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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/985,721, with an effective filing date of 12/18/2024. Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are currently pending. Claims 7-8 have been canceled. Claims 10-16 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Claim Objection section in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7, and subsequently withdraws objections to said section. However, based on the amendments, new objections are hereby made as detailed below.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 3 and 5 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing relative terminology in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7, and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-9 as being anticipated by Kurokawa et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. CN 111417757 A) [hereinafter referred to as Kurokawa], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Sano et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0011029 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Sano] has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues, see pp.7-10, that Kurokawa does not disclose the limitation circuitry configured to estimate presence and absence of a buried object in a ground based on… an excavation reaction force calculated during excavation of the ground by an excavation attachment of the excavator. However, Kurokawa discloses in pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction. Furthermore, Sano teaches in [0003] sentence(s) (s.) 1-2 that a shovel having an excavation attachment composed of a boom, an arm, and a bucket is known. This shovel calculates an excavation reaction force acting on the leading edge of the bucket from the posture of the excavation attachment.
Therefore this argument is moot.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kurokawa does not disclose the limitation based on information on an earth pile formed by the ground raised between the excavation attachment and a body of the excavator by the excavation, the information being detected by a sensor of the excavator. However, pg.2 ¶3 s.2, underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1 when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted and received which is construed as detecting a position and orientation of the buried object and is communicably coupled to the excavator. Furthermore, Sano teaches in Fig. 13 below where information on an earth mount is detected by a sensor, an image capturing unit D4, of the excavator.
Therefore this argument is moot.
Regarding independent claim 6, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, this claim recites similar features to claim 1 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 contains a typographical error where estimate presence or absence should be corrected to estimate a presence or an absence so to be in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. CN 111417757 A), hereinafter referred to as Kurokawa, in view of Sano et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0011029 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sano.
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa discloses:
A control device for an excavator (pg.4 ¶1 disclosure relates to an excavator and a management system of the excavator and Fig. 1 below), the control device comprising:
circuitry configured to estimate presence or absence of a buried object in a ground (pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 (see Fig.1 above) and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction) based on information on an earth pile formed by the ground raised between the excavation attachment and a body of the excavator by the excavation, the information being detected by a sensor of the excavator (see Fig. 8b below, which is demonstrative of the information of an earth pile formed between the attachment and the excavator body).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
569
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although the underground object detector as disclosed in Kurokawa is communicably coupled to the excavator as discussed above and the operator pressure sensors on pg.7 ¶7, that detect pilot pressure when the device is operated, it does not explicitly disclose:
an excavation reaction force calculated during excavation of the ground by an excavation attachment of the excavator; and
the information on an earth pile being detected by a sensor of the excavator.
However, Sano teaches in [0003] sentence(s) (s.) 1-2 that a shovel having an excavation attachment composed of a boom, an arm, and a bucket is known. This shovel calculates an excavation reaction force acting on the leading edge of the bucket from the posture of the excavation attachment. Further, see Fig. 13 where information on an earth mount is detected by a sensor, image capturing unit D4, of the excavator.
PNG
media_image3.png
565
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and object detection before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the excavator control device of Kurokawa, by incorporating the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings of Sano, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Sano in [0003] s.4, avoiding, by reducing the excavation depth, execution of an unnecessary excavating motion that would result in the bucket getting stuck.
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control a movement of the excavation attachment so as to avoid contact between the buried object and the excavation attachment in response to estimating the presence of the buried object (pg.7 ¶2 s.1 controller functions as a control device that controls the driving of the shovel, which is construed as controlling the movement of the excavation attachment so as to necessarily avoid contact with the buried object).
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to notify an operator of the excavator of the presence of the buried object in response to estimating the presence of the buried object (pg.7 ¶1 s.3 communication device T1 controls communication between the shovel PS and a device located outside the shovel and pg. 22 ¶11 s.2. device that outputs sound to a worker outside the cab).
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the presence or absence of the buried object based on at least one of the excavation reaction force calculated when the excavation attachment is moved along a predetermined trajectory to perform the excavation or the information on the earth pile formed by the ground raised by the excavation (pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 (see Fig.1 above) and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction; pg. 29 ¶1 s.1-4 where a track acquiring unit acquires a target track and intaking information, which is construed as a predetermined trajectory; and 29 ¶2 where the autonomous control unit operates the specific cylinders, which may necessarily provide reaction force calculations while the attachment is moved along the trajectory).
Regarding claim 5, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the presence or absence of the buried object based on at least one of the excavation reaction force generated when a bucket that is a part of the excavation attachment is moved in a direction approaching the body of the excavator to perform the excavation or the information on the earth pile formed by the ground raised by the excavation (pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 (see Fig.1 above) and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction and pg. 2 ¶3 s.2 underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1).
Regarding claim 6, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
A control device for an excavator (pg.4 ¶1 disclosure relates to an excavator and a management system of the excavator and Fig. 1 below), the control device comprising:
circuitry configured to estimate a position and an orientation of a buried object in a ground (pg.2 ¶3 s.2, underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1 when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted and received which is construed as detecting a position and orientation of the buried object and pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 (see Fig.1 above) and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction) based on information on an earth pile formed by the ground raised between the excavation attachment and a body of the excavator by the excavation, the information being detected by a sensor of the excavator (see Fig. 8b above, which is demonstrative of the information of an earth pile formed between the attachment and the excavator body).
Although the underground object detector as disclosed in Kurokawa is communicably coupled to the excavator as discussed above and the operator pressure sensors on pg.7 ¶7, that detect pilot pressure when the device is operated, it does not explicitly disclose:
an excavation reaction force calculated during excavation of the ground by an excavation attachment of the excavator; and
the information on an earth pile being detected by a sensor of the excavator.
However, Sano teaches in [0003] sentence(s) (s.) 1-2 that a shovel having an excavation attachment composed of a boom, an arm, and a bucket is known. This shovel calculates an excavation reaction force acting on the leading edge of the bucket from the posture of the excavation attachment. Further, see Fig. 13 where information on an earth mount is detected by a sensor, image capturing unit D4, of the excavator.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and object detection before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the excavator control device of Kurokawa, by incorporating the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings of Sano, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Sano in [0003] s.4, avoiding, by reducing the excavation depth, execution of an unnecessary excavating motion that would result in the bucket getting stuck.
Regarding claims 7-8, the Applicant has elected to cancel these claims and, therefore, they are no longer under consideration.
Regarding claim 9, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
An excavator comprising:
the control device according to claim 1 (pg.2 ¶3 s.2, underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1 when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted and received which is construed as detecting a position and orientation of the buried object and see Fig. 1 above);
a lower traveling body (see Fig. 1 above);
an upper slewing body mounted on the lower traveling body (see Fig. 1 above); and
the excavation attachment attached to the upper slewing body (see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, although Kurokawa discloses the use of control pressure sensors on pg.25 ¶8, an attitude of the excavation attachment detected by an attitude sensor of the excavator in pg.22 ¶10 s.2 the attitude of the excavation attachment is detected from the outputs of the boom angle sensor S1, the arm angle sensor S2, and the bucket angle sensor S3, and the excavation attachment including a boom driven by a boom cylinder, an arm driven by an arm cylinder, and a bucket driven by a bucket cylinder as displayed in Fig. 1 items 7-9, the reference does not disclose:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate the excavation reaction force based on an output of an excavation pressure sensor of the excavator, the excavation pressure sensor being configured to output at least one of a boom bottom pressure of the boom cylinder, a boom rod pressure of the boom cylinder, an arm bottom pressure of the arm cylinder, an arm rod pressure of the arm cylinder, a bucket rod pressure of the bucket cylinder, or a bucket bottom pressure of the bucket cylinder.
However, Sano is further relied upon to teach in [0029] s.3, cylinder pressure detecting device D5 includes a boom rod pressure sensor D5a, a boom bottom pressure sensor D5b, an arm rod pressure sensor D5c, an arm bottom pressure sensor D5d, a bucket rod pressure sensor D5e, and a bucket bottom pressure sensor D5f.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and object detection before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the excavator control device of Kurokawa, as already modified by the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings of Sano, by further incorporating the cylinder pressure detecting teachings of Sano, such that as the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings are considered within Kurokawa, the cylinder pressure detecting teachings are also considered.
Regarding claim 11, although Kurokawa discloses the use of control pressure sensors on pg.25 ¶8, an attitude of the excavation attachment detected by an attitude sensor of the excavator in pg.22 ¶10 s.2 the attitude of the excavation attachment is detected from the outputs of the boom angle sensor S1, the arm angle sensor S2, and the bucket angle sensor S3, and the excavation attachment including a boom driven by a boom cylinder, an arm driven by an arm cylinder, and a bucket driven by a bucket cylinder as displayed in Fig. 1 items 7-9, the reference does not disclose:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate the excavation reaction force based on an output of an excavation pressure sensor of the excavator, the excavation pressure sensor being configured to output at least one of a boom bottom pressure of the boom cylinder, a boom rod pressure of the boom cylinder, an arm bottom pressure of the arm cylinder, an arm rod pressure of the arm cylinder, a bucket rod pressure of the bucket cylinder, or a bucket bottom pressure of the bucket cylinder.
However, Sano is further relied upon to teach in [0029] s.3, cylinder pressure detecting device D5 includes a boom rod pressure sensor D5a, a boom bottom pressure sensor D5b, an arm rod pressure sensor D5c, an arm bottom pressure sensor D5d, a bucket rod pressure sensor D5e, and a bucket bottom pressure sensor D5f.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and object detection before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the excavator control device of Kurokawa, as already modified by the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings of Sano, by further incorporating the cylinder pressure detecting teachings of Sano, such that as the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings are considered within Kurokawa, the cylinder pressure detecting teachings are also considered.
Regarding claim 12, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 11, wherein the information on the earth pile formed by the raised ground includes information on a range of a left-side portion of the formed earth pile and a range of a right-side portion of the formed earth pile, the left- side portion and the right-side portion being located on a left side and a right side, respectively, of a center plane of the excavation attachment extending in a front-rear direction (pg.21 ¶8 a left sensor 70L attached to the left end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body, and a right sensor 70r attached to the right end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body and sensors that detect the inclination angle of the upper slewing body 3 about the front-rear axis).
Regarding claim 13, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 12, wherein the information on the range of the left-side portion of the formed earth pile is a left- side distance between a claw tip position of the bucket and a left end position of the formed earth pile in the front-rear direction, the left end position being a position of a left end of an edge of the earth pile, the edge being closer to the body of the excavator than to the bucket in the front-rear direction, and
the information on the range of the right-side portion of the formed earth pile is a right-side distance between the claw tip position of the bucket and a right end position of the formed earth pile in the front-rear direction, the right end position being a position of a right end of the edge of the earth pile (pg.21 ¶8 a left sensor 70L attached to the left end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body, and a right sensor 70r attached to the right end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body and sensors that detect the inclination angle of the upper slewing body 3 about the front-rear axis and Fig. 8 above where the distances between the claw tip position and the edges of the earth pile are determined, and the measuring along the left-right axis as opposed to the taught front-rear axis is construed to be a simple substitution regarding the determination of distances pertinent to the objective of the machine).
Regarding claim 14, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
The control device according to claim 12, wherein the information on the range of the left-side portion of the formed earth pile is a left- side width, the left-side width being a distance between the center plane of the excavation attachment and a position of a left edge of the formed earth pile in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction, and
the information on the range of the right-side portion of the formed earth pile is a right-side width, the right-side width being a distance between the center plane of the excavation attachment and a position of a right edge of the formed earth pile in the left-right direction (pg.21 ¶8 a left sensor 70L attached to the left end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body, and a right sensor 70r attached to the right end of the upper surface of the upper revolving body and sensors that detect the inclination angle of the upper slewing body 3 about the front-rear axis and Fig. 8 above where the distances between the claw tip position and the edges of the earth pile are determined, and the measuring along the left-right axis as opposed to the taught front-rear axis is construed to be a simple substitution regarding the determination of distances pertinent to the objective of the machine).
Regarding claim 15, although Kurokawa discloses the use of control pressure sensors on pg.25 ¶8 and circuitry is further configured to calculate the excavation reaction force in pg.2 ¶3 s.2, underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1 when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted and received which is construed as detecting a position and orientation of the buried object and pg.15 ¶6, Buried object pattern G13 is a pattern indicating the position and size of the buried object such that the buried pattern G13 includes buried pattern G13A based on buried data after correction based on the detection value of underground object detector E1 (see Fig.1 above) and buried pattern G13B based on buried data before correction, the reference does not explicitly disclose:
acting in a slewing direction of an upper slewing body of the excavator based on an output of an excavation pressure sensor configured to detect a slewing pressure of a slewing hydraulic motor configured to drive the upper slewing body.
However, Sano is further relied upon to teach in [0040] s.3, the boom cylinder 7, the arm cylinder 8, the bucket cylinder 9, the left traveling hydraulic motor 1A, the right traveling hydraulic motor 1B, and the turning hydraulic motor 2A are collectively referred to as “hydraulic actuators”. Further in [0062] s.2, the operation details detecting device 29 detects the direction of operation and the amount of operation of a lever or a pedal of the operating apparatus 26 for a corresponding hydraulic actuator in the form of pressure, and outputs the detected value to the controller. This is construed as incorporating the slewing, or turning, pressure from the slewing hydraulic pump in the excavation reaction force calculations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of excavator controls and object detection before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the excavator control device of Kurokawa, as already modified by the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings of Sano, by further incorporating the turning cylinder pressure detection teachings of Sano, such that as the reaction force sensing and earth pile detection teachings are considered within Kurokawa, the turning cylinder pressure detection teachings are also considered.
Regarding claim 16, Kurokawa, as modified by Sano, discloses:
An excavator comprising:
the control device according to claim 6 (pg.2 ¶3 s.2, underground object detector E1 derives the position and size of the underground object U1 from a plurality of combinations of the position of the underground object detector E1 and the distance between the underground object detector E1 and the underground object U1 when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted and received which is construed as detecting a position and orientation of the buried object and see Fig. 1 above);
a lower traveling body (see Fig. 1 above);
an upper slewing body mounted on the lower traveling body (see Fig. 1 above); and
the excavation attachment attached to the upper slewing body (see Fig. 1 above).
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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 D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights