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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/04/2025 and 07/14/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-9 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 04/04/2025:
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to due to reciting the following minor grammatical informalities: “an dumping action mode that dumps the object from the work device to the transport vehicle at the dumping position;” which should be amended to instead recite: “a dumping action mode that dumps the object from the work device to the transport vehicle at the dumping position.”
Claim 2 is further objected to due to reciting the following minor antecedent basis issues: “dumping action mode that dumps the object from the work device to the transport vehicle at the dumping position,” and “a returning action mode that returns the work device from the dumping position to the excavating position,” which should be amended such that they are consistent with the “predetermined dumping position” terminology introduced in a prior claim 4 limitation as follows: “dumping action mode that dumps the object from the work device to the transport vehicle at the predetermined dumping position,” and “a returning action mode that returns the work device from the predetermined dumping position to the excavating position.”
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, 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dongare et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0135036 A1) referenced as Dongare moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Dongare discloses:
“A work machine including a work device that acts according to operation of an operation device, and a controller that controls actions of the work device, the work machine comprising:” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a work vehicle (denoted 20 in Fig. 1) that comprises a controller (denoted 112 in Fig. 1) that comprises an input device such a s a joystick (denoted 116 in Fig. 3) to allow a human operator to perform at least implement control (denoted 128 in Fig. 3) to control operation of a work implement (denoted 42 in Fig. 1), wherein the disclosed work implement and input device have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "work device" and "operation device," respectively; Fig. 1, 3; ¶: 0031-0040];
“a state recognition sensor that senses a state of the work device” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a sensor system (denoted 104 in Fig. 3) that is used to "ascertain a work state and/or work load (step 414) for the self-propelled work vehicle 20, 120;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0048; See also: Fig. 1, 3; ¶: 0031-0040];
“wherein the controller is configured to predict a current action mode and a next action mode of the work machine from among a plurality of action modes that represent kinds of preclassified actions in the work machine, according to a sensing result of the state recognition sensor” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses that the controller determines a work state of the work vehicle by comparing the received sensor data to a series of predetermined work states. Subsequently, based on the determined work state, Dongare discloses that the controller predicts a next parameter or operation corresponding to the predicted work state; wherein the disclosed determined work state and next parameter or operation have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "current action mode" and "next action mode," respectively; ¶: 0007-0009];
“and start action control of the work machine by switching a control mode, the control mode representing a kind of action control of the work machine, to a control mode corresponding to the next action mode out of a manual operation mode that allows the work machine to act according to operation of the operation device and an automated operation mode that allows the work machine to automatically act without relying upon operation of the operation device, when the work machine is in a state of transitioning from the current action mode to the next action mode” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses that system recognizes a digging work state(denoted 902 in Fig. 9) and a subsequent swing to dump work state(denoted 904 in Fig. 9). The system then recognizes that the next required operation is to move the boom and the arm of the work vehicle to the recorded dumping location, which the system performs automatically(denoted 906 in Fig. 9) to place the work machine in the dump state(denoted 908 in Fig. 9). In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed dig state and dump state as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "current action mode" and "next action mode." Furthermore, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed automatic operation to move the boom and the arm of the work vehicle triggered by the operator input as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "switching a control mode" in which "allows the work machine to automatically act without relying upon operation of the operation device;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0060-0063].
With respect to claim 3, Dongare discloses: “The work machine according to claim 1, comprising: a lower track structure provided to be able to travel; and an upper swing structure swingably provided on an upper portion of the lower track structure, and provided with the work device to perform excavation and transport of an object” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Dongare discloses: tracked ground engaging units (denoted 24 in Fig. 1), which have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "lower track structure;" a main frame (denoted 32 in Fig. 1) attached to the tracked ground engaging units through a swing bearing (denoted 34 in Fig. 1), the combination of which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "an upper swing structure swingably provided on an upper portion of the lower track structure;" and the previously cited work implement (denoted 42 in Fig. 1); Fig. 1; ¶: 0031-0034].
With respect to claim 5, Dongare discloses: “The work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller presets the control modes, the control modes corresponding to the respective action modes, by inputs from an operator, and switches the control mode according to setting details and the predicted action mode” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses that the systems process of operations as presented in Fig. 9, for example, comprises automatic switching between manual and automated operations of the work machine based on identifying the current and predicted next state of the work machine using information recorded in advance, such as recorded excavation locations, as well as machine learning; Fig. 7, 9; ¶: 0051, 0052, 0060-0062].
With respect to claim 7, Dongare discloses: “The work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller switches the control mode from the automated operation mode to the manual operation mode until the current action mode is switched to the next action mode, when the operation device is operated while the control mode is the automated operation mode” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses switching from the moving to the dump location state(denoted 906 in Fig. 9), which is automated, i.e. the system is operated in an "automated operation mode," to the dump state(denoted 908 in Fig. 9), which is performed manually, i.e. the system is operated in a "manual operation mode", until the system receives the command to return to the excavation location, which is a further automated step(denoted 912 in Fig. 9); Fig. 9; ¶: 0052, 0060-0062].
With respect to claim 8, Dongare discloses: “The work machine according to claim 1, wherein the state recognition sensor includes a posture sensor, a vehicle sensing sensor, and a payload sensor that measures a weight of a material that the work device carries” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses an angle sensor for a boom/arm/bucket(denoted104L in Fig. 8), a ground plane position sensor(IMU)(denoted 104K in Fig. 8), and a payload weighing sensor(denoted 104J in Fig. 8), which have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "posture sensor," "vehicle sensing sensor," and "payload sensor," respectively; Fig. 3, 8; ¶: 0037, 0045, 0060].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dongare in view of Voelz (United States Patent Publication 2018/0066414 A1) referenced as Voelz moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Dongare does not specifically state: “wherein the controller switches the control mode out of the manual operation mode, the automated operation mode, and an assist mode that allows the work machine to semiautomatically act by intervening an action of the work machine while responding to operation of the operation device.”
Voelz, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods directed towards industrial work machines, teaches: “wherein the controller switches the control mode out of the manual operation mode, the automated operation mode, and an assist mode that allows the work machine to semiautomatically act by intervening an action of the work machine while responding to operation of the operation device” [Voelz; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Voelz teaches a mining machine that comprises control via a manual operating mode(¶: 0035), a semi-autonomous operating mode(¶: 0036), and an autonomous operating mode(¶: 0039)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) as disclosed by Dongare to incorporate the teachings regarding implementing all three of a manual operating mode, autonomous operating mode, and semi-autonomous operating mode in a work machine as taught by Voelz with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) that is more robust in its ability to maximize efficiency of industrial machines by enabling fully autonomous operation that not reliant on user intervention when unforeseen problems occur such as a stalling condition, for example [Voelz; ¶: 0003-0006].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dongare in view of Voelz and HATAKE et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0193588 A1) referenced as Hatake moving forward.
With respect to claim 4, Dongare discloses:
“The work machine according to claim 2, wherein the action modes include an excavating action mode that performs an excavating action to excavate an object by the work device at an excavating position” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a dig state in which digging work is performed at an excavation location(denoted 902 in Fig. 9); Fig. 9; ¶: 0052, 0060-0062];
“a loading action mode that moves the object, the object having been excavated by the excavating action” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a swing to dump state in which the material excavated in the dig state is moved to the dump location(denoted 906 in Fig. 9); Fig. 9; ¶: 0052, 0060-0062];
“an dumping action mode that dumps the object from the work device to the transport vehicle at the dumping position” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a dump state in which the material excavated in the dig state is dumped at the dump location(denoted 908 in Fig. 9); Fig. 9; ¶: 0052, 0060-0062];
“a returning action mode that returns the work device from the dumping position to the excavating position” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a swing to dig state in which the work vehicle is returned to the excavating location(denoted 912 in Fig. 9); Fig. 9; ¶: 0052, 0060-0062];
“a traveling action mode that changes a position of the work machine by traveling devices” [Dongare; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Dongare discloses a travel state in which the work vehicle is controlled to travel using the disclosed ground engaging elements(denoted as 24 in Fig. 1); Fig. 1; ¶: 0034, 0052].
Dongare does not specifically state:
“to a predetermined dumping position for a transport vehicle that is to transport the object, by the work device;”
“and a cooperative action mode that performs a cooperative action between the work machine and the transport vehicle.”
Hatake, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods directed towards industrial work machines, teaches:
“to a predetermined dumping position for a transport vehicle that is to transport the object, by the work device” [Hatake; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hatake teaches a work system that automatically controls a work machine(denoted 100 in Fig. 1) and a transport vehicle(denoted 200 in Fig. 1) such that the transport vehicle is present at a loading point for the work machine to dump its excavated contents; Fig. 1; ¶: 0021-0028];
“and a cooperative action mode that performs a cooperative action between the work machine and the transport vehicle” [Hatake; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hatake teaches that the transport vehicle and work machine are controlled to operate autonomously in a coordinated way(see for example the operation disclosed in Fig. 6 and accompanying ¶:0077-0079); See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0021-0028, 0048, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) as disclosed by Dongare to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a second vehicle to receive contents excavated from a work machine in a cooperative manner with the work machine as taught by Hatake with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) that is more robust in its ability to coordinate control of a dumping action between a work machine and a transport vehicle such that the work machine is able to suppress dropping of earth between excavation and dumping by the work machine, thereby improving excavation efficiency [Hatake; ¶:0003-0007].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dongare in view of HIROMATSU et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0218749 A1) referenced as Hiromatsu moving forward.
With respect to claim 6, Dongare discloses: “The work machine according to claim 1, comprising: a display unit that presents information to an operator” [Dongare; "The controller 112 may be configured to produce outputs, as further described below, to the user interface 114 for display to the human operator;" ¶: 0039].
Dongare does not specifically state: “wherein the controller causes the display unit to display a condition needed to transition to the next action mode, and details of operation required for the operator in the next action mode.”
Hiromatsu, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods directed towards industrial work machines, teaches: “wherein the controller causes the display unit to display a condition needed to transition to the next action mode, and details of operation required for the operator in the next action mode” [Hiromatsu; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hiromatsu teaches a method for controlling a display in an excavator automatically based on observed inputs by the operator. Hiromatsu teaches in one example, transitioning from the disclosed travel pattern screen (denoted 39 in Fig. 9) to the normal excavation pattern screen(denoted 40 in Fig. 9) after the excavator has traveled a remaining distance(denoted 57 in Fig. 9) in the direction designated by the arrows(denoted 58 in Fig. 9). The disclosed remaining distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "condition needed to transition to the next action mode," and the disclosed normal excavation pattern has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "details of operation required for the operator in the next action mode;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0074-0078, 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) as disclosed by Dongare to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying details regarding a current operation of a work machine to an operator, as well as a condition until the next operation, and subsequently updating the display at the time of the next operation as taught by Hiromatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) that is more robust in its ability to reduce the burden on the operator while operating the work machine by automatically updating a guidance display without requiring the operator to act, thereby improving work efficiency [Hiromatsu; ¶: 0002-0004, 0100].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dongare in view of KAMON et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0220709 A1) referenced as Kamon moving forward.
With respect to claim 9, Dongare does not specifically state: “wherein the controller has a function to learn work manually operated in a past, add, and overwrite a state transition setting including information to be used for prediction of the next action mode.”
Kamon, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods directed towards industrial work machines, teaches: “wherein the controller has a function to learn work manually operated in a past, add, and overwrite a state transition setting including information to be used for prediction of the next action mode” [Kamon; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Kamon teaches a system/method for teaching an excavator to perform a series of operations using a command learned in the past and saved in memory after which the operator may provide corrections to the learning module in order for the system to operate as the operator intended during future operations using the corrected learned data; Fig. 20; ¶: 0032-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) as disclosed by Dongare to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing an operator to update a command learned previously by a machine learning model to control an excavator as taught by Kamon with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling self-propelled work vehicle to operate automatically upon identifying a particular work state(s) that is more robust in its ability to ensure that a quality of the work performed by the construction machinery is maintained at the same level as a work manipulated by a highly-skilled operator [Kamon; 0005-0008].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Choi (United States Patent Publication 2012/0158234 A1) discloses: The method includes: verifying a working state of the wheel loader through detection of a bucket position and a driving state and examining whether the verified working state is an excavation completed state; examining whether a current position of a driving direction operating lever is a backward-movement position when the verified working state is the excavation completed state as a result of the examination; and automatically moving up a position of a boom up to a predetermined position together with backward driving of the wheel loader depending on whether an automatic operation mode is set when the driving direction operating lever position is the backward-movement position.
NISHI (United States Patent Publication 2024/0026651 A1) discloses: A display device for a shovel displays a screen that includes an image represented by image data captured by an imaging device included in the shovel. The screen further includes an icon image corresponding to an instruction to correct a reference value used to calculate the weight of a load object conveyed by the end attachment of the shovel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights