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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/12/2024. Claims 1 - 9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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. JP2023-216248, filed on 12/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following title is suggested: Title currently says “Control System for Excavator and Excavator”. The word “Excavator” is recited twice. As the examiner, a suggestion to remove the second “Excavator” word would be appropriate.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “a control part configured to control the lower traveling body…” in the limitation “a control part configured to control the lower traveling body such that an inclination of a traveling direction of the excavator with respect to an inclined direction of the ground is within a predetermined angle.” invokes 112(f) as “control part” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the lower traveling body to be controlled.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim number “1” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of the lower traveling body is performed by a control part. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the controlling of the lower traveling body. The use of the term a control part is not adequate structure for performing the control of the lower traveling body because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term a control part refers to maybe a correcting part and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 mentions a “control part” but the specification discloses multiple types of control parts such as a communication control part and a display control part. It is unclear as to which “control part” is being referred to here. A correcting part is also mentioned in the specification that corrects a signal in order to cause the lower traveling body to perform control in respect to an inclined direction. Please specify as to what “control part” is doing this controlling. Figure 4 in the disclosure represents that this may be a software module of some type. As the examiner, a “control part” will be interpreted as any type of software module for the purpose of 112f.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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) 1 – 5, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”).
Regarding claims 1 & 9, Fujio discloses a control system for an excavator comprising:
the excavator including a lower traveling body, and an upper turning body mounted rotatably with respect to the lower traveling body ([0027] Fig. 1); The work machine (1) (excavator) includes a traveling body (5) (lower traveling body) and a swivel body (4) (upper turning body) that swivel 180 degrees.
an inclination recognition device configured to recognize an inclination of a ground on which the excavator is traveling; and [0048] The first detection unit (12) detects the posture of the main body. This first detection unit may be an inclination sensor. The posture of the main body (2) indicates an inclination of the body relative to an inclined surface. The inclination of the main body (2) indicates an angle of a surface. Therefore, the inclination of the surface (ground) is measured from the first detection unit (12) (inclination recognition device) on which the machine (1) is traveling on.
a control part configured to control the lower traveling body such that an inclination of a traveling direction of the excavator with respect to an inclined direction of the ground is within a predetermined angle ([0064], [0070], [0083] Fig. 3 - 4). Fujio teaches a controller (11) that controls the traveling body (5) (lower traveling body) based on threshold values which are inclination angles. A first threshold value would be an angle that is equal to or larger than 10°. A second threshold value would be an angle that is equal to or larger than 30° [0064]. Figure 3 shows that when an incline direction of the ground is above a certain threshold (predetermined angle), then the work machine (1) is prohibited and restricted from traveling in that direction where risk of tipping-over is possible [0083]. This constitutes as an excavator traveling in an incline direction with respect to being within a certain threshold inclination angle (predetermined angle).
Regarding claim 2, Fujio discloses the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein the control part controls the lower traveling body so as to make the traveling direction substantially parallel to the inclined direction of the ground ([0127], [0151], [0158] Fig. 8). The controller (11) controls the traveling body (5) [0083]. The controller (11) can also send information to the storage unit (21) (Fig. 2) which may create a table as shown in figure 8 where the controller (11) will make the inclined surface (ground) and the traveling body (5) (lower traveling body) substantially parallel to each other [0127], [0151], [0158].
Regarding claim 3, Fujio discloses the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein the control part prevents control of the lower traveling body for making the inclination of the traveling direction be within the predetermined angle, when an inclination angle of the ground is less than a predetermined threshold ([0064], [0083] Fig. 3 – 4). Figure 3 and 4 show how the work machine (1) won’t travel on a steeply inclined surface that is beyond a threshold value (predetermined angle). The controller (11) will prohibit travel of the work machine (1) if the risk of the work machine (1) tipping-over is great. A first threshold value would be an angle that is equal to or larger than 10°. A second threshold value would be an angle that is equal to or larger than 30° [0064]. As shown in figure 3, if the steeply inclined surface is too steep, then the work machine (1) will be restricted and prohibited from traveling that direction. This constitutes as preventing the traveling body (5) from a travel direction so that the traveling body (5) is within the predetermined angle.
Regarding claim 4, Fujio discloses the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein the control part controls the lower traveling body so as to make the traveling direction with respect to the inclined direction of the ground having a predetermined inclination angle be within the predetermined angle, when the ground is switched from a substantially horizontal plane to a surface having the predetermined inclination angle ([0077] Fig. 3 – 4). Fujio teaches on having a work machine (1) go from a level surface (horizontal plane) to an incline surface by determining whether the determination condition (inclination angle) is above a certain threshold value (predetermined inclination angle) [0064].
Regarding claim 5, Fujio discloses the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein while the excavator is traveling on the ground, when it is recognized that the inclination of the traveling direction with respect to the inclined direction is greater than or equal to the predetermined angle by information acquired by the inclination recognition device, the control part controls the lower traveling body so as to change the inclination to be within the predetermined angle [0083]. When the work machine (1) (excavator) senses that the determination condition is satisfied, determination condition being satisfied is when the inclination angle is above a certain threshold value (predetermined angle) [0064], the controller (11) will prohibit the work machine (1) from traveling in that direction. This threshold value, an angle of a certain degree, is obtained by the first detection unit (12) which may be an inclination sensor [0048]. The prohibition of the controller (11) preventing the traveling body (5) to travel up the steep threshold value constitutes as the controller (11) controlling the traveling body (5) to change an inclination to be within a threshold value because the work machine (1) will now travel in a direction that is within the threshold value.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”), and further in view of US20080000111A1 (hereinafter, “Green”).
20. Regarding claim 6, Fujio teaches the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a turning angle sensor configured to detect a turning angle of the upper rotating body, and a body inclination sensor configured to detect an inclination state of the upper rotating body, wherein [0052] A fifth detection unit (16) can acquire swivel angle information of the swivel body (4) (upper rotating body). This fifth detection unit (16) operates as a turning angle sensor because both measure a turning angle. The first detection unit (12) may operate as an inclination sensor that measures an inclination of the main body (2) which indicates an angle of a surface where the main body (2) is located and a tilt of the main body (2) in accordance with the angle of the surface where the main body (2) is located.
Fujio does not explicitly teach the control part calculates the inclination of the traveling direction of the excavator with respect to the inclined direction of the ground based on the inclination state of the upper rotating body and the turning angle.
However, Green teaches the control part calculates the inclination of the traveling direction of the excavator with respect to the inclined direction of the ground based on the inclination state of the upper rotating body and the turning angle [0019] - [0020]. Green explicitly uses inclinometers (36 & 38) measurements of the excavator (10) to measure the excavator’s (10) pitch and roll angles to calculate its orientation relative to the slope of the ground. This fundamentally ties the excavator’s chassis (11) (upper rotating body) inclination to the ground’s inclination. The first inclinometer (36) measures an angle of roll and the second inclinometer (38) measures an angle of pitch and then uses mathematical relationships [0024] – [0028] to determine the excavator’s chassis (11) orientation with respect to the direction of having no slope or a fall line of the slope. This means the excavator’s chassis (11) inclination state and turning angles are used to infer the ground’s slope.
Fujio and Green are analogous art because Fujio teaches having an fifth detection unit that can acquire a swivel angle as it rotates along with a first detection unit that can detect an inclination of the main body while Green teaches calculating a ground’s slope based on the orientation of the chassis and turning angles. One of ordinary skill would’ve been motivated to combine because together they produce a more complete and accurate understanding of both the direction of the upper rotating body is facing and how the excavator is tilted relative to a slope. This would enable better terrain adaptation, control, and navigation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Green to modify the teachings of Fujio to include the teachings of Green, to have better terrain adaptation as the excavator traverses.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”), and further in view of US20180163376A1 (hereinafter, “Redenbo”), and further in view of US20240068202A1 (hereinafter, “Gajic”).
22. Regarding claim 7, Fujio does not explicitly teach the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a storage medium configured to store map information of a predetermined coordinate system in which the inclination of the ground is expressed, and a positioning device configured to acquire position information of the excavator in the predetermined coordinate system, wherein
the control part recognizes an inclination angle of the ground on which the lower traveling body exists and the traveling direction of the excavator, based on the map information and the position information.
Redenbo teaches the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a storage medium configured to store map information…and a positioning device configured to acquire position information of the excavator… [0029], [0037] – [0038], [0046] The controller (46) may rely on one or more data maps relating to the operating conditions and the operating environment of the machine (10). The work site (100) map may be stored in the memory [0029]. This map data is created by the perception system (38) [0046]. A position sensor (28) is also present in Redenbo. This position sensor (28) is used to determine the position of the machine (10) within the work site (100).
Fujio does not explicitly teach …of a predetermined coordinate system in which the inclination of the ground is expressed,…in the predetermined coordinate system, wherein
the control part recognizes an inclination angle of the ground on which the lower traveling body exists and the traveling direction of the excavator, based on the map information and the position information.
However, Gajic teaches …of a predetermined coordinate system in which the inclination of the ground is expressed,…in the predetermined coordinate system, wherein ([0047] – [0048] Fig. 2L - O) Gajic teaches a visual map (29014) that may include a set of 3D data points to have a corresponding XYZ coordinate. The map having an XYZ coordinate means that inclinations and slopes can be illustrated/expressed in the coordinate system of the visual map.
the control part recognizes an inclination angle of the ground on which the lower traveling body exists and the traveling direction of the excavator, based on the map information and the position information ([0024], [0047] – [0048] Fig. 2L - O). An operational controller module (145) is used to control the earth-moving vehicle (170 or 175) based on information from the perception module (141) to determine information related to potential objects, obstacles, and slopes [0024]. Absolute coordinates relative to the position on the chassis whose absolute location may also be incorporated as to determine the location of the earth-moving vehicle (170 & 175) on the coordinate system of figure 2L (29014). Therefore because of this GPS system and LIDAR component, the position of the earth-moving vehicle (170 & 175), which encompasses the lower traveling body, can determine a traveling direction of the earth-moving vehicle (170 &175) (excavator) based on the visual map information that implements the XYZ coordinate system and the positional information of the earth-moving vehicle (170 &175) itself.
Redenbo and Gajic are analogous art to Fujio because Redenbo teaches on storing map information and positional information of the excavator in memory while Gajic teaches on having a 3D map with a XYZ coordinate system that obtains slope information along with positional information of the excavator. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve had the motivaton to combine Redenbo with Green because the references address complementary aspects of work-site modeling and machine operation. Their combination predictable improves the accuracy and usefulness of map-based control for an excavator. Redenbo already teaches storing and using map and positional information relative to a work site, but it doesn’t explicitly recite ground inclination or slope information within a defined coordinate system. Gajic on the other hand, teaches generating a 3-dimensional map in an XYZ coordinate system that explicitly represents slope and inclination angles of the area on which the excavator travels on. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that combining Redenbo with Gajic would yield a more complete and accurate work-site representation which would enable better prediction of the machine behavior on sloped terrain and improve safety especially since both operate in the same field and rely on compatible sensor derived spatial data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gajic to modify the teachings of Fujio to include the teachings of Gajic, to more accurately capture terrain inclinations/slopes for better machine behavior and improved safety.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”), and further in view of US20240068202A1 (hereinafter, “Gajic”).
24. Regarding claim 8, Fujio does not explicitly teach the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a spatial recognition device configured to detect a surrounding area of the excavator, wherein
the control part recognizes, from a detection result obtained by the spatial recognition device, a change of the inclination of the ground on which the excavator is traveling.
However, Gajic in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control system for the excavator according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a spatial recognition device configured to detect a surrounding area of the excavator, wherein [0047] A visual map of a surrounding environment may be generated by LiDAR (spatial recognition device).
the control part recognizes, from a detection result obtained by the spatial recognition device, a change of the inclination of the ground on which the excavator is traveling ([0024], [0047] Fig. 2L). The operational controller module (145) will control the earth-moving vehicle (170 & 175) based on data gather by the perception module (141) which uses LiDAR (spatial recognition device) to obtain this data. This LiDAR component also gather data to create the visual map (29014) which is a visual map that has XYZ corresponding coordinates which can detect slopes and inclinations in the ground. Therefore, the operational controller module (145) gets detection results (recognizes) from the visual map (29014) that displays slopes and inclination angles of the ground that is being traversed on by the earth-powered vehicle (170 & 175) which is generated based on the LiDAR component.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Fujio with the teachings of Gajic, to accurately obtain terrain data to further improve safety of the excavator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm 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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669