50 includes a position calculating unit 51 , a distance calculating unit 52 , an information communication unit 53 , and an automatic controller 54. The position calculating unit 51 calculates the coordinate point of the toe of the bucket 6 from the respective rotation angles of the boom 4 , the arm 5 , and the bucket 6 . The position calculating unit 51 may calculate not only the coordinate point of the center of the toe of the bucket 6 but also the coordinate point of the left end of the toe of the bucket 6 and the coordinate point of the right end of the toe of the bucket 6. The distance calculating unit 52 calculates the vertical distance between the toe of the bucket 6 and the target construction surface. The distance calculating unit 52 may calculate distances between the respective coordinate points of the left end and right end of the toe of the bucket 6 and the target construction surface (for example, the vertical distances) so that the machine guidance device 50 can determine whether the shovel 100 faces the target construction surface straight.)
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, based on a distance between a coordinate point of a center of a claw tip of the bucket and the target work surface as taught by Izumikawa with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the work bucket is facing the target work surface correctly and reducing annoyance at causing the shovel to face the target construction surface straight (Izumikawa [0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of prior arts Ito, Saigo, Kawai and Izumikawa taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitations):
at a start of the facing control, calculate the turning angle required for the upper turning body to face the target work surface and set the predetermined speed according to the calculated turning angle such that a first speed is set as the predetermined speed when the calculated turning angle is a first turning angle and a second speed is set as the predetermined speed when the calculated turning angle is a second turning angle, the first speed being higher than the second speed, the first turning angle being smaller than the second turning angle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights