DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the response to restriction requirement filed 8/18/2026 and claims filed 4/22/2025.
Claims 1-6 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2026, 8/12/2025, and 5/6/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In the response to restriction requirement filed 8/18/2026, the Applicant contends that the search burden is not sufficiently increased to warrant restriction. Specifically, the Applicant suggests that when searching for claim 7 and claim 16 of group II, the Examiner would not be unduly burdened to also search for claim 1 of group I.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the requirement for restriction mailed 6/24/2026, claim 1 differs significantly from claims 7 and 16. Specifically, claim 1 recites “adjust, based on the tool transformation on the control coordinate system referenced to the target control surface, a movement speed of a linkage actuator on the work machine from a first speed to a second speed to rotate the tool about an operating point of the tool that is separate from a linkage pin of the tool.” This feature encompasses controlling arm/boom cylinder speeds to essentially maintain a bucket’s cutting edge fixed in space while performing rotation operations of the bucket. This is an entirely different feature than claims 7-15, which are directed to correlating input to a feed rate value and controlling controllable linkages to move the tool parallel to the target control surface, and claims 16-20 which are directed to generating a 3D control coordinate system with a non-linear axis referenced to a multi-planar control surface to guide linkages. Although claims 7-15 and claims 16-20 present patentably distinct subject matter, a restriction requirement between these claim sets was bypassed by the Examiner under the assumption that a prior art reference would teach both independent inventive features, thereby obviating the search burden. However, the Examiner was unable to make the same assumption with respect to claims 1-6. The prior art cited in the present Office action fails to teach the specific features of claims 1-6, further establishing that a serious search and examination burden exists under MPEP 808.02. Therefore, the restriction requirement is maintained and made final. See further explanations with respect to citations to the Applicant’s specification in paragraphs 2-3 of the requirement for restriction mailed 6/24/2026.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 13, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 13, and 15 fail to provide a conjunction (i.e. “and”) before the final element and thus is in improper grammatical form.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of an interface mechanism followed by the recitation of the user interface mechanism. These limitations should be amended to have the same naming convention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the limitation of generate a three-dimensional control coordinate system referenced to the target multi-planar control surface, the three-dimensional control coordinate system comprising a plurality of axes, does not reasonably provide enablement for at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the claim broadly covers any 3D coordinate system having a non-linear axis referenced to a multi-planar control surface for controlling controllable linkages. The specification provides only high-level functional statements about averaging normals or smoothing edges in paragraphs [0037] and [0044] without providing formal mathematical transforms, continuous coordinate models, etc. Practicing the full scope across general multi-planar geometries and non-linear coordinate transformations would require undue experimentation, given the claim’s breadth vastly exceeds the specification’s two sentences of guidance in paragraph [0037] which recite:
“The above axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis. As indicated by block 336, the axes may be smoothed. For example, where two planes of a control surface meet a sharp intersection is formed, and technically this intersection does not have a normal. Accordingly, the edge can be smoothed or the normal at the edge can be calculated as an average between the intersecting planes.”
Further, as is evident in the only working example depicted in Figure 4A, with respect to the smoothing transition, the “multi-planar” feature is only multi-planar in cross-section, as confirmed in paragraph [0045], e.g., “movement of joystick 422 in directions 430 and 426 causes bucket 124 and accompanying linkages to move left or right (e.g., out of the 2D plane of FIG. 4A) and parallel with control surface 400.” Therefore, the disclosed surface is a 2D piecewise-linear profile that merely includes a lateral direction by inherency, without a laterally varying plane/curve.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be required to formulate their own algorithms to practice the full scope of generating and operating within the broad genus of 3D non-linear coordinate frames across multi-planar geometries.
Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the limitation of generate a control coordinate system referenced to the target control surface of claim 7, wherein the control coordinate system comprises a three-dimensional control coordinates system having a plurality of axes of claim 8, and wherein at least one axis of the plurality of axes is parallel to the target multi-planar control surface of claim 9, does not reasonably provide enablement for at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis. Reasons similar to those discussed with respect to claim 16 apply to claim 10.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 18 recites the limitation of the non-linear axis comprises a first non-linear axis and wherein another axis, of the plurality of axes, is a second non-linear axis that follows the target multi-planar control surface in a second set of directions, is transverse to the first non-linear axis, and comprises a curve. The specification provides no support for generating a second curved non-linear axis traverse to a first non-linear axis. The specification only discloses linear transverse axes in paragraphs [0015] and [0045].
Claim 18 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, paragraph [0015] of the specification filed 4/22/2025 generally describes defining parallel and perpendicular axes to a surface, while paragraphs [0037] and [0044] merely recite:
“The above axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis. As indicated by block 336, the axes may be smoothed. For example, where two planes of a control surface meet a sharp intersection is formed, and technically this intersection does not have a normal. Accordingly, the edge can be smoothed or the normal at the edge can be calculated as an average between the intersecting planes…
For example, transition 440 of control surface 400 has been smoothed to smooth transition 442 of control path 402.”
As is evident from the specification, no mathematical equations or working embodiment is provided for generating two transverse curved coordinate axes over a multi-planar surface which would be necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention. As discussed above, the “multi-planar” feature in the example depicted in Figure 4A is only multi-planar in cross-section, as confirmed in paragraph [0045], e.g., “movement of joystick 422 in directions 430 and 426 causes bucket 124 and accompanying linkages to move left or right (e.g., out of the 2D plane of FIG. 4A) and parallel with control surface 400.” Therefore, the disclosed surface is a 2D piecewise-linear profile that merely includes a lateral direction by inherency, without a laterally varying plane/curve. For two “non-linear” axes that are transverse to one another, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to invent a relationship of the axes to the multi-planar surface, in addition to the entire curvilinear coordinate computation. Therefore, the claim 18 fails the enablement requirement.
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of generate a target multi-planar control surface, the target multi-planar control surface representing a multi-planar surface to be generated by the mobile work machine. The “target multi-planar control surface” is actively generated in this limitation and then subsequently defined as a surface “to be generated.” This creates ambiguity as to whether the “target multi-planar control surface” is being generated in this limitation.
Further, assuming that the “target multi-planar control surface” is a digital model generated by the processor of the mobile work machine, and the “multi-planar surface” is physical terrain to be operated on by the tool of the mobile work machine, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine how the “multi-planar surface” would be generated by the mobile work machine. Specifically, a mobile work machine does not “generate” a physical surface similar to the generation of a digital model in the “generate” step. If the Examiner’s assumption is correct, this limitation should instead recite “generate a target multi-planar control surface, the target multi-planar control surface representing a desired multi-planar surface to be formed by the tool of the work machine.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation of the non-linear axis follows the target multi-planar control surface in a first set of directions and comprises a curve, while claim 16, upon which claim 17 depends, recites the steps of generate a target multi-planar control surface, the target multi-planar control surface representing a multi-planar surface to be generated by the mobile work machine and generate a three-dimensional control coordinate system referenced to the target multi-planar control surface, the three-dimensional control coordinate system comprising a plurality of axes, where at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis.
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine how the “three-dimensional control coordinate system” that includes a continuous “curve” relates to the “target multi-planar control surface” made up of discrete flat planes. This limitation omits essential smoothing transformation steps. Further, claim 17 requires the non-linear axis “follows the target multi-planar control surface” while also comprising “a curve.” A multi-planar surface inherently consists of flat planes intersecting at edges; therefore, a curve cannot strictly “follow” a multi-planar surface.
Claim 18 recites the limitation of the non-linear axis comprises a first non-linear axis and wherein another axis, of the plurality of axes, is a second non-linear axis that follows the target multi-planar control surface in a second set of directions, is transverse to the first non-linear axis, and comprises a curve. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the spatial relationship between two curved coordinate axes in light of the multi-planar surface. Further, the metes and bounds of the “second set of directions” cannot be reasonably determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 16 by dependency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kjaergaard et al. (US 2020/0318316 A1), hereinafter Kjaergaard.
Claim 7
Kjaergaard discloses the claimed control system for a work machine (see ¶0097, with respect to Figure 9, regarding that remapping algorithm 40 is used to control movement of an excavator, as depicted in Figure 1) comprising one or more processors, and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (see ¶0084, regarding that the system uses a computer or microcontroller) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control system to:
obtain a target control surface, the target control surface representing a surface to be generated by the work machine (see ¶0027, regarding that surfaces setting unit is provided with design data, e.g., computer aided design data, defining a reference surface, which may be accessed from a remote server unit with a database of available design data with different reference surfaces, as described in ¶0028; ¶0031, regarding that the reference surface is used for performing digging operations);
generate a control coordinate system referenced to the target control surface (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that a reference coordinate frame with three orthogonal axes X’, Y’, Z’ fixed to reference surface 13, where three linear tool degrees of freedom are defined as movement of tool 4 along axis Z” orthogonal to reference surface 13, movement of tool 4 along axis X” parallel to the reference surface 13, and movement of the tool 4 along axis Y” parallel to the reference surface 13, as described in ¶0081, with respect to Figure 4);
receive an input via one or more interface mechanisms (see ¶0082, with respect to Figures 5-9, regarding hand-operated user inputs are provided by means of two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B);
correlate the input to a feed rate value (see ¶0090, regarding that back/forth movements 22A, 22B of the left joystick 19A are remapped onto a linear moving out/back 32A, 32B of the tool along axis X” parallel to reference surface 13 according to Figure 4, where remapping algorithm 40 provides actuator commands configured to control movement of the excavator links, including control signals comprising actuator velocities, as described in ¶0099; ¶0045, regarding that remapped user commands include coordinated motions at a desired rate);
controls a controllable subsystem of the work machine to cause movement of a tool of the work machine parallel to the target control surface based on the feed rate value (see ¶0029, regarding that the remapping unit coordinates the output signals based on the sensor data, design data, and inverse kinematics algorithm based on the remapping, where actuator commands 46 are used to control movement of the excavator links based on the individual joint movements required to achieve a particular movement of the tool relative to the reference surface calculated using kinematic model 45, as described in ¶0097-0099, ¶0101; ¶0078, regarding the controlled movements include movements parallel to the reference surface).
Claim 11
Kjaergaard further discloses that the one or more interface mechanisms comprises at least one joystick (see ¶0082, with respect to Figures 5-9, regarding hand-operated user inputs are provided by means of two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B).
Claim 12
Kjaergaard further discloses that the work machine comprises an excavator (see ¶0072, with respect to Figure 1, describing an excavator).
Claim 13
Kjaergaard further discloses that the controllable subsystem comprises a plurality of controllable linkages (see ¶0021) and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:
determine, based on the feed rate value, a respective speed for each controllable linkage of the plurality of controllable linkages (see ¶0035, regarding an algorithm implemented as software on a computer to calculate the individual joint movements required to achieve a particular angular and/or linear movement of the tool relative to the reference surface, using kinematic model 45, as described in ¶0099; ¶0100-0101, regarding the equation in which the Jacobian matrix J relates the change in controlled DOFs to the vector of joint angle changes);
control each controllable linkage of the plurality of controllable linkages based on the respective movement speed for each controllable linkage to cause the movement of the tool of the work machine parallel to the target control surface (see ¶0099, regarding that remapping algorithm 40 provides actuator commands 46 to control movement of the excavator links, e.g. control signals comprising actuator velocities, as further described in ¶0021; ¶0078, regarding the controlled movements include movements parallel to the reference surface).
Claim 15
Kjaergaard further discloses that the input comprises a first input and wherein the feed rate value comprises a first feed rate value and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:
receive a second input via the one or more interface mechanisms (see ¶0082, with respect to Figures 5-9, regarding hand-operated user inputs are provided by means of two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B, where inputs are provided as described in ¶0086);
correlate the second input to a second feed rate value (see ¶0083, regarding that a particular user input DOF will cause a change in the corresponding controlled DOF without affecting the remaining controlled DOFs, where the control signals include actuator velocities, as described in ¶0099);
controls, based on the second feed rate value, the controllable subsystem of the work machine to cause at least one of: (i) movement of the tool away from or towards to the target control surface; or (ii) rotation of the tool (see ¶0052, regarding the controlled DOF includes movement of the tool along an axis Z” orthogonal to the reference surface, as further described in ¶0090; ¶0088, regarding left/right inputs 24A, 24B of right joystick 19B are remapped onto an increase 27A and decrease 27B of attack angle 15 of tool 4 with respect to reference surface 13, and inputs 23A, 23B of left roller 20A are remapped to a rotation about the normal 17 of reference surface 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2013/0302124 A1), hereinafter Matsuyama ‘124.
Claim 8
Kjaergaard further discloses that the control coordinate system comprises a three-dimensional control coordinate system having a plurality of axes (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that a reference coordinate frame with three orthogonal axes X’, Y’, Z’ fixed to reference surface 13, where three linear tool degrees of freedom are defined as movement of tool 4 along axis Z” orthogonal to reference surface 13, movement of tool 4 along axis X” parallel to the reference surface 13, and movement of the tool 4 along axis Y” parallel to the reference surface 13, as described in ¶0081, with respect to Figure 4).
Kjaergaard further discloses that a surface setting unit is provided with design data, e.g., computer aided design data, defining a reference surface (see ¶0027), where the reference surface may be defined by a 3D model in a geodetic coordinate system (see ¶0037). While it may be reasonably gleaned from the 3D CAD models used to define the reference surface that the reference surface of Kjaergaard is “multi-planar,” Kjaergaard does not explicitly disclose that the target control surface comprises a target multi-planar control surface representing, as the surface to be generated by the work machine, a multi-planar surface to be generated by the work machine. However, it would be obvious to modify the reference surface of Kjaergaard to be multiplanar, in light of Matsuyama ‘124.
Specifically, Matsuyama ‘124 teaches a similar “mobile work machine” as hydraulic excavator 100 comprising bucket 8 (see ¶0028, with respect to Figure 1) and operating device 25 including operating levers 31a, 32a, and 33a (see ¶0036). Matsuyama ‘124 further teaches a designed landform (similar to the target control surface of Kjaergaard) comprises a target multi-planar control surface representing, as the surface to be generated by hydraulic excavator 100 (similar to the work machine of Kjaergaard), a multi-planar surface to be generated by hydraulic excavator 100 (see ¶0040, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that working unit controller 26 moves bucket 8 along an intersected line 47 between the plurality of designed surfaces 45 and plane 46 passing through the present position of the cutting edge 8a of bucket 8, where the bucket is automatically moved along a plurality of designed surfaces 45, as described in ¶0037; ¶0041-0042, with respect to Figure 5, regarding the slopes associated with the first designed surface 451 and second designed surface 452).
Since the systems of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘124 are directed to the same purpose, i.e. defining target surfaces for a bucket of an excavator, 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 target control surface of Kjaergaard to be a target multi-planar control surface representing, as the surface to be generated by the work machine, a multi-planar surface to be generated by the work machine, in light of Matsuyama ‘124, with the predictable result of appropriately executing an excavation control relative to a plurality of designed surfaces (¶0008 of Matsuyama ‘124), so as to not damage a second designed surface (¶0007 of Matsuyama ‘124).
Claim 9
Kjaergaard, as modified by Matsuyama ‘124, further discloses that at least one axis of the plurality of axes is parallel to the target multi-planar control surface (see ¶0081, with respect to Figure 4, regarding axis X” and axis Y” are parallel to reference surface 13).
Claim 10
Kjaergaard does not further disclose that at least one axis of the plurality of axes is non-linear. However, when interpreting this limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a piecewise-linear axis that follows the multi-planar profile may reasonably teach a “non-linear axis.” Specifically, paragraph [0037] of the specification filed 4/22/2025 recites:
“The above axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis. As indicated by block 336, the axes may be smoothed. For example, where two planes of a control surface meet a sharp intersection is formed, and technically this intersection does not have a normal. Accordingly, the edge can be smoothed or the normal at the edge can be calculated as an average between the intersecting planes.”
The claim language recites “non-linear,” not smoothed. The specification defines the concept of non-linear as merely the “axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis.” The axes being smoothed is described as an optional embodiment, not defining “non-linear.” Further, paragraph [0037] describes the “sets of axes can be generated as parallel to the surface,” and Figure 4A depicts the operation of the parallel axis as control path 402, which includes sharp bends.
No operations are claimed with respect to the “non-linear axis;” therefore, the combination of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘124 may reasonably teach that at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis, defined by intersected line 47 in Figure 4 of Matsuyama ‘124.
Specifically, Matsuyama ‘124 further teaches that working unit controller 26 moves bucket 8 along a non-linear axis (i.e. intersected line 47) (see ¶0040, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that working unit controller 26 moves bucket 8 along an intersected line 47 between the plurality of designed surfaces 45 and plane 46 passing through the present position of the cutting edge 8a of bucket 8, where the bucket is automatically moved along a plurality of designed surfaces 45, as described in ¶0037; ¶0041-0042, with respect to Figure 5, regarding the slopes associated with the first designed surface 451 and second designed surface 452).
Since the systems of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘124 are directed to the same purpose, i.e. defining target surfaces for a bucket of an excavator, 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 at least one axis of the plurality of axes of Kjaergaard to be a non-linear axis, in light of Matsuyama ‘124, with the predictable result of appropriately executing an excavation control relative to a plurality of designed surfaces (¶0008 of Matsuyama ‘124), so as to not damage a second designed surface (¶0007 of Matsuyama ‘124).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2017/0089033 A1), hereinafter Matsuyama ‘033.
Claim 14
Kjaergaard further discloses that the controllable subsystem comprises at least a first controllable linkage and a second controllable linkage and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine, based on the feed rate value, a first speed for the first controllable linkage and a second speed for the second controllable linkage (see ¶099-0101, regarding that remapping algorithm 40 uses kinematic model 45 to calculate individual joint movements required to achieve particular movement of the tool relative to the reference surface and provides actuator commands 46 to control movement of the excavator links, including actuator velocities).
Kjaergaard does not further disclose the steps of:
scale the first speed for the first controllable linkage to a scaled first speed for the first controllable linkage based, at least, on the second speed for the second controllable linkage; and
control the first controllable linkage based on scaled first speed and control the second controllable linkage based on the second speed to cause movement of the tool of the work machine parallel to the target control surface.
However, Kjaergaard discloses that the user input DOF will cause a change in the corresponding controlled DOF without affecting the remaining DOFs (see ¶0083), which may be reasonably preserved by uniform scaling operations; therefore, it would be obvious to scale the actuator commands of Kjaergaard, in light of Matsuyama ‘033.
Specifically, Matsuyama ‘033 teaches the technique to scale boom speed Vb (similar to the first speed for the first controllable linkage of Kjaergaard) to a scaled first speed based, at least, on speed Vs2 associated with arm operation (similar to the second speed for the second controllable linkage of Kjaergaard) (see ¶0119, regarding that target blade tip speed Vr is added to first counter blade tip speed Va1, and second counter blade tip speed Va2 counteracting the blade tip speed Vs2 set in response to the arm operation amount, such that the target boom speed Vb is calculated from the added value of the target blade tip speed Vr, the first counter blade tip speed Va1, and the second counter blade tip speed Va2; ¶0008), and control boom (similar to the first controllable linkage of Kjaergaard) based on the scaled first speed (see ¶0107, regarding that the movement of boom 13 is controlled at the target boom speed) and control arm (similar to the second controllable linkage of Kjaergaard) based on the second speed (see ¶0061, regarding that the arm is driven based on the operation of the operation device 40 by operator) to cause movement of bucket (similar to the tool of the work machine of Kjaergaard) parallel to target excavating topography (similar to the target control surface of Kjaergaard) (see ¶0058, regarding control device 50 performs a leveling assist control on working implement 1 so that blade tip 10 of bucket 11 moves along the target excavating topography; ¶0062).
Since the systems of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘033 are directed to the same purpose, i.e. moving a bucket of an excavator along a target surface, 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 excavator of Kjaergaard to further scale the first speed for the first controllable linkage to a scaled first speed for the first controllable linkage based, at least, on the second speed for the second controllable linkage, and control the first controllable linkage based on scaled first speed and control the second controllable linkage based on the second speed to cause movement of the tool of the work machine parallel to the target control surface, in light of Matsuyama ‘033, with the predictable result of permitting the blade tip and target excavating topography to be close to each other (¶0107 of Matsuyama ‘033) and suppressing degradation in excavating precision (¶0007 of Matsuyama ‘033).
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard in view of Matsuyama ‘124 and Matsuyama et al. (US 2014/0200776 A1), hereinafter Matsuyama ‘776.
Claim 16
Kjaergaard discloses the claimed mobile work machine (see excavator depicted in Figure 1 and described in ¶0072) comprising:
a tool coupled to the mobile work machine by one or more controllable linkages (see ¶0072-0074, with respect to Figure 1, regarding tool 4 is attached at the far end of stick 3 in which tilt-rotator arrangement 10 provides a swiveling of tool 4 about tilt axis 11 and a 360 degree rotation about rotor axis 12);
an interface mechanism (see ¶0082, with respect to Figures 5-9, regarding hand-operated user inputs are provided by means of two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B); and
one or more processors, and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (see ¶0084, regarding that the system uses a computer or microcontroller).
Kjaergaard further discloses that a surface setting unit is provided with design data, e.g., computer aided design data, defining a reference surface (see ¶0027), where the reference surface may be defined by a 3D model in a geodetic coordinate system (see ¶0037). While it may be reasonably gleaned from the 3D CAD models used to define the reference surface that the reference surface of Kjaergaard is “multi-planar,” Kjaergaard does not explicitly disclose that the processor is configured to generate a target multi-planar control surface, the target multi-planar control surface representing a multi-planar surface to be generated by the mobile work machine. However, no details are provided in regard to how the “target multi-planar control surface” is generated; therefore, it would be obvious to modify the reference surface of Kjaergaard to be generated as a multi-planar surface, in light of Matsuyama ‘776.
Specifically, Matsuyama ‘776 teaches a similar “mobile work machine” as hydraulic excavator 100 comprising bucket 8 (see ¶0029, with respect to Figure 1) and operating device 25 including operating levers 31a, 32a, and 33a (see ¶0045-0047). Matsuyama ‘776 further teaches that controller 28 generate[s] a target multi-planar control surface (see ¶0052, regarding that based on the current position of bucket 8 and the designed landform that is the target shape for an excavation object, controller 28 generates the prospective surfaces SO in Figure 5 and first through fifth designed surfaces S1-S5 in Figure 6, where the designed landform includes angle data or coordinates data necessary for generating 3D shapes for the designed surfaces S1-S5 and prospective surfaces SO, as described in ¶0057; ¶0073, regarding that shaped data Df indicating the shape of the first through fifth designed surfaces S1-S5 is generated; ¶0074-0078, regarding the coordinates and gradient associated with each designed surface S1-S5), the target multi-planar control surface representing a multi-planar surface to be generated by hydraulic excavator 100 (similar to the mobile work machine of Kjaergaard) (see ¶0057, regarding that the designed landform indicates the target shape for the excavation object, e.g., a trench with the first designed surface S1 as the bottom surface and two designed surfaces S2 and S4 linked to the respective ends of the first designed surface S1 as the respective wall surfaces, as described in ¶0106).
Since the systems of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘776 are directed to the same purpose, i.e. defining a target control surface for a tool of a work machine, 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 reference surface of Kjaergaard to be multi-planar, so as to generate a target multi-planar control surface, the target multi-planar control surface representing a multi-planar surface to be generated by the mobile work machine, in light of Matsuyama ‘776, with the predictable result of suppressing the effect of the bucket being driven in an unintended direction by using a plurality of subordinate designed surfaces (¶0012 of Matsuyama ‘776).
Kjaergaard, as modified by Matsuyama ‘776, further discloses that the processor is configured to generate a three-dimensional control coordinate system referenced to the target multi-planar control surface, the three-dimensional control coordinate system comprising a plurality of axes (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that a reference coordinate frame with three orthogonal axes X’, Y’, Z’ fixed to reference surface 13, where three linear tool degrees of freedom are defined as movement of tool 4 along axis Z” orthogonal to reference surface 13, movement of tool 4 along axis X” parallel to the reference surface 13, and movement of the tool 4 along axis Y” parallel to the reference surface 13, as described in ¶0081, with respect to Figure 4), where the reference surface of Kjaergaard is modified to be “multi-planar,” in light of Matsuyama ‘776, as discussed above. No details are claimed as to which plane of the “target multi-planar control surface” is referenced by the “three-dimensional control coordinate system;” therefore, the “three-dimensional control coordinate system” of Kjaergaard may reasonably be referenced to any plane of the “target multi-planar control surface” taught by the combination of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘776.
Kjaergaard does not disclose that at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis. However, when interpreting this limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a bent and piecewise-linear axis that follows the multi-planar profile may reasonably teach a “non-linear axis.” Specifically, paragraph [0037] of the specification filed 4/22/2025 recites:
“The above axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis. As indicated by block 336, the axes may be smoothed. For example, where two planes of a control surface meet a sharp intersection is formed, and technically this intersection does not have a normal. Accordingly, the edge can be smoothed or the normal at the edge can be calculated as an average between the intersecting planes.”
The claim language recites “non-linear,” not smoothed. The specification defines the concept of non-linear as merely the “axes do not necessarily have to be linear like a traditional axis.” The axes being smoothed is described as an optional embodiment, not defining “non-linear.” Further, paragraph [0037] describes the “sets of axes can be generated as parallel to the surface,” and Figure 4A depicts the operation of the parallel axis as control path 402, which includes sharp bends.
No operations are claimed with respect to the “non-linear axis;” therefore, the combination of Kjaergaard and Matsuyama ‘776 may reasonably teach that at least one axis of the plurality of axes is a non-linear axis, defined as a path formed by transitioning to subordinate designed surfaces in Matsuyama ‘776 (see ¶0012). In order to more clearly teach this feature with respect to non-trench surfaces, Matsuyama ‘124 is applied.
Specifically, Matsuyama ‘124 corresponds to the hydraulic excavator of Matsuyama ‘776 (see ¶0028, with respect to Figure 1; ¶0036). Matsuyama ‘124 further teaches a designed landform is formed by a plurality of designed surfaces 45 (similar to the target multi-planar control surface of Matsuyama ‘776), such that working unit controller 26 moves bucket 8 along a non-linear axis (i.e. intersected line 47) (see ¶0040, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that working unit controller 26 moves bucket 8 along an intersected line 47 between the plurality of designed surfaces 45 and plane 46 passing through the present position of the cutting edge 8a of bucket 8, where the bucket is automatically moved along a plurality of designed surfaces 45, as described in ¶0037; ¶0041-0042, with respect to Figure 5, regarding the slopes associated with the first designed surface 451 and second designed surface 452).
Since the systems of Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124 are directed to the same purpose, i.e. defining target surfaces for a bucket of an excavator, 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 at least one axis of the plurality of axes of Kjaergaard to be a non-linear axis, in light of Matsuyama ‘124, with the predictable result of appropriately executing an excavation control relative to a plurality of designed surfaces (¶0008 of Matsuyama ‘124), so as to not damage a second designed surface (¶0007 of Matsuyama ‘124).
Kjaergaard, as modified by Matsuyama ‘776 and Matsuyama ‘124, further discloses that the processor is configured to receive an input from the user interface mechanism and identify, based, at least, on the input, a desired movement of the tool in the three-dimensional control coordinate system referenced to the target multi-planar control surface (see ¶0082-0083, regarding that the hand-operated user inputs, including two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B, are remapped from their standard mapping directly to angular and/or linear degrees of freedom of the tool defined relative to the reference surface, where each user input degree of freedom causes a change in the corresponding controlled DOF without affecting the remaining controlled DOFs), and control the one or more controllable linkages based on the desired movement of the tool in the three-dimensional control coordinate system referenced to the target multi-planar control surface (see ¶0029, regarding that the remapping unit coordinates the output signals based on the sensor data, design data, and inverse kinematics algorithm based on the remapping, where actuator commands 46 are used to control movement of the excavator links based on the individual joint movements required to achieve a particular movement of the tool relative to the reference surface calculated using kinematic model 45, as described in ¶0097-0099), where the reference surface of Kjaergaard is modified to be “multi-planar,” in light of Matsuyama ‘776, as discussed above.
Claim 19
Kjaergaard further discloses that the interface mechanism comprises one or more joysticks (see ¶0082, with respect to Figures 5-9, regarding hand-operated user inputs are provided by means of two joysticks 19A, 19B and two rollers 20A, 20B).
Claim 20
Kjaergaard further discloses that the mobile work machine comprises an excavator (see ¶0072, with respect to Figure 1, describing an excavator).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard in view of Matsuyama ‘124 and Matsuyama ‘776, and in further view of Bryan (US 5,058,294), hereinafter Bryan.
Claim 17
The combination of Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124 further teach that the non-linear axis follows the target multi-planar control surface in a first set of directions, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16, where the “first set of directions” reasonably pertain to the directions associated with intersected line 47 of Matsuyama ‘124.
The combination of Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124 does not further teach that the “non-linear axis” comprises a curve. However, no details of how the curve is generated are claimed, and the “non-linear axis” is merely defined as “one axis of the plurality of axes,” without particular control operations pertaining to the “non-linear axis.” Therefore, it would be reasonable to modify the “non-linear axis” of Matsuyama ‘124, so as to include a “curve,” in light of Bryan.
Specifically, Bryan teaches the known technique of providing a target plane (similar to the non-linear axis of Matsuyama ‘124) as a curve (see col. 2, lines 22-45, regarding an excavator that causes a plane to become a cylindrical surface of proportionately decreasing radius, where the cylindrical surface of transition becomes mutually tangent to the initial grade produced by the excavator and the new grade).
In Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124, the excavator is a hydraulic excavator with a bucket. In Bryan, the excavator is a wheel trencher. However, Bryan is merely applied to teach the known design choice of a curved target multi-planar control surface, so as to smooth the edges of intersection of the “non-linear axis” of Matsuyama ‘124.
Since the systems of Matsuyama ‘124 and Bryan are directed to the same purpose, i.e. forming a desired surface by performing grading operations, 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 non-linear axis taught by the combination of Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124, so as to comprise a curve, in light of Bryan, with the predictable result of making smooth, predictable grade transitions (col. 2, lines 17-21 of Bryan), where the benefits of an improved design are well-known. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Claim 18
The combination of Kjaergaard, Matsuyama ‘776, and Matsuyama ‘124 teaches that the non-linear axis comprises a first non-linear axis, where Matsuyama ‘124, as modified by Bryan, is applied to the “non-linear axis” in claim 17.
Figure 4 of Matsuyama ‘124 further teaches another axis is a second non-linear axis that follows the plurality of designed surfaces 45 (similar to the target multi-planar control surface of Matsuyama ‘776) in a second set of directions, is transverse to the first non-linear axis (i.e. intersected line 47), and comprises a curve, where the “another axis” intersects with intersected line 47 and is represented as being curved in Figure 4.
No operations are claimed with respect to the “another axis.” The “another axis” merely exists without having any influence on the claim. Therefore, this feature is reasonably conveyed by Figure 4 of Matsuyama ‘124.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Moriki et al. (US 10,301,794 B2) teaches calculating a bucket position in a three-dimensional coordinate system defining design surfaces (col. 6, line 62-col. 7, line 6), Baba et la. (US 9,411,325 B2) teaches an intersection line E that intersects a motion plane MP, where planes are depicted as multi-planar in Figure 8 (see col. 10, line 59-col. 11, line 14), and Sugiyama (US 2022/0220696 A1) teaches aligning a bucket with an intended construction plane 600 that includes horizontal plane 601, bend 603, and slope 602 (see ¶0187, with respect to Figure 7A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights