DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 1/15/2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to A system including a work machine, the work machine including awork implement (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system including a work machine, the work machine including awork 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; and
a controller that determines a loading position which 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.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “determines a loading position which 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” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining position based on gather data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system including a work machine, the work machine including awork 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; and
a controller that determines a loading position which 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.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an information obtaining unit” and “a controller”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, information obtaining unit recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as sensor performing a generic computer function of gathering data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Controller recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as controller performing a generic computer function of computing based on gathered data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtains information on a container into which loads carried in the work implement are to be loaded”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “obtains information” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add no thing that is nor already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an information obtaining unit” and “a controller” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of “obtains information on a container into which loads carried in the work implement are to be loaded”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “the controller is provided in the work machine” which is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “determines the loading position in each loading” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
As per claim 12, it recites A system including a work machine, the work machine including a work implement having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
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.
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.
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.
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)(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) 1-3, 6, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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”); and
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 which 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; 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”).
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”).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara teaches The system according to claim 1, further comprising a movement operation portion that moves the work implement relatively 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”).
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 to which 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”).
Yet Ishihara do not explicitly teach determines a target position to which 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 to which 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 to which 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.
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
3/23/26