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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 4, 2025 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: movement processing unit (1112), as mentioned in Paragraph [0051] of the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “reference identification unit, configured to identify a height of a loading target”, “work implement position identification unit, configured to identify a height of the work tool”, and “operation signal output unit, configured to output” in claims 1 and 9, “operation signal output unit is configured to: output an operation signal” in claims 3-5, “work implement position identification unit is configured to: identify” in claim 6, “input unit, configured to receive an input” in claim 7, and “rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center” in claim 8.
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.
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 § 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 limitations “reference identification unit, configured to identify a height of a loading target”, “work implement position identification unit, configured to identify a height of the work tool”, “operation signal output unit, configured to output”, “operation signal output unit is configured to: output an operation signal”, “work implement position identification unit is configured to: identify”, “input unit, configured to receive an input” and “rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purpose of the prior art rejection below, the term “reference identification unit” has been interpreted a “object detecting device”, “work implementation position identification unit” has been interpreted as “bucket height calculating part”, the term “operation signal output unit” has been interpreted as “swing operation prediction section”, and the term “input unit” has been interpreted as “trajectory generation control part”.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed toward an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a control device for a loading machine which includes a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center and a work implement attached to a rotating body and a work tool in which the control device comprises a reference identification unit, work implement position identification unit, and an operation signal output unit which is configured to output a signal during an automatic control for the purpose of raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the work tool height is lower than the height of the loading target (a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is 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 the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control device for a loading machine including a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center, and a work implement attached to the rotating body and including a work tool, the control device comprising:
a reference identification unit, configured to identify a height of a loading target;
a work implement position identification unit, configured to identify a height of the work tool;
and an operation signal output unit, configured to output, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in
the human mind. For example, “identify” and “output” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at 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 the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, a control device is provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, this feature is a mere computer and does not give practical application to the identification and outputting steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be
patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of
the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2 and 4 use the limitation of “output an operation signal for rotating the rotating body toward the outside of the loading target”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 uses the limitation of “output an operation signal for raising a member of the work implement that supports the work tool”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 uses the limitation of “not output a signal for rotation, when the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading machine”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 uses the limitation of “identify, as the height of the work tool, a height of a lowest point of the work tool or a lowest point”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 uses the limitation of “receive an input of a start instruction of the automatic control from an operator”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 8,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed toward a control method for a loading machine which includes a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center and a work implement attached to a rotating body and a work tool in which the control method comprises identifying a height of a loading target, identifying a height of the work tool, and outputting a signal during an automatic control for the purposing of raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the work tool height is lower than the height of the loading target (a process). Therefore, claim 8 is 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 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and
will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
A control method for a loading machine including a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center, and a work implement attached to the rotating body and including a work tool, the control method comprising:
identifying a height of a loading target;
identifying a height of the work tool;
and outputting, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in
the human mind. For example, “identifying” and “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at 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 the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 8 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
For the purpose of the prior art rejections below:
the term “reference identification unit” has been interpreted to be an object detecting device.
the term “work implementation position identification unit” has been interpreted to be a bucket height calculating part.
the term “operation signal output unit” has been interpreted to be a swing operation prediction section.
the term “input unit” has been interpreted to be a trajectory generation control part.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180305902) in view of Narikawa, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12529203).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukamoto teaches: A control device for a loading machine including a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center, (Paragraph [0020]: "The hydraulic shovel has an upper turning structure (3) turnably mounted on a crawler traveling undercarriage (1) through a turning mechanism [rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center].")
and a work implement attached to the rotating body and including a work tool, the control device comprising: (Paragraph [0021]: "A boom (4) is attached to the upper turning structure (3). An arm (5) is attached to an end of the boom (4), and a bucket (6) [work tool] serving as an end attachment is attached to an end of the arm (5) [work implement attached to rotating body].")
a reference identification unit, configured to identify a height of a loading target; (Paragraph [0046]: "The object detecting device (25) [reference identification unit] is attached to the shovel. The object detecting device (25) measures a distance Ld between the shovel and the dump truck (60) and a height Hd of the dump truck (60) [height of loading target].")
a work implement position identification unit, configured to identify a height of the work tool (Paragraph [0052]: "The bucket height calculating part (30D) [work implement position identification unit] calculates a height Hb of the end of the bucket (6) based on detection results input from the boom angle sensor (S1), the arm angle sensor (S2), and the bucket angle sensor (S3) [calculations - identification of the work tool].").
Tsukamoto does not teach and an operation signal output unit, configured to output, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target.
In a similar field of endeavor (work machine movement parameters), Narikawa, et al. teaches: and an operation signal output unit, configured to output, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target (Col. 9, lines 55-60: "The swing operation prediction section (44) [operation signal output unit] predicts a swing operation performed when the hydraulic excavator (1) automatically performs a swing operation, on the basis of outputs from the operation sensor (52), the posture computing section (41), and the loading target position computing section (43) [automatic control for moving work tool from above loading target to outside of loading target]." ; Col. 14, line 56 to Col. 15, lines 1-6: "…the operations of the upper swing structure and the front work device are controlled on the basis of the prediction results of the swing operation and the operation of the front work device [automatic control] such that the swing operation of the upper swing structure starts after the work tool starts only the lifting operation, the lifting operation [raising work implement] and the swing operation are performed until the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position, only the swing operation is performed after the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position [beginning height of work tool is lower than height of loading target], […], and only the swing operation is performed until the work tool reaches the swing position of the passing position to pass through the passing position [work tool is positioned above loading target].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukamoto to include the teaching of Narikawa, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve interference prevention at the time of a loading operation for a work vehicle (Narikawa, et al. Col. 3, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 1, wherein the operation signal output unit is configured to: output an operation signal for rotating the rotating body toward the outside of the loading target, after the height of the work tool becomes higher than a height of the loading machine in response to the operation signal for raising the work implement (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0062]: "…trajectory of movement that follows a movement trajectory line (K1). That is, the bucket (6) is substantially vertically raised by the boom (4) from an excavation completion position (A) where excavation is completed to a bucket position (C) via a bucket position (B). The height of the bucket position (C) in this case is more than the height of the dump truck (60) [operational signal to raise the work implement]." ; Tsukamoto Paragraph [0080]: "In the excavating and loading operation, the position of the shovel and an excavating position may be higher than the position of the dump truck (60) [height of work tool is higher than height of loading machine]. In this case, the bucket (6) is at the excavation completion position (E). In this case, the operator moves the bucket (6) from the excavation completion position (E) to the loading position (D) to perform a loading operation [operation signal to rotate body toward outside of loading target].").
Regarding claim 3, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 1, wherein the operation signal output unit is configured to: output an operation signal for raising a member of the work implement that supports the work tool, as the signal for raising the work implement, when the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading machine (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0063]: "…The movement trajectory line (K2) is a trajectory line along which the bucket (6) travels the shortest distance to the loading position (D). Specifically, the bucket (6) is moved from the excavation completion position (A) to the loading position (D) via the bucket position (B) by boom raising and turning [operational signal to raise the work implement]." ; Tsukamoto Paragraph [0064]: "In the illustration of FIG. 6, the excavation completion position (A) is at a position lower than the bucket position (B), namely, a position lower than a plane in which the dump truck (60) is positioned [height of work tool is lower than height of loading machine].").
Regarding claim 4, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 1, wherein the operation signal output unit is configured to: output an operation signal for rotating the rotating body toward the outside of the loading target, when the height of the work tool is higher than the height of the loading machine (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0080]: "In the excavating and loading operation, the position of the shovel and an excavating position may be higher than the position of the dump truck (60) [height of work tool is higher than height of loading machine]. In this case, the bucket (6) is at the excavation completion position (E). In this case, the operator moves the bucket (6) from the excavation completion position (E) to the loading position (D) to perform a loading operation [operation signal to rotate body toward outside of loading target].").
Regarding claim 5, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 4, wherein the operation signal output unit is configured to: not output a signal for rotation, when the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading machine (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0076]: "…The specified height position HL of this embodiment is calculated to be lower than the height Hd of the dump truck (60) [height of work tool is lower than height of loading machine]." ; Tsukamoto Paragraph [0077]: "When the bucket (6) moves from the excavation completion position (A) to the bucket position (B) to reach the specified height position H.sub.L, the specified height calculation control part (30H) controls the pressure reducing valves (50L) and (50R) to decelerate the movements of the boom (4) and the upper turning structure (3). The movement of the arm (5) as well may be likewise decelerated [remove and not output rotation signal under specific condition].").
Regarding claim 6, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 1, wherein the work implement position identification unit is configured to: identify, as the height of the work tool, a height of a lowest point of the work tool or a lowest point of an operation range of the worktool (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0055]: "The bucket height Hb corresponds to the height of the end of the attachment (15) with the xy plane serving as a reference for height [height representing lowest point of work tool].").
Regarding claim 7, Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The control device for a loading machine according to claim 1, further comprising: an input unit, configured to receive an input of a start instruction of the automatic control from an operator (Tsukamoto Paragraph [0069]: "As yet another alternative, the trajectory generation control part (30G) [input unit] may semi-automatically control both the turning speed of the upper turning structure (3) and the rising speed of the boom (4) [automatic control from operator].").
Regarding claim 8, Tsukamoto teaches: A control method for a loading machine including a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center, (Paragraph [0020]: "The hydraulic shovel has an upper turning structure (3) turnably mounted on a crawler traveling undercarriage (1) through a turning mechanism [rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center].")
and a work implement attached to the rotating body and including a work tool, (Paragraph [0021]: "A boom (4) is attached to the upper turning structure (3). An arm (5) is attached to an end of the boom (4), and a bucket (6) [work tool] serving as an end attachment is attached to an end of the arm (5) [work implement attached to rotating body].")
the control method comprising: identifying a height of a loading target; (Paragraph [0050]: "The object position calculating part (30B) analyzes, for example, image data and millimeter wave data input from the object detecting device (25) to calculate the position of the object. Specifically, the object position calculating part (30B) calculates the coordinates (Ld, Hd) of the dump truck (60) illustrated in FIG. 3 [determination of height condition of loading target (dump truck)].")
identifying a height of the work tool (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0053]: "A method of calculating the bucket height Hb and the attachment length R is described with reference to FIG. 5. It is assumed that the boom (4), the arm (5), and the bucket (6) have a length (L1), a length (L2), and a length (L3), respectively. The angle (β1) is measured by the boom angle sensor (S1). The angle (δ1) and the angle (δ2) are measured by the arm angle sensor (S2) and the bucket angle sensor (S3). A height (H0) of the pivot center J from the xy plane is predetermined. Furthermore, a distance (L0) from the turning center K (the z-axis) to the pivot center J also is predetermined [method - determining bucket (work tool) height].").
Tsukamoto does not teach and outputting, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target.
In a similar field of endeavor (work machine movement parameters), Narikawa, et al. teaches: and outputting, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target (Col. 9, lines 55-60: "The swing operation prediction section (44) [operation signal output unit] predicts a swing operation performed when the hydraulic excavator (1) automatically performs a swing operation, on the basis of outputs from the operation sensor (52), the posture computing section (41), and the loading target position computing section (43) [automatic control for moving work tool from above loading target to outside of loading target]." ; Col. 14, line 56 to Col. 15, lines 1-6: "…the operations of the upper swing structure and the front work device are controlled on the basis of the prediction results of the swing operation and the operation of the front work device [automatic control] such that the swing operation of the upper swing structure starts after the work tool starts only the lifting operation, the lifting operation [raising work implement] and the swing operation are performed until the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position, only the swing operation is performed after the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position [beginning height of work tool is lower than height of loading target], […], and only the swing operation is performed until the work tool reaches the swing position of the passing position to pass through the passing position [work tool is positioned above loading target].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukamoto to include the teaching of Narikawa, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve interference prevention at the time of a loading operation for a work vehicle (Narikawa, et al. Col. 3, lines 21-24).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180305902) in view of Narikawa, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12529203) and in further view of Tsuchie (U.S. Patent No. 12345018).
Regarding claim 9, Tsukamoto teaches: A remote control device configured to remotely control a loading machine including a rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center, (Paragraph [0020]: "The hydraulic shovel has an upper turning structure (3) turnably mounted on a crawler traveling undercarriage (1) through a turning mechanism [rotating body configured to rotate about a rotation center].")
and a work implement attached to the rotating body and including a work tool, (Paragraph [0021]: "A boom (4) is attached to the upper turning structure (3). An arm (5) is attached to an end of the boom (4), and a bucket (6) [work tool] serving as an end attachment is attached to an end of the arm (5) [work implement attached to rotating body].")
a reference identification unit, configured to identify a height of a loading target; (Paragraph [0046]: "The object detecting device (25) [reference identification unit] is attached to the shovel. The object detecting device (25) measures a distance Ld between the shovel and the dump truck (60) and a height Hd of the dump truck (60) [height of loading target].")
a work implement position identification unit, configured to identify a height of the work tool (Paragraph [0052]: "The bucket height calculating part (30D) [work implement position identification unit] calculates a height Hb of the end of the bucket (6) based on detection results input from the boom angle sensor (S1), the arm angle sensor (S2), and the bucket angle sensor (S3) [calculations - identification of the work tool].").
Tsukamoto does not teach and an operation signal output unit, configured to output, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target to the loading machine.
In a similar field of endeavor (work machine movement parameters), Narikawa, et al. teaches: and an operation signal output unit, configured to output, during an automatic control for moving the work tool from above the loading target to an outside of the loading target, a signal for raising the work implement when the work tool is positioned above the loading target and the height of the work tool is lower than the height of the loading target to the loading machine (Col. 9, lines 55-60: "The swing operation prediction section (44) [operation signal output unit] predicts a swing operation performed when the hydraulic excavator (1) automatically performs a swing operation, on the basis of outputs from the operation sensor (52), the posture computing section (41), and the loading target position computing section (43) [automatic control for moving work tool from above loading target to outside of loading target]." ; Col. 14, line 56 to Col. 15, lines 1-6: "…the operations of the upper swing structure and the front work device are controlled on the basis of the prediction results of the swing operation and the operation of the front work device [automatic control] such that the swing operation of the upper swing structure starts after the work tool starts only the lifting operation, the lifting operation [raising work implement] and the swing operation are performed until the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position, only the swing operation is performed after the work tool reaches the height position of the passing position [beginning height of work tool is lower than height of loading target], […], and only the swing operation is performed until the work tool reaches the swing position of the passing position to pass through the passing position [work tool is positioned above loading target].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukamoto to include the teaching of Narikawa, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve interference prevention at the time of a loading operation for a work vehicle (Narikawa, et al. Col. 3, lines 21-24).
The combination of Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. does not teach a remote control device.
In a similar field of endeavor (work machine movement parameters), Tsuchie teaches: the remote control device comprising (Col. 3, lines 58-61: "Also, the operator operates the work machinery (309), the rotary body (310) and the traveling body (311) from remote via the operation input device (301) [remote control device].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsukamoto and Narikawa, et al. to include the teaching of Tsuchie based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of a work machine avoiding contact with abnormalities during movement (Tsuchie Col. 2, lines 7-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9822507) teaches an automatic adjustment method for the position parameter of a lift assembly implement in a work vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights