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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0195690 to Wu et al.
As per claim 1, Wu discloses a work machine (Wu; At least the abstract) comprising:
a main body (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 36-38 and figure 1A);
a work implement that is attached to the main body and loads a load into a load container (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 39 and figures 1A and 13);
a work implement actuator that drives the work implement with respect to the main body (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 61-65); and
a controller that commands the work implement actuator to drive, based on a detected value of a position of the work implement and a detected value of a position of the load container with respect to the work machine (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 57, 121, 127, and 143), wherein
the controller acquires information about a loading status of the load in the load container, determines whether it is necessary to move the load in the load container, based on the acquired information about the loading status of the load, and operates, when determining that it is necessary to move the load in the load container, the work machine to move the load toward a center of the load container (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 191 and 192, and figures 8D and 8E; based on loading status, for example number of dumps or height of the load (paragraph(s) 259), the work machine moves the at least the load in the rear to the center of the load container).
As per claim 2, Wu discloses wherein the main body includes a travel unit (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 37),
the work machine further comprises a travel sensor that detects a traveling state of the travel unit (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 45), and
the controller commands the work implement actuator to drive, based on a detected value of the travel sensor and the detected value of the position of the load container with respect to the work machine (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 46, 120, 129, 143, and 259, and figure 13).
As per claim 6, Wu discloses further comprising a work implement attitude sensor that detects an attitude of the work implement, for determining the loading status of the load (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 40-42), wherein
the controller calculates the number of times the work implement has performed loading into the load container, based on the attitude of the work implement detected by the work implement attitude sensor, and determines whether it is necessary to move the load in the load container, based on the calculated number of times (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 192 and 245; the work machine operates autonomously and can move the load based on some number of dumping operations and, thus, would have to calculate the number of dumping operations).
As per claim 7, Wu discloses further comprising an object sensor that detects the loading status of the load loaded into the load container, for determining the loading status of the load (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 49), wherein
the controller determines whether it is necessary to move the load in the load container, based on the loading status of the load detected by the object sensor (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 127, 129, 247, and 259).
As per claims 8 and 9, Wu discloses the system and method (Wu; At least figures 1, 8, and 13) associated with the work machine of claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
As per claim 3, Wu discloses wherein when the controller determines that it is necessary to move the load in the load container, the controller operates the work machine to move the load toward the center of the load container (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 192)
Wu also discloses autonomously controlling the travel unit to travel forward (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 120 and 245) but does not explicitly disclose [move the load] by causing the travel unit to travel forward. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the travel unit in helping to move the load within the load container with a reasonable expectation of success. There are only two methods of moving loads with a work machine; moving the work implement and moving the work machine. Therefore, it would be obvious to and within the skill of one in the art to try both methods during routine testing and design. The work implement may not be long enough reach from a position or simply moving the work implement may cause an unsteady situation, and a combination of both methods may be necessary or easier in order to move the load in the load container.
As per claim 4, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein when the controller determines that it is necessary to move the load in the load container, the controller operates the work machine to move the load toward the center of the load container by causing the travel unit to travel forward while stopping the work implement actuator from driving.
However, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed one action at a time with a reasonable expectation of success. As seen in at least figures 1A, 5, 6, and 13 and paragraph(s) 38-42 and 80, work machines are large, complex, and difficult to operate. It would be obvious to one in the art to focus on control of one aspect of the machine, e.g., moving forward, while maintaining the other components, e.g., the work implement, stable with the motivation of ensuring safer and more reliable operation.
As per claim 5, Wu discloses wherein the work implement includes a bucket (Wu; At least figure 1A), and
when the controller determines that it is necessary to move the load in the load container, the controller operates the work machine to move the load toward the center of the load container by causing the travel unit to travel forward while keeping a height of the bucket (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 192 and figure 8D; the work implement traveling forward as discussed in claim 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm ET.
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 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
