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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 6/25/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim 10 was canceled.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims now even more fully satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph” on 6/25/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. & 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. & 112(b) of Claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed “Without conceding the propriety of this rejection, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11, and 12 to incorporate the features of claim 10. Thus, this rejection is now moot, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection” on 6/25/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. & 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (B), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. & 101 of Claims 1-3 and 11-13 has been withdrawn.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “None of the limitations of the present claims are presented in "means plus function" or "step plus function." It is Applicant's intent that none of the claim limitations be interpreted under or in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6 or 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Nevertheless, Applicant has amended at least a portion of the claims to avoid an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6 or 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).” on 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the amendment did not change any portion of the claim in relation to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
(D) Applicant's arguments filed “Ishihara, whether taken individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious at least "a controller that determines a loading position, the loading position is a position of the work implement relative to the container in loading the loads into the container, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and the obtained information on the container," as recited in claim 1.” on 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (D), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Ishihara Fig. 13 included S10 acquires various types of information from various sensors, S20 determines dynamic characteristics (motion equation) based on the outputs of various sensors and S30 sets a target position which is a final arrival point (earth and sand release position) of the loading work at the pawl tip of the bucket 108. In particular, Para 102 disclosed “the support system control unit 40 illustrated in FIG. 6 acquires various types of information from various sensors (step S10). Specifically, posture information of the excavator 100 is acquired from the posture detectors 125 to 128 of the excavator 100, position and azimuth information of the excavator 100 is acquired from the self-position calculator 133, and load information of the front work device 101 is acquired from the load detector 129”; Para 103 disclosed “the support system control unit 40 determines dynamic characteristics (motion equation) based on the outputs of various sensors (step S20). Specifically, the dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 calculates the moment of inertia I of the front work device 101 based on the posture of the front work device 101 and the weight mBK of the earth and sand in the bucket 108 calculated by the load calculation unit 41, and determines the motion equation of Formula (1)”; and Para 104 disclosed “sets a target position which is a final arrival point (earth and sand release position) of the loading work at the pawl tip of the bucket 108 (step S30). Specifically, the target position setting unit 43 sets a target position for earth and sand release on the basis of the position xtr of the dump truck 200 from the self-position calculator 212 (see, for example, FIG. 8 )”. The examiner notes that the motion equation is determined based on the dimensions of the driven members 106, 107, and 108 of the front work device 101(dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement) which is utilized in combination with the position xtr of the dump truck 200 (the obtained information on the container) to perform the control input ud such that the pawl tip position of the bucket 108 approaches the target position yd for earth and sand release.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: information obtaining unit in claim 1, 12 and movement operation portion in claim 1, 11, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the specification paragraph 44-45, “Automation controller 100 is configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from an external information obtaining unit 110. External information obtaining unit 110 includes perception device 111 and a positional information obtaining device 112” and “Perception device 111 corresponds to an exemplary object sensor that detects an object around the main body of wheel loader 1”. Accordingly, the information obtaining unit is interpreted as a sensor. In the specification paragraph 124, “a revolving unit that supports the work implement, and a revolution operation portion that revolves the revolving unit, the revolution operation portion is encompassed in the "movement operation portion." The revolution operation portion is, for example, a revolution motor. The revolution motor may be a hydraulic motor or an electric motor”. Accordingly, the movement operation portion is interpreted as a hydraulic motor or an electric motor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishihara (US20230332374A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara teaches A system including a work machine, the work machine including a work implement, the system comprising:
an information obtaining unit that obtains information on a container into which loads carried in the work implement are to be loaded (Ishihara: Para 58 “The GNSS receiver 212 outputs a position, an azimuth, a moving speed, and the like of the dump truck 200, which are calculation results of the positioning calculation, to the truck controller 20”);
a controller (Ishihara: Fig. 6 Elements 40, 20, 43, 44; Para 70 “The target position setting unit 43 and the prohibited area setting unit 44 are mounted on the truck controller 20”) that determines a loading position, the loading position is a position of the work implement relative to the container in loading the loads into the container, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and the information on the container(Ishihara: Fig. 9B; Fig. 13 Element S10, S20, S30; Para 73 “The dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 calculates dynamic characteristics (model) of the front work device 101 of the excavator 100 in consideration of the weight of the earth and sand as a calculation result from the load calculation unit 41. For example, a motion equation can be adopted as the dynamic characteristics of the front work device 101. The motion equation when the bucket 108 is in the unloaded state can be derived in advance by acquiring the dimensions of the driven members 106, 107, and 108 of the front work device 101 and the moment of inertia of the front work device 101 in advance. The dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 is used as a function of adjusting a parameter of a motion equation derived when the bucket 108 is in an unloaded state on the basis of the weight mBK of the earth and sand as a calculation result from the load calculation unit 41”; Para 79 “The target position setting unit 43 sets a target position as a position to be reached by the bucket 108 of the front work device 101 in the loading work on the basis of the information on the position and azimuth of the dump truck 200 output from the self-position calculator 212. Specifically, the target position is set above the loading table 202 of the dump truck 200. Unless the size of the dump truck 200 is smaller than that of the excavator 100, the loading work of the excavator 100 is generally executed a plurality of times until the dump truck 200 transports earth and sand (cargo). In such a case, it is desirable that the set target position is appropriately changed according to the number of times of loading. For example, in the case of a dump truck having a size requiring loading work three times, it is desirable to set target positions at three different positions with respect to the loading table 202 as illustrated in FIG. 8 . For example, the first target position Pt1 in the loading work is set on the front side of the loading table 202, the second target position Pt2 is set on the center side of the loading table 202, and the third target position Pt3 is set on the rear side of the loading table 202”; Para 102“the support system control unit 40 illustrated in FIG. 6 acquires various types of information from various sensors (step S10). Specifically, posture information of the excavator 100 is acquired from the posture detectors 125 to 128 of the excavator 100, position and azimuth information of the excavator 100 is acquired from the self-position calculator 133, and load information of the front work device 101 is acquired from the load detector 129”; Para 103 “the support system control unit 40 determines dynamic characteristics (motion equation) based on the outputs of various sensors (step S20). Specifically, the dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 calculates the moment of inertia I of the front work device 101 based on the posture of the front work device 101 and the weight mBK of the earth and sand in the bucket 108 calculated by the load calculation unit 41, and determines the motion equation of Formula (1)”; Para 104 “sets a target position which is a final arrival point (earth and sand release position) of the loading work at the pawl tip of the bucket 108 (step S30). Specifically, the target position setting unit 43 sets a target position for earth and sand release on the basis of the position xtr of the dump truck 200 from the self-position calculator 212 (see, for example, FIG. 8 )”). ”); and
a movement operation portion that moves the work implement relative to the container(Ishihara: Fig. 12A-12D, 13; Para 69 “the support system control unit 40 as the control device of the loading work support system 1, schematically, performs calculation of predicting the trajectory of the front work device 101 (see FIG. 1 ) using the model (dynamic characteristics) of the excavator 100 in the loading work of the excavator 100 (see FIG. 1 ) on the dump truck 200 (see FIG. 2 ), calculates the control input under the constraint condition of avoiding the contact between the excavator 100 and the dump truck 200 using the prediction result, and controls the excavator 100 based on the calculated control input”; Para 115 “If YES is obtained in step S110, the support system control unit 40 converts the vector sequence U of the control input determined in step S100 into a control command, and outputs the converted control command to the excavator 100 (step S120). Specifically, the excavator control unit 61 converts the vector sequence U of the control input uf determined in step S100 into the pressure p according to the relationship of Formula (2). As a result, the hydraulic pump device 122 of the excavator 100 and each control valve of the control valve unit 123 are controlled according to each control command, and the front work device 101 can load earth and sand on the loading table 202 without contacting the dump truck 200”).
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is provided in the work machine(Ishihara: Fig. 5 Elements 10, 20, 30; Para 63 “The loading work support system 1 includes, for example, an excavator controller 10 that controls the operation of the excavator 100 (see FIG. 1 ), a truck controller 20 that controls the operation of the dump truck 200 (see FIG. 2 ), and a control controller 30”).
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein the container has a maximum loading capacity up to which the loads can be loaded a plurality of times, and the controller determines the loading position in each loading(Ishihara: Fig. 8; Para 79 “The target position setting unit 43 sets a target position as a position to be reached by the bucket 108 of the front work device 101 in the loading work on the basis of the information on the position and azimuth of the dump truck 200 output from the self-position calculator 212. Specifically, the target position is set above the loading table 202 of the dump truck 200. Unless the size of the dump truck 200 is smaller than that of the excavator 100, the loading work of the excavator 100 is generally executed a plurality of times until the dump truck 200 transports earth and sand (cargo). In such a case, it is desirable that the set target position is appropriately changed according to the number of times of loading. For example, in the case of a dump truck having a size requiring loading work three times, it is desirable to set target positions at three different positions with respect to the loading table 202 as illustrated in FIG. 8 . For example, the first target position Pt1 in the loading work is set on the front side of the loading table 202, the second target position Pt2 is set on the center side of the loading table 202, and the third target position Pt3 is set on the rear side of the loading table 202”).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 3, wherein the controller sets as the loading position in first loading, a position where an end of the work implement in the width direction is distant forward by a prescribed distance from a rear edge of the container(Ishihara: Fig. 8 and 9B; Para 79 “For example, in the case of a dump truck having a size requiring loading work three times, it is desirable to set target positions at three different positions with respect to the loading table 202 as illustrated in FIG. 8 . For example, the first target position Pt1 in the loading work is set on the front side of the loading table 202, the second target position Pt2 is set on the center side of the loading table 202, and the third target position Pt3 is set on the rear side of the loading table 202”).
As per claim 11, it recites A method of controlling a work machine having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
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 4-5, 7-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (US20230332374A1) in view of Kanai (US20230324928A1).
In regards to claim 4, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 3
Yet Ishihara do not explicitly teach wherein the controller sets as the loading position in first loading, a position where an end of the work implement in the width direction is distant rearward by a prescribed distance from a front wall surface of the container.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kanai teaches wherein the controller sets as the loading position in first loading, a position where an end of the work implement in the width direction is distant rearward by a prescribed distance from a front wall surface of the container (Kanai: Fig. 9 Element 201 and 204B; Para 79 “The loading zone 203 is calculated by the unmanned vehicle instruction section 313, using the reference position 201 and the orientation 202 as well as a tray width parameter 204 a, a tray front length parameter 204 b, and a tray rear length parameter 204 c, which are stored in the vehicle information management section 211 as the tray dimension of the unmanned vehicle 20. The tray front length parameter 204 b and the tray rear length parameter 204 c are parameters based on the reference position 201. The tray width parameter 204 a is a length from the reference position 201 as the center to the most protruding portion of the tray in the width direction. The tray front length parameter 204 b is a length from the reference position 201 to the front end of the tray, and the tray rear length parameter 204 c is a length from the reference position 201 to the rear end of the tray. These parameters are unique to each vehicle ID”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of Ishihara with the feature of wherein the controller sets as the loading position in first loading, a position where an end of the work implement in the width direction is distant rearward by a prescribed distance from a front wall surface of the container disclosed by Kanai. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “a mechanism that facilitates an operator of a loading machine to perform an effective work” (Kanai: Para 2).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Ishihara and Kanai teaches The system according to claim 4, and Ishihara further teaches wherein the controller determines the prescribed distance as a distance for prevention of the work implement from interfering with the container in loading of the loads into the container(Ishihara: Fig. 9-11; Para 81 “the prohibited area is set so as to surround the dump truck 200, it is possible to control the support operation of the excavator 100 for avoiding contact with the dump truck 200”; Para 83 “in a case where the dump truck 200 is moving, it is desirable to set the prohibited area to be wider than that at the time of stopping. For example, in a case where the dump truck 200 approaches a predetermined position by backward movement, as illustrated in FIG. 11 , the prohibited area is set to be wide behind the dump truck. As a result, even in a case where the dump truck 200 approaches the excavator 100, safety can be enhanced”).
In regards to claim 7, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 6, and Kanai further teaches wherein the controller determines the prescribed distance as a distance sufficient for the loads loaded in the container not to fall from the container(Kanai: Fig. 9 Element 201 and 204C; Para 79 “The loading zone 203 is calculated by the unmanned vehicle instruction section 313, using the reference position 201 and the orientation 202 as well as a tray width parameter 204 a, a tray front length parameter 204 b, and a tray rear length parameter 204 c, which are stored in the vehicle information management section 211 as the tray dimension of the unmanned vehicle 20. The tray front length parameter 204 b and the tray rear length parameter 204 c are parameters based on the reference position 201. The tray width parameter 204 a is a length from the reference position 201 as the center to the most protruding portion of the tray in the width direction. The tray front length parameter 204 b is a length from the reference position 201 to the front end of the tray, and the tray rear length parameter 204 c is a length from the reference position 201 to the rear end of the tray. These parameters are unique to each vehicle ID”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Ishihara and Kanai as in Claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Ishihara and Kanai teaches The system according to claim 7, and Ishihara further teaches wherein the rear edge of the container is located at a position lower than a front edge of the container(Ishihara: Fig. 10-11).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Ishihara and Kanai teaches The system according to claim 4, and Ishihara further teaches wherein
the work implement includes a bucket at a tip end(Ishihara: Fig.3-4 Element 108; Para 40 “The front work device 101 is an articulated type configured by connecting a plurality of driven members so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction. The plurality of driven members includes, for example, a boom 106, an arm 107, and a bucket 108. A base end of the boom 106 is rotatably supported in a vertical direction by a front portion of the upper swinging body 103”)and
the controller determines a position relative to the container, of a tip end of the bucket while the bucket is in a full dump posture(Ishihara: Fig. 12A-12D; Para 69 “the support system control unit 40 as the control device of the loading work support system 1, schematically, performs calculation of predicting the trajectory of the front work device 101 (see FIG. 1 ) using the model (dynamic characteristics) of the excavator 100 in the loading work of the excavator 100 (see FIG. 1 ) on the dump truck 200 (see FIG. 2 ), calculates the control input under the constraint condition of avoiding the contact between the excavator 100 and the dump truck 200 using the prediction result, and controls the excavator 100 based on the calculated control input”).
In regards to claim 12, Ishihara teaches A system including a work machine, the work machine including a work implement, the system comprising:
an information obtaining unit that obtains information on a container into which loads carried in the work implement are to be loaded(Ishihara: Para 58 “The GNSS receiver 212 outputs a position, an azimuth, a moving speed, and the like of the dump truck 200, which are calculation results of the positioning calculation, to the truck controller 20”); and
a controller that determines a target position, the target position being a position the work implement from which the loads are loaded into the container is headed, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and dimension information on a dimension in a fore/aft direction of the container(Ishihara: Fig. 9B; Para 73 “The dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 calculates dynamic characteristics (model) of the front work device 101 of the excavator 100 in consideration of the weight of the earth and sand as a calculation result from the load calculation unit 41. For example, a motion equation can be adopted as the dynamic characteristics of the front work device 101. The motion equation when the bucket 108 is in the unloaded state can be derived in advance by acquiring the dimensions of the driven members 106, 107, and 108 of the front work device 101 and the moment of inertia of the front work device 101 in advance. The dynamic characteristics calculation unit 42 is used as a function of adjusting a parameter of a motion equation derived when the bucket 108 is in an unloaded state on the basis of the weight mBK of the earth and sand as a calculation result from the load calculation unit 41”; Para 79 “The target position setting unit 43 sets a target position as a position to be reached by the bucket 108 of the front work device 101 in the loading work on the basis of the information on the position and azimuth of the dump truck 200 output from the self-position calculator 212. Specifically, the target position is set above the loading table 202 of the dump truck 200. Unless the size of the dump truck 200 is smaller than that of the excavator 100, the loading work of the excavator 100 is generally executed a plurality of times until the dump truck 200 transports earth and sand (cargo). In such a case, it is desirable that the set target position is appropriately changed according to the number of times of loading. For example, in the case of a dump truck having a size requiring loading work three times, it is desirable to set target positions at three different positions with respect to the loading table 202 as illustrated in FIG. 8 . For example, the first target position Pt1 in the loading work is set on the front side of the loading table 202, the second target position Pt2 is set on the center side of the loading table 202, and the third target position Pt3 is set on the rear side of the loading table 202”) and
a movement operation portion that moves the work implement relative to the container (Ishihara: Fig. 12A-12D, 13; Para 69 “the support system control unit 40 as the control device of the loading work support system 1, schematically, performs calculation of predicting the trajectory of the front work device 101 (see FIG. 1 ) using the model (dynamic characteristics) of the excavator 100 in the loading work of the excavator 100 (see FIG. 1 ) on the dump truck 200 (see FIG. 2 ), calculates the control input under the constraint condition of avoiding the contact between the excavator 100 and the dump truck 200 using the prediction result, and controls the excavator 100 based on the calculated control input”; Para 115 “If YES is obtained in step S110, the support system control unit 40 converts the vector sequence U of the control input determined in step S100 into a control command, and outputs the converted control command to the excavator 100 (step S120). Specifically, the excavator control unit 61 converts the vector sequence U of the control input uf determined in step S100 into the pressure p according to the relationship of Formula (2). As a result, the hydraulic pump device 122 of the excavator 100 and each control valve of the control valve unit 123 are controlled according to each control command, and the front work device 101 can load earth and sand on the loading table 202 without contacting the dump truck 200”).
Yet Ishihara do not explicitly teach determines a target position, the target position being a position the work implement from which the loads are loaded into the container is headed, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and dimension information on a dimension in a fore/aft direction of the container.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kanai teaches determines a target position, the target position being a position the work implement from which the loads are loaded into the container is headed, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and dimension information on a dimension in a fore/aft direction of the container (Kanai: Fig. 9 Element 201 and 204C; Para 79 “The loading zone 203 is calculated by the unmanned vehicle instruction section 313, using the reference position 201 and the orientation 202 as well as a tray width parameter 204 a, a tray front length parameter 204 b, and a tray rear length parameter 204 c, which are stored in the vehicle information management section 211 as the tray dimension of the unmanned vehicle 20. The tray front length parameter 204 b and the tray rear length parameter 204 c are parameters based on the reference position 201. The tray width parameter 204 a is a length from the reference position 201 as the center to the most protruding portion of the tray in the width direction. The tray front length parameter 204 b is a length from the reference position 201 to the front end of the tray, and the tray rear length parameter 204 c is a length from the reference position 201 to the rear end of the tray. These parameters are unique to each vehicle ID”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of Ishihara with the feature of determines a target position, the target position being a position the work implement from which the loads are loaded into the container is headed, based on dimension information on a dimension in a width direction of the work implement and dimension information on a dimension in a fore/aft direction of the container disclosed by Kanai. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “a mechanism that facilitates an operator of a loading machine to perform an effective work” (Kanai: Para 2).
As per claim 13, it recites A system including a work machine, the work machine including a work implement having limitations similar to those of claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuji (US20180135277A1) disclosed a position determination unit which determines a position of loading on a loaded vehicle based on a state of loading on the loaded vehicle, a display, and a representation control unit which has the display show loading guidance corresponding to the position of loading determined by the position determination unit for the loaded vehicle which is laterally viewed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/23/26
Prosecution Insights