DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 2 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites in part:
“the information on the excavation operation performed by the attachment for the constructing object at the work site”. This lacks antecedent basis.
The intended antecedent basis may be the phrase in claim 1 that reads:
“information related to an excavation operation performed by the attachment with respect to a constructing object at a work site”.
For examination purposes, the phrase quoted above from claim 2 will be interpreted as having antecedent basis to the phrase quoted above from claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claim is independent or dependent. The claim recites:
A shovel, comprising:
the control device for the shovel according to claim 1;
the lower traveling body;
the upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body; and
the attachment attached to the upper swivel body.
The fee worksheet received December 23, 2024 lists one independent claim, apparently referring to claim 1. But claim 6 is ambiguous regarding whether it is independent or dependent. By reciting at the beginning of the claim: “A shovel comprising”, the claim implies it is independent. But by then adding “of claim 1” the claim implies it is dependent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make the claim unclear regarding its dependency.
If the applicant wishes to make claim 6 a clearly independent claim, the examiner recommends cutting and pasting limitations of claim 1 into claim 6 in a way to reference those items and remove the phrase “of claim 1”. For examination purposes, that is how claim 6 will be interpreted. The fee worksheet should also be redone if two independent claims are recited.
Claim 6 for examination purposes, will be interpreted as follows:
A shovel, comprising:
a control device for the shovel , wherein
the control device for the shovel is configured to
repeatedly calculate an excavation reactive force based on information related to an excavation operation performed by the attachment with respect to a constructing object at a work site,
set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated during one or more excavation operations, each being the excavation operation, and
support each excavation operation performed after the target value related to the excavation reactive force is set based on the target value related to the excavation reactive force;
the shovel including
a lower traveling body;
a upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body; and
a attachment attached to the upper swivel body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartsch et al. (US2018/0179732) in view of Shenzhen (CN111305293A).
Regarding claim 1, Bartsch teaches:
A control device for a shovel including a lower traveling body, an upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body, and an attachment attached to the upper swivel body (see Fig. 3b and paragraph 0019 for the “loading machine 26” being not limited to what is drawn but including “any other such machines.” The examiner maintains that the loading machine 26 in Fig. 3b does include these parts and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand any other such loading machine to comprise the machine that looks that the one in Fig. 1 of the present disclosure. See paragraph 0034 for the controller 78.), wherein
the control device for the shovel is configured to
repeatedly calculate an excavation reactive force based on information related to an excavation operation performed by the attachment with respect to a constructing object at a work site (in the present disclosure, see page 26 for the beginning of the discussion of the “excavation reactive force”. According to page 26, the “excavation reactive force…is a force in a direction opposite to that of the excavation force”. According to page 27 it is found “by using a predetermined calculation formula.” This formula can relate to the excavation depth and the characteristics of the earth and sand, which can be input by the operator, for example, or automatically calculated based on sensors such as cylinder pressure sensors. See page 28 for the “information related to the excavation operation” including information “based on an image of the bucket”.
With that in mind, see Bartsch Fig. 5, step 114.).
Yet Bartsch does not further teach:
set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated during one or more excavation operations, each being the excavation operation, and
support each excavation operation performed after the target value related to the excavation reactive force is set based on the target value related to the excavation reactive force.
However, Shenzhen teaches:
set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated during one or more excavation operations, each being the excavation operation (in the present disclosure, see page 28 for “the target specifier 56” that is configured to “set a target value” related to the excavation operation. This determines “whether or not a predetermined excavation operation suitable for calculating the target value has been performed.” The system will then “set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated when the excavation is determined to be the predetermined excavation operation.” The information related to the excavation operation is related to the excavation amount, such as the amount of earth and sand taken into the bucket 6, which can be known based on an image of the bucket 6 captured by the camera S6F, or from an image of the ground showing the earth and sand removed. Or, according to page 29, the weight of the earth and sand in the bucket can be weighted using various sensors on the vehicle. According to page 29, the target value is a “target value of the excavation reactive force”. This implies that the units of the target value are in units of force. See pages 31-32 for the teaching that “the target specifier 56” may analyze “a plurality of excavation operations, and then set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system can say: I want the bucket to be at least 80% filled, set that as the target value. Furthermore, and importantly, the operator through the input device 42 can manually set the target value. See pages 13-14 for the input device 42 being located in the cab of the vehicle and receiving inputs from the operator of the vehicle. It can be a touch display.
With that in mind, see Shenzhen. To understand this, some discussion of the present disclosure and Shenzhen are required.
One focus of the present clause is setting the “target value”. The idea seems to be: Dig into some dirt and determine the reactive force. At some point “set” a force as the one you want. That one will then be repeated. But how does the system know which force to set? Claim 2 of the present disclosure answers that by saying: Set a force as the “target value” when a “predetermined excavation operation” that is “suitable for calculating the target value” has been performed. And how is that known? It is “based on” information related to an excavation operation performed by the bucket on the dirt, as recited in claim 1 in a broad reasonable interpretation. One way to interpret claim 2 is to say that it says: when the machine scoops a good full bucket of dirt, as detected by a camera or weight sensor, recognize that as a “suitable” “excavation operation” from which to obtain a “target value”. Then “set” that target value. The last clause of claim 1 kind of says: use that target value to “support” subsequent excavation operations.
What does the setting of the target value in the present disclosure? Does a vehicle operator in the cab see a picture of the filled bucket and press a button to confirm that the filled bucket should be set as a “target value”? Does the controller automatically consider forces or images and set the value based on some threshold or formula?
According to claim 1 “the control device for the shovel is configured to…set a target value”. It does this based on the excavation reactive force. And that excavation reactive force is itself “based on information related to an excavation operation,” which can be camera image data (see page 28 for the “information related to the excavation operation” including information “based on an image of the bucket”).
So, at least in one embodiment, the system digs a scoop of dirt; analyzes an image of it; and says: yes, that’s how much dirt I want from now on. Then the machine proceeds to dig that much repeatedly. There are also parts of the disclosure, namely pages 31-32, that say that the vehicle operator can use the touch display to manually input a target value. That still could comply with claim 1, since a controller is still in the loop.
Yet in another embodiment the system can automatically “set a target value” without human intervention. But this requires a standard by which to judge the image. The “yes, that’s how much dirt I want” is not randomly decided. One placed in the disclosure that discusses how this is decided is on pages 31-32. That section teaches that “the target specifier 56” may analyze “a plurality of excavation operations, and then set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system can say: I want the bucket to be at least 80% filled, set that as the target value. Furthermore, and importantly, the operator through the input device 42 can manually set the target value. See pages 13-14 for the input device 42 being located in the cab of the vehicle and receiving inputs from the operator of the vehicle. It can be a touch display.
This could be useful. For example, backhoes and other construction machines can switch out their buckets. If a smaller narrower bucket is attached, the operator may want to re-set the target value. To do that, the system may take an image of the bucket with dirt in it, determine that, for the size of that bucket, the bucket is at least 80% filled. The system may than set that percentage, or some weight associated with it, as the target value for future operations until the operator tells the system to re-evaluate the target value.
Although the present disclosure must have some standard upon which to set the target value, the present disclosure seems to be saying that, even if there is some standard, once the current bucket is approved, make that the new standard, i.e., set that as the target value and use that target value for the remainder of the operations.
So in the present disclosure, there could really be two standards. There is the one by which the target value is initially judged, and there is the target value itself once it becomes the standard, or target value.
How does present claim 1 relate to Shenzhen? In Shenzhen, on page 4 of the attached English translation, there is a table of “grades”. As can be seen, grade 8 is for a bucket that is 80-90 percent filled. Grade 9 is a bucket that is > 90 percent filed. The system compares a current image to prestored images to determine if the current images is at least a grade 8. If so, the system accepts that load as meeting the target.
The system and method of Shenzhen works as follows, as seen in Fig. 2, as described on page 4 of the attached English translation:
In S2, the camera photographs the “full-load condition of the bucket and sends the pictures to the controller”.
In S3, the neural network compares the picture to a full-load condition of the bucket “so as to grade the full-load degree of the earthwork in the bucket”.
If the bucket is “less than 8 levels,” meaning less than grade 8, then the method “proceeds to S5”. In S5, “the bucket is filled with more soil” and compared again in S3.
If the bucket is “greater than or equal to level 8, the operation proceeds to S6.” In S6, the system will repeat the operation to dig more soil (unless the ground has been leveled to the desired amount). As previously mentioned, if the bucket is at grade 8 or above, it meets the standard.
As already explained, the present disclosure, the “target value” must be confirmed in some way. According to pages 31-32, a human operator can manually input a target value. Or, the target value can be “preset.” The present disclosure states that the system can “set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system has a “preset” standard that the bucket must be 80% filled. The system then only has to look at the bucket to determine if that standard is achieved. The system must know somehow what nearly full bucket of dirt looks like. Perhaps it uses a neural network just like Shenzhen to compare previously stored images of buckets with dirt to the current image of the bucket with dirt.
It is possible that there might be some differences between the present disclosure and Shenzhen. The present disclosure sometimes suggests something along the lines of a current bucket load as a target value, while in Shenzhen it seems that the past bucket images are used for setting the standard. But that becomes much less distinct when the present disclosure teaches that the “target value” can be “preset” or manually input. Preset or manually input data is not related to current data. Rather, that preset standard judges a current bucket by a past, even if recently-entered, standard.), and
support each excavation operation performed after the target value related to the excavation reactive force is set based on the target value related to the excavation reactive force (in the present disclosure, see page 32 for this “support” including a notification to the operator that the shovel 100 has reached a value related to the excavation reactive force. Recall also that at the beginning of the disclosure, it stated that sometimes the bucket can be underground and out of site of the operator.
With that in mind, see Shenzhen, pages 31-32 for the system setting a target grade for the bucket, as discussed in the previous bullet. If the current bucket load is greater than or equal to that grade then the system will ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bartsch, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Shenzhen. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the workload of the driver, as recognized by Shenzhen (see Abstract).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, Bartsch teaches in Fig. 5, step 112 scanning the bucket of a hauling machine and determining the weight of the work inside using visual data, then using that to generate a loading sequence. Paragraph 0037 teaches using “the visual data set may display information indicating the payload body is empty, partially full, completely full.” Paragraph 0039 teaches scanning a payload bucket and then sending that to the operator compartment of the loading machine. Paragraph 0050 teaches that “The loading system controller 78 may analyze the payload body visual data set to determine the condition of the payload body 36 (i.e., empty, partially full, or full).” Shenzhen merely adds that the vehicle operator does not have to confirm the bucket load. Instead, a computer can do that.
Regarding claim 3, Bartsch and Shenzhen teach the control device for the shovel according to claim 1.
Bartsch further teaches:
The control device for the shovel according to claim 1, wherein
the control device for the shovel is further configured to notify an operator that a current excavation reactive force has reached the target value, in each excavation operation performed after the target value is set (see paragraph 0035 for the loading system controller 78 having a display output to the operator. See Fig. 4 for item 78 including module 105. See paragraph 00444 for module 105 including a payload monitoring module to collect data including load weight from sensors.).
Regarding claim 4, Bartsch and Shenzhen teach the control device for the shovel according to claim 1.
Yet Bartsch does not further teach:
The control device for the shovel according to claim 1, wherein
the control device for the shovel is further configured to automatically operate a predetermined actuator upon a current excavation reactive force reaching the target value, in each excavation operation performed after the target value is set.
However, Shenzhen teaches:
the control device for the shovel is further configured to automatically operate a predetermined actuator upon a current excavation reactive force reaching the target value, in each excavation operation performed after the target value is set (in a broad reasonable interpretation, this limitation could mean: automatically stop the bucket from moving, or automatically retract the bucket from the ground, when the current reactive force reaches the target value. With that in mind, see Shenzhen pages 4-5 for a system that fills the bucket until it passes the grade. When that happens, the method route to S6, in which the system raises the bucket “so that the bucket does not shovel any more”. The implication is that the bulldozer begins a new pass to take off another layer of soil, unless the current layer has reached the desired level. But if the bucket does not pass the grade, the method routes to S5 in which the bucket is further filled.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bartsch and Shenzhen, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Shenzhen. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the workload of the driver and promote working efficiency, as recognized by Shenzhen (see Abstract).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 6 (as interpreted), Bartsch teaches:
A shove (see Fig. 3b for item 50, which is a bucket according to paragraph 0020), comprising:
a control device for the shovel See paragraph 0034 for the controller 78.), wherein
the control device for the shovel is configured to
repeatedly calculate an excavation reactive force based on information related to an excavation operation performed by the attachment with respect to a constructing object at a work site (in the present disclosure, see page 26 for the beginning of the discussion of the “excavation reactive force”. According to page 26, the “excavation reactive force…is a force in a direction opposite to that of the excavation force”. According to page 27 it is found “by using a predetermined calculation formula.” This formula can relate to the excavation depth and the characteristics of the earth and sand, which can be input by the operator, for example, or automatically calculated based on sensors such as cylinder pressure sensors. See page 28 for the “information related to the excavation operation” including information “based on an image of the bucket”. With that in mind, see Bartsch Fig. 5, step 114.),
the shovel including a lower traveling body; an upper swivel body pivotably mounted on the lower traveling body; and an attachment attached to the upper swivel body (see Bartsch Fig. 3b and paragraph 0019 for the “loading machine 26” being not limited to what is drawn but including “any other such machines.” The examiner maintains that the loading machine 26 in Fig. 3b does include these parts and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand any other such loading machine to comprise the machine that looks that the one in Fig. 1 of the present disclosure.).
Yet Bartsch does not further teach:
set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated during one or more excavation operations, each being the excavation operation (in the present disclosure, see page 28 for “the target specifier 56” that is configured to “set a target value” related to the excavation operation. This determines “whether or not a predetermined excavation operation suitable for calculating the target value has been performed.” The system will then “set a target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated when the excavation is determined to be the predetermined excavation operation.” The information related to the excavation operation is related to the excavation amount, such as the amount of earth and sand taken into the bucket 6, which can be known based on an image of the bucket 6 captured by the camera S6F, or from an image of the ground showing the earth and sand removed. Or, according to page 29, the weight of the earth and sand in the bucket can be weighted using various sensors on the vehicle. According to page 29, the target value is a “target value of the excavation reactive force”. This implies that the units of the target value are in units of force. See pages 31-32 for the teaching that “the target specifier 56” may analyze “a plurality of excavation operations, and then set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system can say: I want the bucket to be at least 80% filled, set that as the target value. Furthermore, and importantly, the operator through the input device 42 can manually set the target value. See pages 13-14 for the input device 42 being located in the cab of the vehicle and receiving inputs from the operator of the vehicle. It can be a touch display.
With that in mind, see Shenzhen. To understand this, some discussion of the present disclosure and Shenzhen are required.
One focus of the present clause is setting the “target value”. The idea seems to be: Dig into some dirt and determine the reactive force. At some point “set” a force as the one you want. That one will then be repeated. But how does the system know which force to set? Claim 2 of the present disclosure answers that by saying: Set a force as the “target value” when a “predetermined excavation operation” that is “suitable for calculating the target value” has been performed. And how is that known? It is “based on” information related to an excavation operation performed by the bucket on the dirt, as recited in claim 1 in a broad reasonable interpretation. One way to interpret claim 2 is to say that it says: when the machine scoops a good full bucket of dirt, as detected by a camera or weight sensor, recognize that as a “suitable” “excavation operation” from which to obtain a “target value”. Then “set” that target value. The last clause of claim 1 kind of says: use that target value to “support” subsequent excavation operations.
What does the setting of the target value in the present disclosure? Does a vehicle operator in the cab see a picture of the filled bucket and press a button to confirm that the filled bucket should be set as a “target value”? Does the controller automatically consider forces or images and set the value based on some threshold or formula?
According to claim 1 “the control device for the shovel is configured to…set a target value”. It does this based on the excavation reactive force. And that excavation reactive force is itself “based on information related to an excavation operation,” which can be camera image data (see page 28 for the “information related to the excavation operation” including information “based on an image of the bucket”).
So, at least in one embodiment, the system digs a scoop of dirt; analyzes an image of it; and says: yes, that’s how much dirt I want from now on. Then the machine proceeds to dig that much repeatedly. There are also parts of the disclosure, namely pages 31-32, that say that the vehicle operator can use the touch display to manually input a target value. That still could comply with claim 1, since a controller is still in the loop.
Yet in another embodiment the system can automatically “set a target value” without human intervention. But this requires a standard by which to judge the image. The “yes, that’s how much dirt I want” is not randomly decided. One placed in the disclosure that discusses how this is decided is on pages 31-32. That section teaches that “the target specifier 56” may analyze “a plurality of excavation operations, and then set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system can say: I want the bucket to be at least 80% filled, set that as the target value. Furthermore, and importantly, the operator through the input device 42 can manually set the target value. See pages 13-14 for the input device 42 being located in the cab of the vehicle and receiving inputs from the operator of the vehicle. It can be a touch display.
This could be useful. For example, backhoes and other construction machines can switch out their buckets. If a smaller narrower bucket is attached, the operator may want to re-set the target value. To do that, the system may take an image of the bucket with dirt in it, determine that, for the size of that bucket, the bucket is at least 80% filled. The system may than set that percentage, or some weight associated with it, as the target value for future operations until the operator tells the system to re-evaluate the target value.
Although the present disclosure must have some standard upon which to set the target value, the present disclosure seems to be saying that, even if there is some standard, once the current bucket is approved, make that the new standard, i.e., set that as the target value and use that target value for the remainder of the operations.
So in the present disclosure, there could really be two standards. There is the one by which the target value is initially judged, and there is the target value itself once it becomes the standard, or target value.
How does present claim 1 relate to Shenzhen? In Shenzhen, on page 4 of the attached English translation, there is a table of “grades”. As can be seen, grade 8 is for a bucket that is 80-90 percent filled. Grade 9 is a bucket that is > 90 percent filed. The system compares a current image to prestored images to determine if the current images is at least a grade 8. If so, the system accepts that load as meeting the target.
The system and method of Shenzhen works as follows, as seen in Fig. 2, as described on page 4 of the attached English translation:
In S2, the camera photographs the “full-load condition of the bucket and sends the pictures to the controller”.
In S3, the neural network compares the picture to a full-load condition of the bucket “so as to grade the full-load degree of the earthwork in the bucket”.
If the bucket is “less than 8 levels,” meaning less than grade 8, then the method “proceeds to S5”. In S5, “the bucket is filled with more soil” and compared again in S3.
If the bucket is “greater than or equal to level 8, the operation proceeds to S6.” In S6, the system will repeat the operation to dig more soil (unless the ground has been leveled to the desired amount). As previously mentioned, if the bucket is at grade 8 or above, it meets the standard.
As already explained, the present disclosure, the “target value” must be confirmed in some way. According to pages 31-32, a human operator can manually input a target value. Or, the target value can be “preset.” The present disclosure states that the system can “set the excavation reactive force corresponding to a desired excavation amount as the target value. In this case, the desired excavation amount, such as 80% or 90% of the capacity of the bucket 6, may be a preset excavation amount, or may be an excavation amount input through the input device 42.” This means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, that the system has a “preset” standard that the bucket must be 80% filled. The system then only has to look at the bucket to determine if that standard is achieved. The system must know somehow what nearly full bucket of dirt looks like. Perhaps it uses a neural network just like Shenzhen to compare previously stored images of buckets with dirt to the current image of the bucket with dirt.
It is possible that there might be some differences between the present disclosure and Shenzhen. The present disclosure sometimes suggests something along the lines of a current bucket load as a target value, while in Shenzhen it seems that the past bucket images are used for setting the standard. But that becomes much less distinct when the present disclosure teaches that the “target value” can be “preset” or manually input. Preset or manually input data is not related to current data. Rather, that preset standard judges a current bucket by a past, even if recently-entered, standard.), and
support each excavation operation performed after the target value related to the excavation reactive force is set based on the target value related to the excavation reactive force (in the present disclosure, see page 32 for this “support” including a notification to the operator that the shovel 100 has reached a value related to the excavation reactive force. Recall also that at the beginning of the disclosure, it stated that sometimes the bucket can be underground and out of site of the operator.
With that in mind, see Shenzhen, pages 31-32 for the system setting a target grade for the bucket, as discussed in the previous bullet. If the current bucket load is greater than or equal to that grade then the system will ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shovel, as taught by Bartsch, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Shenzhen. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the workload of the driver, as recognized by Shenzhen (see Abstract).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, Bartsch teaches in Fig. 5, step 112 scanning the bucket of a hauling machine and determining the weight of the work inside using visual data, then using that to generate a loading sequence. Paragraph 0037 teaches using “the visual data set may display information indicating the payload body is empty, partially full, completely full.” Paragraph 0039 teaches scanning a payload bucket and then sending that to the operator compartment of the loading machine. Paragraph 0050 teaches that “The loading system controller 78 may analyze the payload body visual data set to determine the condition of the payload body 36 (i.e., empty, partially full, or full).” Shenzhen merely adds that the vehicle operator does not have to confirm the bucket load. Instead, a computer can do that.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 are 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 and all other rejection can be resolved, such as 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.
Claim 2 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The control device for the shovel according to claim 1, wherein
the control device for the shovel is further configured to
determine whether or not a predetermined excavation operation suitable for calculating the target value has been performed based on the information on the excavation operation performed by the attachment for the constructing object at the work site (in the present disclosure, see page 61 for determining whether or not a “predetermined excavation operation” has occurred being related to whether or not the amount of earth and sand taken into the bucket is larger than a predetermined amount based on an image of the bucket. Alternatively, the weight of earth and sand may also be measured. ), and
set the target value based on the excavation reactive force calculated during the excavation operation determined to be the predetermined excavation operation.
One close prior art is Sano et al. (US2020/0011029), a Sumitomo disclosure, the same assignee as the present disclosure. Sano teaches the first hollow bullet point of present claim 2. The device in Sano digs automatically by making sure the toe of the bucket gets to the right dig depth.
But it is difficult to combine Sano with Bartsch and Shenzhen, which were used in the rejection of claim 1, because Sano uses a camera that detects a hole in the ground, while Bartsch and Shenzhen use cameras pointing at the heap of dirt in the bucket. See Sano figures below.
Other close prior art includes Bartsch et al. (US2018/0179732) and Shenzhen (CN111305293A). Both might be used to teach the first hollow bullet of present claim 2, but not the second hollow bullet.
5.
Claim 5 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The control device for the shovel according to claim 1, wherein
in each excavation operation performed after the target value is set, the control device for the shovel is further configured to automatically operate a predetermined actuator such that a point set at a predetermined portion of the attachment moves linearly until a current excavation reactive force reaches the target value.
In the present disclosure, see page 73 for moving the bucket toward the shovel after the toe has entered the ground to a desired depth, or moving the toe horizontally until “the current excavation reactive force teaches the target value.”
One close prior art is Leslie et al. (US2017/0350750). See paragraph 0093 for various points on the machine. See paragraph 0098 for determining a payload predetermined limit. But Leslie does not teach the limitations of claim 5.
Another close prior art is Matsumoto et al. (US2015/0275471). See paragraph 0119 for determining an automatic stop for the bucket and booms. But this is not related to performing this after a target force is reached.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sano et al. (US2020/0011029), Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
666
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sano et al. (US2020/0011029), Fig. 9.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sano et al. (US2020/0011029), Fig. 13.
PNG
media_image4.png
550
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sano et al. (US2020/0011029), Fig. 15
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Edara (US2014/0180444), a Caterpillar disclosure. Teaches at least what is shown in the figures below.
PNG
media_image5.png
1018
674
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Currier et al. (US20220325497). Mainly directed toward “tipping” material from the loader into the dump. Not digging out the material in the first place.
PNG
media_image6.png
392
706
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
904
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[0044] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method of bucket agitation. The method is performed by the tip-off controller 132 that controls activation of the lift cylinder 124 and the tilt cylinder 126 by way of a hydraulic system control signal 231 and a pressure signal 233. The display device 122 receives input and displays output information of the controller. The operator may input, via the display device 122, the type of material to be dug and loaded into the haul truck. In S301, the tip-off controller 132 may receive, at material-type input 205, the type of material to be loaded. In one or more embodiments, the type of material is an optional input. The operator may input the target weight of the material to be loaded into the haul truck 104. In S303, the tip-off controller 132 receives, at target weight input 211, the target weight of the material.
Mintah et al. (US2007/0260380). The “target weight” is the weight to fill the dump truck. Teaches calculating the “target bucket payload weight” during an “automatic loading algorithm”. Teaches that “sensors” are configured that “confirms when bucket 20 has been tilted to a tilt angle corresponding to a target partial bucket load.”
Hodel et al. (US2024/0384501). Teaches an operator can specify a “target load”. Teaches comparing the “determined bucket load to a target bucket load”. The “bucket load” can be the bucket 134 on the digger. See paragraph 0031 which recites “a target load, and/or other details of the material to be dug or dumped.”
PNG
media_image8.png
566
820
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See 0038 for “controller 152 may receive data from the payload monitoring system, which may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a hydraulic pressure sensor, and a bucket angle sensor, to determine the bucket load.”
[0031] Additionally, in some aspects, optional step 402 may include the operator specifying a material (e.g., type of material like soil, sand, rock, etc.), a material angle of repose (e.g., an angle of descent of a dumped pile of material in bed 108 of haul truck 106), a target load, and/or other details of the material to be dug and dumped.
[0038] Additionally, in other aspects, the spacing between successive dumps may be variable, for example, based on a calculated weight and/or volume of material in bucket 132 to be dumped into bed 108. For example, controller 152 may receive data (e.g., from one or more of machine body sensor 154, linkage assembly sensor 156, bucket sensor 158, perception system(s) 134, and/or a payload monitoring system), and based on the received data, may calculate or otherwise determine a bucket load. For example, controller 152 may receive data from the payload monitoring system, which may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a hydraulic pressure sensor, and a bucket angle sensor, to determine the bucket load. In another aspects, controller 152 may determine the bucket load or payload amount via a strain gauge sensor. Controller 152 may then compare the determined bucket load to a target bucket load and/or to a target load for bed 108 to determine a variable spacing. For example, if bucket 132 is underloaded compared to the target bucket load, then the spacing from the previous dump position may be less than a nominal spacing. Alternatively, if bucket 132 is overloaded compared to the target bucket load, then the spacing from the previous dump position may be greater than the nominal spacing. Furthermore, controller 152 may compare the determined bucket load to the target load for bed 108 and/or target number of dumps. Similarly, if the determined bucket load is a larger percentage of the target load, then the spacing may be greater from the previous dump position. Similarly, if the determined bucket load is larger than an average bucket load for a target number of dumps, then the spacing may be greater from the previous dump position. In any of these aspects, a variable spacing may help evenly distribute the load of the dumped material in bed 108.
Shatters et al. (US2021/0182753). Teaches setting a “target weight per pass”. This could be a 103 with Bartsch
See paragraph 0032 for “control device 216 may set one or more operating parameters of work machine 200 to perform a loading operation according to the work order data associated with the work order selection. For example, control device 216 may set a target weight associated with payload measurement device 212 according to an amount of material requested for haul machine 112. In some examples, control device 216 may set a target pass count (e.g., a number of implement passes needed to achieve the target weight), a target weight per pass (e.g., a weight per pass needed to minimize the pass count), a target volume of material requested for haul machine 112, and/or another operating parameter associated with a loading operation.”
Miller (US2019/0301143). Sees the figures below.
PNG
media_image9.png
688
544
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
518
760
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Brickner et al. (US 7845169 B2). Teaches “Following outputting of an initial drift compensation control signal, sensor 18 may continue to sense a position of actuator 18, and electronic controller 24 may continue to output subsequent drift compensation control signals to valve 32. The control signals may be flow rate/pressure control signals based on a comparison between the sensed position and the target position until a sensed position of actuator 18 is equal to or within an acceptable range of the target position. The target position for linkage 14, bucket 15, a load, etc. may be set by reading position signals from sensor 22, for example, responsive to activation of the drift compensation routine.”
Hoshino et al. (US2020/0041331). Teaches the figures below.
PNG
media_image11.png
452
706
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
614
416
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
526
706
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Abstract:
A controller (18) calculates, based on a target loading weight (P) that is a target value of a total weight of working objects to be loaded into a hauling vehicle, a set loading time number indicative of a loading time number required for the construction machine before the target loading weight (P) is reached and bucket shape information indicative of a shape of a bucket (7), an appropriate loading weight (Wa) that is an appropriate value of the weight of the working objects to be loaded into the hauling vehicle by a single time loading work by the construction machine, creates an appropriate amount illustration (30) that is an illustration of a state at which the working objects of the appropriate loading weight (Wa) are loaded into the bucket and that illustrates the state of the working objects, based on the appropriate loading weight (Wa) and the bucket shape information, and controls a display device (19) to display an illustration (29) of the bucket (7) and the appropriate amount illustration (30) in a superimposed relationship.
[0050] At step S111, the load calculation section 26 calculates an actual loading weight Wk on the basis of signals inputted from the posture sensor 101 and the pressure sensor 102, and at step S112, the value of the actual loading weight Wk is displayed as an excavation amount 33 on the display device 19.
Moriki et al. (US2019/0284783). Teaches determining an “excavation reactive force”.
Go (JP2013/002058A), a Sumitomo disclosure, teaches the figures below.
PNG
media_image14.png
286
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
588
500
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 is a control flowchart of the drilling operation of the controller 30 described above is performed. First, the drilling operation is started, in step ST1, whether or not the bottom side pressure Pb is greater than the boom cylinder 7 is determined rod-side pressure Pr of the boom cylinder 7 (step ST1). This determination is used to determine the bucket 6 is whether or not in contact with the soil. From above the sediment landing bucket 6 is turned (contact), because the reaction force of the sediment is transmitted to the boom 4, the rod-side pressure Pr of the boom cylinder 7, a larger value than the bottom side pressure Pb of the boom cylinder 7.
In step ST1, the rod-side pressure Pr of the boom cylinder 7, is determined to be (NO in step ST1) is not a value larger than the bottom side pressure Pb of the boom cylinder 7, the process proceeds to step ST2, the drilling reaction force I and (F = 0) zero. Then, the process returns to step ST1, it is determined again rod-side pressure Pr is equal to or bottom-side pressure Pb is greater than.
Since in step ST1, the rod-side pressure Pr of the boom cylinder 7, it is determined that (YES in step ST1) is a value larger than the bottom side pressure Pb of the boom cylinder 7, the drilling reaction force F is generated, processed I proceed to step ST3 is.
In step ST3, excavation reaction force is calculated by excavation reaction force calculation method shown in Figure 6 above. Subsequently, in step ST4, it is determined drilling reaction force is made whether or not the calculated first threshold value is greater than Fa. That is, I is determined in step ST4, the predetermined load is equal to or acts on the bucket 6.
In step ST4, it is determined that (NO in step ST4) excavation reaction force is Fa first threshold value or less, the process proceeds to step ST5. In step ST5, it is determined that it may continue the drilling operation of the normal predetermined load is not not act on the bucket 6, the process for calculating the excavation reaction force again returns to step ST3. On the other hand, in step ST4, excavation reaction force is judged (YES in step ST4) the first threshold larger than Fa, the process proceeds to step ST6.
In step ST6, assist operation by the motor generator 12 and is initiated, the discharge flow rate of the main pump 14 is increased. Then, in step ST7, it is determined excavation reaction force is equal to or a second threshold greater than Fb. In other words, I is determined in step ST7, bucket 6 whether or not there is overloaded.
In step ST7, it is judged (NO in step ST7) excavation reaction force is a second threshold less than Fb, the process returns to step ST3, after calculating the excavation reaction force again, the processing of step ST4 and subsequent repeat. On the other hand, in step ST7, excavation reaction force is judged (YES in step ST7) a second threshold greater than Fb, the process proceeds to step ST8.
In step ST8, the boom-up control is executed. Specifically, it is so that while continuing the closing movement arm, or to stop the drilling operation, it is possible to reduce the drilling reaction force F is shallower digging depth by increasing automatically the boom 4, can continue the drilling operation to.
After that, the process returns to step ST3 from step ST8, calculated from the excavation reaction force again, I repeat the process of step ST4 and subsequent. The above process is continuously performed drilling operation by lever operation of an operator is finished.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights