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 the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 04/07/2026. Claims 1 - 11 were previously pending, of which claims 1 - 9 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 10 & 11 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 11 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 7 - 12, filed on 04/07/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112f, the amendments now render this interpretation moot, the amended claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f.
5. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b, the amendments now render this rejection moot. The amended claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
6. With respect to the rejection under 35. U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitation “and a control part hardware processor configured to control the lower traveling body such that to reduce an inclination of a traveling direction of the excavator with respect to an inclined to a direction of the incline of the ground is within on an inclined plane to a predetermined angle or less, the inclination being in a direction along the inclined plane.” as amended in claim 1, However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Doi did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
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 – 2, 5, 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220112693A1 (hereinafter, “Doi”).
Regarding claims 1 & 9, Doi discloses a control system for an excavator, the control system comprising:
the excavator including a lower traveling body, and an upper turning body mounted rotatably on the lower traveling body ([0022] Fig. 1); The working device (14) has a slewing frame (16), an engine room (17), and a cab (18) which all together constitute as an upper body on top of a lower traveling body (10). The slewing frame (16) can rotate about the horizontal axis making the slewing frame (16), an engine room (17), and a cab (18) an upper turning body.
an inclination recognition device configured to recognize an incline of a ground on which the excavator is traveling; and [0044] The hydraulic excavator (1) includes an inclination sensor (102) (inclination recognition device) that detects the ground surface angle in which the lower traveling body (10) is traveling on.
a hardware processor configured to control the lower traveling body to reduce an inclination of a traveling direction of the excavator to a direction of the incline of the ground on an incline plane to a predetermined angle or less, the inclination being in a direction along the inclined plane ([0060], [0069], [0071], [0076] Fig. 5). Doi teaches determining a relative angle between the longitudinal/travel direction of the hydraulic excavator (1) lower traveling body (10) and the inclination direction of a slope and further controlling travel operations based on that relationship. Doi explains that “…the hydraulic excavator (1) becomes more unstable as the relative angle α approaches 90°.”, thereby recognizing that traveling too sideways relative to the slope increases instability and rollover risk [0069]. To prevent this from happening, the hydraulic excavator (1) will reduce this relative angle. Doi further teaches calculating a “relative angle” between the lower traveling body (10) and the slope direction [0069] – [0070], comparing that angle to a threshold (predetermined angle), and restricting or suspending travel in directions that increase instability [0076]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Doi to teach controlling the lower traveling body (10) to reduce the angle between the hydraulic excavator’s (1) traveling direction and the incline direction of the ground to within a predetermined threshold angle.
Regarding claim 2, Doi teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the the lower traveling body so as to make the traveling direction substantially parallel to the direction of the incline of the ground ([0059], [0066], [0070] Fig. 3 - 4). Doi teaches determining a relative angle between the longitudinal direction of the lower traveling body and the inclination direction of a slope and further teaches that instability increases as that angle approaches 90°. By teaching that travel transverse to the slope is unstable and by restricting operation based on the relative angle [0070], Doi teaches controlling the lower traveling body (10) such that the traveling direction aligns wit, or becomes substantially parallel to, the direction of the incline of the ground in order to improve stability and reduce rollover risk.
Regarding claim 5, Doi discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to control the lower traveling body to reduce the inclination of the traveling direction to the predetermined angle or less, in response to determining, based on information acquired by the inclination recognition device, that the inclination of the traveling direction is greater than or equal to the predetermined angle while the excavator is traveling on the ground ([0043] - [0044], [0068] - [0070], [0076] Fig. 5). Doi teaches determining based on information acquired from inclination sensor (102) and contour sensor (101) data [0043] - [0044] whether a relative angle between the traveling direction of the lower traveling body (10) and the inclination direction of a slope exceeds a threshold value while the hydraulic excavator (1) is traveling [0068] – [0070]. When the threshold is exceeded, the restriction part suspends travel in directions increasing instability and permits travel in directions decreasing instability [0076], thereby controlling the lower traveling body to reduce the relative angle to the threshold or less.
12. Regarding claim 10, Doi teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to reduce an angle between the traveling direction of the excavator and the direction of the incline of the ground on the inclined plane to the predetermined angle or less, the angle being formed in the direction along the inclined plane ([0060], [0069], [0071], [0076] Fig. 5). Doi teaches determining a relative angle between the longitudinal/travel direction of the hydraulic excavator (1) lower traveling body (10) and the inclination direction of a slope and further controlling travel operations based on that relationship. Doi explains that “…the hydraulic excavator (1) becomes more unstable as the relative angle α approaches 90°.”, thereby recognizing that traveling too sideways relative to the slope increases instability and rollover risk [0069]. To prevent this from happening, the hydraulic excavator (1) will reduce this relative angle. Doi further teaches calculating a “relative angle” between the lower traveling body (10) and the slope direction [0069] – [0070], comparing that angle to a threshold (predetermined angle), and restricting or suspending travel in directions that increase instability [0076]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Doi to teach controlling the lower traveling body (10) to reduce the angle between the hydraulic excavator’s (1) traveling direction and the incline direction of the ground to within a predetermined threshold angle.
13. Regarding claim 11, Doi teaches the control system according to claim 10, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the lower traveling body to travel on the inclined plane with the reduced angle between the traveling direction and the direction of the incline of the ground [0060], [0067], [0076]. Doi teaches controlling the lower traveling body (10) during travel on an inclined plane based on a calculated relative angle between the traveling direction and the inclination direction of the ground [0060], [0067]. Doi further teaches restricting travel directions that increase instability and permitting travel directions that decrease instability, where instability is correlated with increasing relative angle between the lower traveling body (10) direction and the slope direction [0076]. Thus, Doi teaches causing the lower traveling body (10) to travel on the inclined plane with a reduced angle between the traveling direction and the incline direction of the ground.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Doi ‘693”), and further in view of US20220018095A1 (hereinafter, “Doi ‘095”).
Regarding claim 3, Doi ‘693 does not explicitly teach the control system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured not to control the lower traveling body to reduce the inclination of the traveling direction to the predetermined angle or less, when an inclination angle of the ground is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Doi ‘095 teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein the
hardware processor is further configured not to control the lower traveling body to reduce the inclination of the traveling direction to the predetermined angle or less, when an inclination angle of the ground is less than a predetermined threshold ([0089], [0091], [0106] Fig. 6). Doi ‘095 teaches conditionally executing stability or rollover prevention control only when a detected ground inclination exceeds a threshold value [0089], [0091], [0106]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the slope angle is below a threshold (ground is less than a predetermined threshold), the system refrains from performing the corrective control because the hydraulic excavator (1) is not in a hazardous condition.
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 Doi ‘693 with the teachings of Doi ‘095, to prevent unnecessary preventive control of the hydraulic excavator.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220112693A1 (hereinafter, “Doi”), and further in view of US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”).
Regarding claim 4, Doi discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to control the lower traveling body to reduce an angle between the traveling direction and the direction of the incline of the ground to the predetermined angle or less,… [0060], [0069], [0071], [0076] Fig. 5). Doi teaches determining a relative angle between the longitudinal/travel direction of the hydraulic excavator (1) lower traveling body (10) and the inclination direction of a slope and further controlling travel operations based on that relationship. Doi explains that “…the hydraulic excavator (1) becomes more unstable as the relative angle α approaches 90°.”, thereby recognizing that traveling too sideways relative to the slope increases instability and rollover risk [0069]. To prevent this from happening, the hydraulic excavator (1) will reduce this relative angle. Doi further teaches calculating a “relative angle” between the lower traveling body (10) and the slope direction [0069] – [0070], comparing that angle to a threshold (predetermined angle), and restricting or suspending travel in directions that increase instability [0076]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Doi to teach controlling the lower traveling body (10) to reduce the angle between the hydraulic excavator’s (1) traveling direction and the incline direction of the ground to within a predetermined threshold angle.
Doi does not explicitly teach …when the ground is switched from a substantially horizontal plane to the inclined plane having a predetermined inclination angle.
However, Fujio teaches …when the ground is switched from a substantially horizontal plane to the inclined plane having a 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].
Doi and Fujio are analogous art because Doi teaches by reducing the relative angle of the hydraulic excavator between the lower traveling body and the slope direction when a threshold condition is exceeded while Fujio teaches determining a level surface and an incline surface by determining if the surface is at an inclination above a certain threshold value. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Doi with Fujio because both references are directed to improving excavator stability and safe travel control on uneven terrain by evaluating the relation between the excavator orientation and the ground inclination state. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating the terrain state determination of Fujio into the directional control system of Doi would prevent unnecessary corrective steering or alignment control when the excavator is on relatively flat terrain while automatically activating the slope alignment control once the detected inclination exceeds a predetermined threshold.
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 Fujio, to modify the teachings of Doi to include the teachings of Fujio to improve operational efficiency and reduce unnecessary control intervention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220112693A1 (hereinafter, “Doi”), and further in view of US20220396932A1 (hereinafter, “Fujio”), and further in view of US20080000111A1 (hereinafter, “Green”).
20. Regarding claim 6, Doi teaches the control system 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,… [0025], [0046] Doi teaches a slewing sensor (104) that detects a slewing angle of the upper slewing body (12) (upper rotating body).
Doi does not explicitly teach …and a body inclination sensor configured to detect an inclination state of the upper rotating body, and
the hardware processor is further configured to calculate the inclination of the traveling direction based on the turning angle and the inclination state of the upper rotating body.
However, Fujio teaches …and a body inclination sensor configured to detect an inclination state of the upper rotating body, and [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.
Doi does not explicitly teach the hardware processor is further configured to calculate the inclination of the traveling direction based on the turning angle and the inclination state of the upper rotating body.
However, Green teaches the hardware processor is further configured to calculate the inclination of the traveling direction based on the turning angle and the inclination state of the upper rotating body [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 inclination of the traveling direction.
Doi, Fujio, and Green are analogous art because Doi teaches a slewing sensor that detects a slewing angle of the upper slewing body while Fujio teaches 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 Fujio and Green to modify the teachings of Doi to include the teachings of Fujio and 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 US20220018095A1 (hereinafter, “Doi”), and further in view of US20180163376A1 (hereinafter, “Redenbo”), and further in view of US20240068202A1 (hereinafter, “Gajic”).
22. Regarding claim 7, Doi does not explicitly teach the control system 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 incline of the ground is expressed, and a positioning device configured to acquire position information of the excavator in the predetermined coordinate system, and
the hardware processor is further configured to recognize 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).
Doi 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 Doi 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 predictably 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 Redenbo and Gajic to modify the teachings of Doi to include the teachings of Redenbo and 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 US20220018095A1 (hereinafter, “Doi”), and further in view of US20240068202A1 (hereinafter, “Gajic”).
24. Regarding claim 8, Doi does not explicitly teach the control system according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a spatial recognition device configured to detect a surrounding area of the excavator, and
the hardware processor is further configured to recognize, from a detection result obtained by the spatial recognition device, a change of the incline of the ground on which the excavator is traveling.
However, Gajic in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control system according to claim 1, wherein
the inclination recognition device includes a spatial recognition device configured to detect a surrounding area of the excavator, and [0047] A visual map of a surrounding environment may be generated by LiDAR (spatial recognition device).
the hardware processor is further configured to recognize, from a detection result obtained by the spatial recognition device, a change of the incline 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 Doi with the teachings of Gajic, to accurately obtain terrain data to further improve safety of the excavator.
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights