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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 08/27/2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 and 04/28/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note: Regarding 35 USC § 101
Regarding independent Claim 1, a rejection directed to a mental process of determining when to prevent a work machine from being capable of moving towards an obstacle is avoided due to the incorporation of, (Claim 1, Lines 6-9) “a control unit that performs an inhibition control for inhibiting the monitoring object and the turning body from approaching each other based on the position information, wherein the control unit performs the inhibition control,” wherein the claims are read particularly in light of the following portion of the specification, wherein, (Paragraph [0046]) “The controller 70 includes a plurality of functions as shown in FIG. 4 for executing the inhibition control, the plurality of functions including a position information generation unit 72, an inhibition control judgment unit 74, a turning restriction command unit 76, a traveling restriction command unit 78, an alarm command unit 82, and a display command unit 84. The functions are provided by, for example, the execution of a program prestored in advance in the memory included in the controller 70 by the CPU included in the controller 70.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 3 reads, “body capably of the turning motion,” when it should read body capable of the turning motion,” for grammatical clarity. Claims 2-14 are objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 14, Line 3 reads, “body capably of performing,” when it should read, “body capable of performing,” for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doi et al. (US 2018/0347147 A1, hereinafter Doi)
Claim 1 Discloses:
“A turning-type work machine control device for controlling a turning motion in a work machine including a support body and a turning body supported by the support body capably of the turning motion,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0001], Lines 1-3) “A working machine in which an upper slewing body is disposed in a slewable manner with respect to a lower travelling body.”
“comprising: a position information acquisition unit that acquires position information on a relative position of a monitoring object to the turning body;”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 1-3) “Obstacle sensors 48R, 48L, and 48B illustrative of a plurality of (in the present embodiment, three) detection devices are disposed on the upper slewing body 14,” wherein, (Paragraph [0065], Lines 1-7) “The obstacle sensor 48R detects an obstacle existing to the right of the upper slewing body 14, and identifies the position of the detected obstacle with respect to the upper slewing body 14. The obstacle sensor 48L detects an obstacle existing to the left of the upper slewing body 14, and identifies the position of the detected obstacle with respect to the upper slewing body 14.”
“and a control unit that performs an inhibition control for inhibiting the monitoring object and the turning body from approaching each other based on the position information,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “The controller 44 receives signals generated by the obstacle sensors 48R, 48L and 48B and the slewing angle sensor 49, and performs a safety control of the operation of the hydraulic motor 22 based on the received signals,” and further that, (Paragraph [0086]) “The speed reduction determination section 4411 determines whether an obstacle exists within a speed reduction area 14A. The stop determination section 4412 determines whether an obstacle exists within a stop area 14B.”
“wherein the control unit performs the inhibition control, during a rightward turning of the turning body, only when the monitoring object is located in a rightward turning monitoring area that is set so as to turn rightward integrally with the turning body and suspends the inhibition control when the monitoring object is not located in the rightward turning monitoring area,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0096], Lines 4-11) “The movement of the upper slewing body 14 of approaching an obstacle is specified considering the position of the obstacle with respect to the upper slewing body 14, the slewing state (such as the slewing angle and the slewing direction) of the upper slewing body 14 with respect to the lower travelling body 12, and the travelling state (such as the travelling direction) of the lower travelling body 12, for example.”
Figures, 8A-8B explicitly portrays an example where the slewing direction is rightward.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “The controller 44 receives signals generated by the obstacle sensors 48R, 48L and 48B and the slewing angle sensor 49, and performs a safety control of the operation of the hydraulic motor 22 based on the received signals,” and that, (Paragraph [0086]) “The speed reduction determination section 4411 determines whether an obstacle exists within a speed reduction area 14A. The stop determination section 4412 determines whether an obstacle exists within a stop area 14B,” and further that, (Paragraph [0106], Lines 1-3) “When at least a part of the obstacle does not lie within the stop area 14B (step S27: NO), the controller 44 terminates the safety control.”
“and the control unit performs the inhibition control, during a leftward turning of the turning body, only when the monitoring object is located in a leftward turning monitoring area that is set so as to turn leftward integrally with the turning body and suspends the inhibition control when the monitoring object is not located in the leftward turning monitoring area.”
Although not explicitly portrayed in the Figures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the working machine is capable of slewing leftward, for example, Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0112], Lines 1-5) “FIG. 9A is an explanatory diagram showing a state in which the obstacle 50 exists outside the speed reduction area 14A when the lower travelling body 12 advances with the upper slewing body 14 slewed leftward (counterclockwise).”
Therefore, Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “The controller 44 receives signals generated by the obstacle sensors 48R, 48L and 48B and the slewing angle sensor 49, and performs a safety control of the operation of the hydraulic motor 22 based on the received signals,” and that, (Paragraph [0086]) “The speed reduction determination section 4411 determines whether an obstacle exists within a speed reduction area 14A. The stop determination section 4412 determines whether an obstacle exists within a stop area 14B,” and further that, (Paragraph [0106], Lines 1-3) “When at least a part of the obstacle does not lie within the stop area 14B (step S27: NO), the controller 44 terminates the safety control.”
Claim 2 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 1, wherein: … and a left rear area portion set on a left side of a left front side surface, which is a part of a left side surface of the turning body and is located on a rear side of the turning center of the turning body; … and a right rear area portion set on a right side of a right rear side surface, which is a part of a right side surface of the turning body and is located on a rear side of the turning center of the turning body.”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0127]) “in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle.”
PNG
media_image3.png
498
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
428
441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Doi explicitly teaches a divided stop area 14B for the following:
a left rear area portion set a left side surface of the turning body which is located on a rear side of the turning center of the turning body.
right rear area portion set on a right side of a right rear side surface, which is a part of a right side surface of the turning body and is located on a rear side of the turning center of the turning body.
“the rightward turning monitoring area includes a right front area portion set on a right side of a right front side surface, which is a part of a right side surface of the turning body and is located on a front side of a turning center of the turning body,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0127]) “in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle,” wherein despite a right front area portion set on a right side of a right front surface not being explicitly shown, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that the divided region methodology of the stop area 14B may be applied to the stop area of Figures 8A-9B, which are present in a right front area portion set on a right side of a right front surface, the broadest interpretation of which is derived from element 91 of Figure 2A of the Applicant’s Specification.
“… and the leftward turning monitoring area includes a left front area portion set on a left side of a left front side surface, which is a part of a left side surface of the turning body and is located on a front side of the turning center of the turning body,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0127]) “in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle,” wherein despite a left front area portion set on a left side of a left front surface not being explicitly shown, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that the divided region methodology of the stop area 14B may be applied to the stop area of Figures 8A-9B, which are present in a left front area portion set on a left side of a left front surface, the broadest interpretation of which is derived from element 93 of Figure 2B of the Applicant’s Specification.
Claim 5 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the position information acquisition unit includes a right object detector that is disposed on a right side part of the turning body to detect a monitoring object located on a right side of the turning body,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “The controller 44 receives signals generated by the obstacle sensors 48R, 48L and 48B and the slewing angle sensor 49, and performs a safety control of the operation of the hydraulic motor 22 based on the received signals,” and further that, (Paragraph [0086]) “The speed reduction determination section 4411 determines whether an obstacle exists within a speed reduction area 14A. The stop determination section 4412 determines whether an obstacle exists within a stop area 14B.”
“and both the right front area portion of the rightward turning monitoring area and the right rear area portion of the leftward turning monitoring area are set within a detection range of the right object detector.”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0081], Lines 1-7) “The right virtual boundary surface 142R is located to the right of the right surface 14SR. The right virtual boundary surface 142R is set in parallel to the right surface 14SR. A front end of the right virtual boundary surface 142R lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the right surface 14SR in a front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48R being capable of viewing a right front area and right rear area portion for monitoring upon viewing Figures 9A-9B.
PNG
media_image5.png
394
389
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the position information acquisition unit includes a left object detector that is disposed on a left side part of the turning body to detect a monitoring object located on a left side of the turning body,”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “The controller 44 receives signals generated by the obstacle sensors 48R, 48L and 48B and the slewing angle sensor 49, and performs a safety control of the operation of the hydraulic motor 22 based on the received signals,” and further that, (Paragraph [0086]) “The speed reduction determination section 4411 determines whether an obstacle exists within a speed reduction area 14A. The stop determination section 4412 determines whether an obstacle exists within a stop area 14B.”
“and both the left rear area portion of the rightward turning monitoring area and the left front area portion of the leftward turning monitoring area are set within a detection range of the left object detector.”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0082], Lines 1-7) “The left virtual boundary surface 142L is located to the left of the left surface 14SL. The left virtual boundary surface 142L is set in parallel to the left surface 14SL. A front end of the left virtual boundary surface 142L lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the left surface 14SL in the front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48L being capable of viewing a left front area and left rear area portion for monitoring upon viewing Figures 9A-9B.
Claim 14 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 1, wherein the turning body includes an operation room that allows an operator to get thereon,”
Doi teaches that, (Paragraph [0032]) “cab 143 is disposed on the upper surface of the slewing frame 140. The cab 143 houses a driver's seat for an operator, and various operation devices to be used by the operator to operate the hydraulic excavator 10.”
“the work machine further including a work device mounted on the turning body capably of performing a work motion on a front side of the operation room,”
Doi teaches that, (Paragraph [0033]) “working device 16 is disposed on the upper surface of the slewing frame 140. The working device 16 includes a boom 161, an arm 162, a bucket 163, a boom cylinder 164, an arm cylinder 165, and a bucket cylinder 166,” wherein, (Paragraph [0038]) “The upper slewing body 14 includes a side surface 14S. The side surface 14S defines an outer edge of the upper slewing body 14 in the plan view. The side surface 14S includes a front surface 14Sf.”
“and the control unit is configured to suspend a work restriction control for restricting the work motion in order to inhibit the work device and the monitoring object from approaching each other, regardless of the presence or absence of the monitoring object and the position of the monitoring object.”
Doi teaches that, (Paragraph [0055]) “The hydraulic excavator 10 further includes a safety device 40. The safety device 40 causes the hydraulic excavator 10 to perform a motion to prevent the upper slewing body 14 from coming into contact with an obstacle,” but further teaches, (Paragraph [0059]) “On the other hand, when a stop command (specifically, a maximum exciting current) is input to the variable solenoid 411, the first limiting valve 41 is fully closed. Consequently, the supply of the pilot pressure to the control valve 26 (first pilot port 261) is blocked to return the control valve 26 to the neutral position, regardless of the operation command. In this manner, the hydraulic motor 22 is forcibly stopped.”
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 20190168776 A1, hereinafter Imaizumi) Despite not being related to a work machine including a support body and a turning body, Imaizumi is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure due to its teachings of front monitoring areas in the context of, (Paragraph [0001]) “a work vehicle periphery monitoring system and a work vehicle periphery monitoring method.”
Claim 3 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, … and the left rear area portion has a front end surface along the turning center surface, the turning center surface being a vertical surface extending in a left-right direction of the turning body through the turning center.”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0127]) “in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle.”
PNG
media_image3.png
498
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
428
441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Doi explicitly teaches a divided stop area 14B for the following:
A left rear area portion which has a front end surface along the turning center surface, the turning center surface being a vertical surface extending in a left-right direction of the turning body through the turning center.
“wherein the right front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface”
Doi does not explicitly teach the right front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface. However, despite a right front area portion not being explicitly shown, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that the divided region methodology of the stop area 14B may be applied to the stop area of Figures 8A-9B.
Additionally, It would be obvious to arrive at the preceding limitation wherein the right front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface in light of Imaizumi.
Imaizumi teaches a work machine comprising an, (Paragraph [0103], Lines 1-2) “obstacle detection unit 63 determines whether an obstacle exists in the periphery,” wherein a, (Paragraph [0113]) “display control unit 69 displays lines LG indicating boundaries of imaging areas SBp, SCp, SDp, SEp, and SFp of the plurality of cameras 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E, and 21F acquiring the image data for generating the bird's eye image BI on the bird's eye image BI in a superimposed state.”
PNG
media_image6.png
438
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a front right area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the imaging area boundaries of Imaizumi to arrive at a right front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the collision avoidance benefits of imaging objects in a front right region of a work machine. As Imaizumi describes, (Paragraph [0040], Lines 1-2) “The camera 21A photographs an imaging area SA defined at the front side of the vehicle body 2,” so that, (Paragraph [0043], Lines 1-4) “The object detection device 20 can detect objects existing in different areas in the periphery of the wheel loader 1 by using the plurality of cameras 21 and the plurality of non-contact sensors 22.”
Claim 4 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, … and the right rear area portion has a front end surface along the turning center surface, the turning center surface being a vertical surface extending in a left-right direction of the turning body through the turning center.”
Doi teaches, (Paragraph [0127]) “in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle.”
PNG
media_image3.png
498
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
428
441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Doi explicitly teaches a divided stop area 14B for the following:
A right rear area portion has a front end surface along the turning center surface, the turning center surface being a vertical surface extending in a left-right direction of the turning body through the turning center.
“wherein the left front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface”
Doi does not explicitly teach wherein the left front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface.
However, despite a left front area portion not being explicitly shown, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that the divided region methodology of the stop area 14B may be applied to the stop area of Figures 8A-9B.
Additionally, It would be obvious to arrive at the preceding limitation wherein the left front area portion has a rear end surface along a turning center surface in light of Imaizumi.
Imaizumi teaches a work machine comprising an, (Paragraph [0103], Lines 1-2) “obstacle detection unit 63 determines whether an obstacle exists in the periphery,” wherein a, (Paragraph [0113]) “display control unit 69 displays lines LG indicating boundaries of imaging areas SBp, SCp, SDp, SEp, and SFp of the plurality of cameras 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E, and 21F acquiring the image data for generating the bird's eye image BI on the bird's eye image BI in a superimposed state.”
PNG
media_image6.png
438
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a front left area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the imaging area boundaries of Imaizumi to arrive at a left front area portion which has a rear end surface along a turning center surface, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the collision avoidance benefits of imaging objects in a front left region of a work machine. As Imaizumi describes, (Paragraph [0040], Lines 1-2) “The camera 21A photographs an imaging area SA defined at the front side of the vehicle body 2,” so that, (Paragraph [0043], Lines 1-4) “The object detection device 20 can detect objects existing in different areas in the periphery of the wheel loader 1 by using the plurality of cameras 21 and the plurality of non-contact sensors 22.”
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi in view of Tsuji et al. (JP 2020183624 A, hereinafter Tsuji)
Claim 7 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the right front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a right front corner part of the turning body during the rightward turning of the turning body.”
Doi does not explicitly teach wherein the right front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view.
However, Doi does teach that, (Paragraph [0081], Lines 1-7) “The right virtual boundary surface 142R is located to the right of the right surface 14SR. The right virtual boundary surface 142R is set in parallel to the right surface 14SR. A front end of the right virtual boundary surface 142R lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the right surface 14SR in a front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48R of Doi being capable of viewing a right front area.
Tsuji does teach wherein the right front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a right front corner part of the turning body during the rightward turning of the turning body.
Tsuji teaches a shovel capable of exhibiting a turning angle, (Paragraph [0006]) “comprising: a detection unit for detecting a predetermined object around the shovel; and an operation control unit for controlling the operation of the shovel, wherein the operation control unit stops the operation of the shovel in response to the operation if the shovel is likely to come into contact with the predetermined object, while allowing the operation of the shovel in response to the operation even if the shovel approaches the predetermined object in response to the operation, if no contact occurs between the predetermined object and the shovel,” wherein an outer peripheral surface of a right front corner can be viewed in, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 1-2) “Figure 3 (Figures 3A and 3B) [which] shows a specific example of a monitoring image displayed on the display device 50,” wherein, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 3-4) “Line LN1 may represent, for example, the outer edge of the monitoring area monitored by the surrounding monitoring device 200 (detection unit 304),” and further wherein, (Paragraph [0100]) “As shown in Figure 4A, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A corresponds to the textured area in the figure. Specifically, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A is the range defined by the circumferential field of view of each camera 40B, 40L, and 40R as seen from the shovel 100.”
PNG
media_image7.png
228
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
652
533
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a front right area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the explicit ability to monitor up to an outer peripheral surface in a front right region as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of properly identifying objects from within an identifiable range to avoid potential collisions. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 5-6) “This allows the operator to properly understand the distance relationship between the shovel
100 and the surrounding objects shown in the viewpoint transformation image EP,” and further describes, (Paragraph [0033], Lines 4-6) “when the surrounding monitoring device 200 detects an object to be monitored within a predetermined range around the shovel 100, it activates a safety function to ensure safety around the shovel 100.”
Claim 8 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the left rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a left rear corner part of the turning body during the rightward turning of the turning body.”
Doi does not explicitly teach wherein the left rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view.
However, Doi does teach that, (Paragraph [0082], Lines 1-7) “The left virtual boundary surface 142L is located to the left of the left surface 14SL. The left virtual boundary surface 142L is set in parallel to the left surface 14SL. A front end of the left virtual boundary surface 142L lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the left surface 14SL in the front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48L of Doi being capable of viewing a left rear area.
Tsuji does teach wherein the left rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a left rear corner part of the turning body during the rightward turning of the turning body.
Tsuji teaches a shovel capable of exhibiting a turning angle, (Paragraph [0006]) “comprising: a detection unit for detecting a predetermined object around the shovel; and an operation control unit for controlling the operation of the shovel, wherein the operation control unit stops the operation of the shovel in response to the operation if the shovel is likely to come into contact with the predetermined object, while allowing the operation of the shovel in response to the operation even if the shovel approaches the predetermined object in response to the operation, if no contact occurs between the predetermined object and the shovel,” wherein an outer peripheral surface of a left rear corner can be viewed in, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 1-2) “Figure 3 (Figures 3A and 3B) [which] shows a specific example of a monitoring image displayed on the display device 50,” wherein, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 3-4) “Line LN1 may represent, for example, the outer edge of the monitoring area monitored by the surrounding monitoring device 200 (detection unit 304),” and further wherein, (Paragraph [0100]) “As shown in Figure 4A, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A corresponds to the textured area in the figure. Specifically, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A is the range defined by the circumferential field of view of each camera 40B, 40L, and 40R as seen from the shovel 100.”
PNG
media_image7.png
228
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
652
533
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a left rear area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the explicit ability to monitor up to an outer peripheral surface in a left rear region as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of properly identifying objects from within an identifiable range to avoid potential collisions. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 5-6) “This allows the operator to properly understand the distance relationship between the shovel
100 and the surrounding objects shown in the viewpoint transformation image EP,” and further describes, (Paragraph [0033], Lines 4-6) “when the surrounding monitoring device 200 detects an object to be monitored within a predetermined range around the shovel 100, it activates a safety function to ensure safety around the shovel 100.”
Claim 9 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the left front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a left front corner part of the turning body during the leftward turning of the turning body.”
Doi does not explicitly teach wherein the left front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view.
However, Doi does teach that, (Paragraph [0082], Lines 1-7) “The left virtual boundary surface 142L is located to the left of the left surface 14SL. The left virtual boundary surface 142L is set in parallel to the left surface 14SL. A front end of the left virtual boundary surface 142L lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the left surface 14SL in the front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48L of Doi being capable of viewing a left front area.
Tsuji does teach wherein the left front area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a leftward front corner part of the turning body during the leftward turning of the turning body.
Tsuji teaches a shovel capable of exhibiting a turning angle, (Paragraph [0006]) “comprising: a detection unit for detecting a predetermined object around the shovel; and an operation control unit for controlling the operation of the shovel, wherein the operation control unit stops the operation of the shovel in response to the operation if the shovel is likely to come into contact with the predetermined object, while allowing the operation of the shovel in response to the operation even if the shovel approaches the predetermined object in response to the operation, if no contact occurs between the predetermined object and the shovel,” wherein an outer peripheral surface of a left front corner can be viewed in, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 1-2) “Figure 3 (Figures 3A and 3B) [which] shows a specific example of a monitoring image displayed on the display device 50,” wherein, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 3-4) “Line LN1 may represent, for example, the outer edge of the monitoring area monitored by the surrounding monitoring device 200 (detection unit 304),” and further wherein, (Paragraph [0100]) “As shown in Figure 4A, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A corresponds to the textured area in the figure. Specifically, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A is the range defined by the circumferential field of view of each camera 40B, 40L, and 40R as seen from the shovel 100.”
PNG
media_image7.png
228
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
652
533
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a front left area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the explicit ability to monitor up to an outer peripheral surface in a left front region as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of properly identifying objects from within an identifiable range to avoid potential collisions. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 5-6) “This allows the operator to properly understand the distance relationship between the shovel
100 and the surrounding objects shown in the viewpoint transformation image EP,” and further describes, (Paragraph [0033], Lines 4-6) “when the surrounding monitoring device 200 detects an object to be monitored within a predetermined range around the shovel 100, it activates a safety function to ensure safety around the shovel 100.”
Claim 10 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the right rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a right rear corner part of the turning body during the leftward turning of the turning body.”
Doi does not explicitly teach wherein the right rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view.
However, Doi does teach that, (Paragraph [0081], Lines 1-7) “The right virtual boundary surface 142R is located to the right of the right surface 14SR. The right virtual boundary surface 142R is set in parallel to the right surface 14SR. A front end of the right virtual boundary surface 142R lies at substantially the same position as a front end of the right surface 14SR in a front-rear direction of the upper slewing body 14,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceive the detector 48R of Doi being capable of viewing a right rear area.
Tsuji does teach wherein the right rear area portion has an outer peripheral surface arc-shaped with the turning center as a center in a plan view, and the outer peripheral surface is located on an outer side, in a turning radius direction of the turning body, of a turning trajectory of a right rear corner part of the turning body during the leftward turning of the turning body.
Tsuji teaches a shovel capable of exhibiting a turning angle, (Paragraph [0006]) “comprising: a detection unit for detecting a predetermined object around the shovel; and an operation control unit for controlling the operation of the shovel, wherein the operation control unit stops the operation of the shovel in response to the operation if the shovel is likely to come into contact with the predetermined object, while allowing the operation of the shovel in response to the operation even if the shovel approaches the predetermined object in response to the operation, if no contact occurs between the predetermined object and the shovel,” wherein an outer peripheral surface of a right rear corner can be viewed in, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 1-2) “Figure 3 (Figures 3A and 3B) [which] shows a specific example of a monitoring image displayed on the display device 50,” wherein, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 3-4) “Line LN1 may represent, for example, the outer edge of the monitoring area monitored by the surrounding monitoring device 200 (detection unit 304),” and further wherein, (Paragraph [0100]) “As shown in Figure 4A, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A corresponds to the textured area in the figure. Specifically, the detectable area of the detection unit 304A is the range defined by the circumferential field of view of each camera 40B, 40L, and 40R as seen from the shovel 100.”
PNG
media_image7.png
228
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
652
533
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a rear right area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the explicit ability to monitor up to an outer peripheral surface in a rear right region as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of properly identifying objects from within an identifiable range to avoid potential collisions. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0047], Lines 1-4) “Sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R are mounted on the upper left rear end, upper right rear end, upper left end, and upper right end of the upper rotating body 3, respectively, to acquire information regarding the conditions to the left rear, right rear, left side, and right side of the upper rotating body 3.”
As Tsuji further describes, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 5-6) “This allows the operator to properly understand the distance relationship between the shovel 100 and the surrounding objects shown in the viewpoint transformation image EP,” and therefore, (Paragraph [0033], Lines 4-6) “when the surrounding monitoring device 200 detects an object to be monitored within a predetermined range around the shovel 100, it activates a safety function to ensure safety around the shovel 100.”
Claim 11 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 2, wherein the rightward turning monitoring area and the leftward turning monitoring area share a rear area portion set on a rear side of the turning body.”
Doi does not explicitly teach the rightward turning monitoring area and the leftward turning monitoring area sharing a rear area portion.
However, Doi does teach,(Paragraph [0127]) “In addition, in the example shown in FIG. 12, each of the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B includes a plurality of divided regions. This allows the operator of the hydraulic excavator 10 to more easily recognize the position of the obstacle.”
PNG
media_image3.png
498
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tsuji does explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
PNG
media_image7.png
228
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
652
533
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Tsuji teaches, (Paragraph [0050]) “The sensor 45BL is configured to emit infrared light to an illumination range to the left rear of the upper rotating body 3, for example, to an illumination range in the horizontal direction (i.e., the circumferential direction as viewed from the shovel 100) extending from the left rear of the upper rotating body 3 to the rear. Furthermore, the sensor 45BR is configured to emit infrared light to an illumination range to the right rear of the upper rotating body 3, for example, to an illumination range in the horizontal direction (circumferential direction as viewed from the shovel 100) extending from the right rear of the upper rotating body 3 to the rear,” and therefore, the rightward turning monitoring area and the leftward turning monitoring area share a rear area portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles within a rear area relative to the working machine as taught by Doi, with the explicit methodology of the rightward turning monitoring area and the leftward turning monitoring area sharing a rear area portion set on a rear side of the turning body as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of properly identifying objects from within an identifiable range to avoid potential collisions. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0047], Lines 1-4) “Sensors 45BL, 45BR, 45L, and 45R are mounted on the upper left rear end, upper right rear end, upper left end, and upper right end of the upper rotating body 3, respectively, to acquire information regarding the conditions to the left rear, right rear, left side, and right side of the upper rotating body 3.”
As Tsuji further describes, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 5-6) “This allows the operator to properly understand the distance relationship between the shovel 100 and the surrounding objects shown in the viewpoint transformation image EP,” and therefore, (Paragraph [0033], Lines 4-6) “when the surrounding monitoring device 200 detects an object to be monitored within a predetermined range around the shovel 100, it activates a safety function to ensure safety around the shovel 100.”
Claim 12 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 1, wherein the inhibition control includes an alarm control for issuing an alarm from an alarm device to an operator.”
Doi does not explicitly teach an alarm control for issuing an alarm from an alarm device to an operator.
Tsuji does teach the preceding limitations.
Tsuji teaches, (Paragraph [0034], Lines 1-3) “Safety features may include, for example, a notification function that notifies the detection of a monitored object by outputting an alarm to at least one of the inside and outside of the cabin 10,” and further that, (Paragraph [0034], Lines 9-11) “safety features may include, for example, an operation limiting function that restricts the operation of the shovel 100 in response to the operation of the control device 26 or remote control.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the slewing working machine capable of identifying obstacles as taught by Doi with the explicit inhibition control which includes an alarm as taught by Tsuji, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield well known safety benefits by notifying operators of obstacles. As Tsuji describes, (Paragraph [0034], Lines 4-5) “This allows operators inside the cabin 10 and workers around the shovel 100 to be alerted to the presence of a monitored object within a predetermined range around the shovel 100.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi in view of Tsuji, further in view of Kiyota. (JP 2019015174 A, hereinafter Kiyota) Kiyota is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure due to disclosing a work machine with an, (Paragraph [0013], Line 1) “upper rotating body 63 is equipped with a cab,” comprising a, (Paragraph [0049]) “human presence/absence determination means 12 is a means for determining the presence or absence of a person in each of the multiple monitoring spaces set up around the work machine,” wherein a lock signal can render the human presence/absence determination moot.
Claim 13 Discloses:
“The turning-type work machine control device according to claim 12, wherein the control unit is configured to suspend the inhibition control, regardless of presence or absence of the monitoring object, when an operation lock signal for invalidating an operation applied for a motion of the work machine is input.”
Doi and Tsuji do not explicitly teach the preceding operation lock signal.
Kiyota does teach the preceding limitations.
Kiyota teaches, (Paragraph [0214]) “If it is determined that the ignition switch 9 is in the ON state (YES in step S31), the work machine state determination means 14 determines whether the gate lock lever 8 is in the unlocked state based on the output of the gate lock lever 8 (step S32),” particularly, (Paragraph [0216]) “if it is determined that the ignition switch 9 is not in the ON state (NO in step S31), or if it is determined that the gate lock lever 8 is not in the unlocked state (NO in step S32), the work machine state determination means 14 determines that the shovel 60 is not in a state where it can be used for work, that is, that the shovel 60 is in a state where it cannot be used for work (step S34),” and further that, (Paragraph [0217], Lines 3-5) “The presence/absence determination means 12 refers to the value of this workable flag in step S22 of the second alarm control process shown in Figure 22, and determines whether or not an alarm output is issued based on the referenced value.”
Kiyota additionally teaches that, (Paragraph [0025], Lines 5-6) “The gate lock lever 8 repeatedly outputs a signal representing its current state,” and, (Paragraph [0206], Lines 1-6) “Furthermore, if the work machine status determination means 14 determines that the shovel 60 is not in a workable state (NO in step S22), the person presence determination means 12 does not output a detection signal to the alarm control means 13, and sets the value of the person detection flag prepared in the NVRAM or the like to "1" (on) (step S24) [wherein] … A value of "1" (on) indicates that a person has been detected.” Therefore, the output signal of the lock lever overrides any determination by the presence/absence determination means 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Doi and Tsuji with the ability to implement an operation lock signal for invalidating an operation applied for a motion of the work machine is input as taught by Kiyota, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of preventing implementing unnecessary anti-collision measures such as alarms that notify operators of a relevant obstacles when the work machine is in an unmoving, locked state. As Kiyota describes, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-5) “With the above configuration, the image generation device 100 will not output an alarm if the shovel 60 is in an unusable state, even if it determines that a person is present in the monitored space. Therefore, the image generation device 100 can prevent unnecessary alarms from being output when the shovel 60 is in an unusable state.”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Nishikawa et al., (US 2022/0267998 A1) discloses a work machine wherein, (Paragraph [0020]) “FIG. 2 is a view illustrating positions where obstacle sensors are installed and detection areas according to the first embodiment of the present invention.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights