DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: the reference character 212 in paragraph [0051] is not supported in the drawings.
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)(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 1-3, 8-10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(2) as being anticipated by Okada (US 2022/0290402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a power machine system, comprising:
a first power machine (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example), including:
a first work element (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26);
a first power source to power the first work element (In paragraph [0038], Okada discloses that the actuator 63 is a driving mechanism, including a turning motor, a cylinder, and the like, which drives a turning shaft of the master machine 100, where the actuator 63 drives each of the units in response to a driving signal supplied from the control device 61);
a first user input device to control the first work element (In paragraph [0031], Okada discloses an operation mechanism 52 that operates the master machine 100, and communication equipment 53 that transmits and receives various types of signals among slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C, where the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface) corresponding to both an operation of the master machine 100 and an operation of the slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C); and
a first processing device that cooperatively controls the first power machine and a second power machine to complete a task (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100, and the slave machine 200 is set to an automatic control mode, and performs work by automatic control, wherein the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)), including by controlling:
the first power machine, via local control of the first work element by the first user input device of the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
a second power machine, via remote control of a second work element of the second power machine by the first user input device of the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Regarding claim 2, Okada further discloses wherein the first and second work elements each include:
a workgroup work element (In paragraph [0023], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12); or
a tractive element (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26).
Regarding claim 3, Okada further discloses wherein the first power machine is configured to receive and display a video transmission from the second power machine during the cooperative control to complete the task (In paragraphs [0081-0084], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches a video to be displayed on the monitor 54 into a camera video from the slave machine 200 (STEP 501), where the operator who is riding in the master machine 100 operates a lever or the like of the operation mechanism 52 based on information about a camera video from the slave machine 200 displayed on the monitor 54, a voice around the slave machine 200 to be outputted from the speaker 55, and the work situation of the slave machine 200, and causes the slave machine 200 to perform work by remote control (STEP 504)).
Regarding claim 8, Okada discloses a control system for cooperatively controlling a first power machine and a second power machine to complete a task (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example), the control system comprising:
a first user input device within the first power machine (In paragraph [0031], Okada discloses an operation mechanism 52 that operates the master machine 100, and communication equipment 53 that transmits and receives various types of signals among slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C, where the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface) corresponding to both an operation of the master machine 100 and an operation of the slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C); and
a processor device (In paragraphs [0034-0035], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 includes a control device 61 (a master control device) that is a control device that controls an operation of each of units in the master machine 100) to:
receive a first user input via the first user input device (In paragraph [0031], Okada discloses an operation mechanism 52 that operates the master machine 100, and communication equipment 53 that transmits and receives various types of signals among slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C, where the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface) corresponding to both an operation of the master machine 100 and an operation of the slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C);
in response to receiving the first user input (In paragraph [0091], Okada discloses that an operation mechanism 52 may receive from the operator a first specifying operation for specifying whether or not an operation command signal can be transmitted, and a control device 61 (a master control device) may determine whether or not communication equipment 53 is caused to transmit the operation command signal to the slave machine 200 in response to the first specifying operation received by the operation mechanism 52, where such a configuration makes it possible for the operator to appropriately switch an operation of the master machine 100 (an own machine) in which the operator himself/herself is riding and remote control of the slave machine 200 (another machine) to perform an operation), selectively:
control a first work element of the first power machine, based on the first user input, to execute a first work operation of the task with the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); or
control a second work element of the second power machine, based on the first user input, to execute a second work operation of the task with the second power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Regarding claim 9, Okada further discloses wherein the processor device controls the first and second power machines to cooperatively complete the task (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example) by selectively:
locally controlling the first power machine via first inputs to the first user input device (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
remotely controlling the second power machine via second inputs to the first user input device (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Regarding claim 10, Okada further discloses wherein, the first power machine is configured to receive and display a video transmission from the second power machine during the remote control of the second power machine via the second inputs to the first user input device (In paragraphs [0081-0084], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches a video to be displayed on the monitor 54 into a camera video from the slave machine 200 (STEP 501), where the operator who is riding in the master machine 100 operates a lever or the like of the operation mechanism 52 based on information about a camera video from the slave machine 200 displayed on the monitor 54, a voice around the slave machine 200 to be outputted from the speaker 55, and the work situation of the slave machine 200, and causes the slave machine 200 to perform work by remote control (STEP 504)).
Regarding claim 15, Okada discloses a method for cooperatively controlling a first power machine and a second power machine to complete a task (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example), the method comprising:
selecting (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses wherein the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200; see also paragraph [0091] where Okada discloses that an operation mechanism 52 may receive from the operator a first specifying operation for specifying whether or not an operation command signal can be transmitted, and a control device 61 (a master control device) may determine whether or not communication equipment 53 is caused to transmit the operation command signal to the slave machine 200 in response to the first specifying operation received by the operation mechanism 52, where such a configuration makes it possible for the operator to appropriately switch an operation of the master machine 100 (an own machine) in which the operator himself/herself is riding and remote control of the slave machine 200 (another machine) to perform an operation) between:
local control of the first power machine via a first user input interface within the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
remote control of the second power machine via the first user input interface within the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103));
during the selected local control of the first power machine, controlling operation of a first work element of the first power machine, based on a first user input at the first user input interface, to cooperatively execute the task (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
during the selected remote control of the second power machine, controlling operation of a second work element of the second power machine, based on a second user input at the first user input interface, to cooperatively execute the task (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Regarding claim 16, Okada further discloses during the selected remote control of the second power machine, receiving a video transmission from the second power machine and displaying the video transmission at the first power machine (In paragraphs [0081-0084], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches a video to be displayed on the monitor 54 into a camera video from the slave machine 200 (STEP 501), where the operator who is riding in the master machine 100 operates a lever or the like of the operation mechanism 52 based on information about a camera video from the slave machine 200 displayed on the monitor 54, a voice around the slave machine 200 to be outputted from the speaker 55, and the work situation of the slave machine 200, and causes the slave machine 200 to perform work by remote control (STEP 504)).
Regarding claim 18, Okada further discloses wherein the first work element includes a workgroup work element of the first power machine and the second work element includes a tractive element of the second power machine (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26).
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 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 2022/0290402 A1), in view of Funke (US 2014/0214240 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Okada further discloses wherein the first user input device includes an input within the first power machine that receives first inputs for the local control of the first work element and second inputs for the remote control of the second work element (In paragraph [0031], Okada discloses that the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface)).
Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user input device includes a joystick.
However, Funke teaches wherein the first user input device includes a joystick (In paragraph [0023], Funke teaches that different types of the machines 104 may include a motor grader type, a dozer type, a hydraulic excavator type, a haul truck type, etc., where the machine 104 working at the worksite 108 may be controlled remotely by an operator sitting at the universal remote operator station 102; in paragraph [0024], Funke teaches that the universal remote operator station 102 is configured to map the number of functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104 to a number of control devices placed within the universal remote operator station 102, which may include a joystick, foot pedals, steering, etc.).
Funke is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to utilizing a joystick for control of power equipment. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a joystick as taught by Funke with the interface as disclosed by Okada, where the Examiner understands that the use of a joystick to control hydraulic power equipment is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that a joystick may provide a greater degree of control (over a two-dimensional plane) compared a lever (over a one-dimensional line), for example, increasing utility of the interface without requiring the user to switch between controls.
Regarding claim 11, Okada further discloses wherein the first user input device includes an input within the first power machine (In paragraph [0031], Okada discloses that the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface)); and
wherein a control signal from the first user input device is implemented:
with a first mapping, to control actuators of the first power machine during the local control of the first power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
with a second mapping, to control actuators of the second power machine during the remote control of the second power machine (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user input device includes a joystick,
wherein the second mapping is different from the first mapping.
However, Funke teaches wherein the first user input device includes a joystick (In paragraph [0023], Funke teaches that different types of the machines 104 may include a motor grader type, a dozer type, a hydraulic excavator type, a haul truck type, etc., where the machine 104 working at the worksite 108 may be controlled remotely by an operator sitting at the universal remote operator station 102; in paragraph [0024], Funke teaches that the universal remote operator station 102 is configured to map the number of functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104 to a number of control devices placed within the universal remote operator station 102, which may include a joystick, foot pedals, steering, etc.),
wherein the second mapping is different from the first mapping (In paragraph [0024], Funke teaches that the universal remote operator station 102 may be configured to communicate with a database to extract a number of functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104, and based on the extracted functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104, the universal remote operator station 102 is configured to map the extracted functionalities to a number of control devices placed within the universal remote operator station 102, and therefore, the control devices in the universal remote operator station 102 may work or provide control operations required for controlling the operator selected machine 104; see also paragraph [0047] where Funke teaches an example where the functionalities particular to the excavator 1 are mapped onto the control devices 204 within the universal remote operator station 102).
Funke is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to utilizing a joystick for control of power equipment, and providing particular control mappings to an interface depending on the machine controlled. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a joystick and differentiating control mapping as taught by Funke with the interface as disclosed by Okada, where the Examiner understands that the use of a joystick to control hydraulic power equipment is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that a joystick may provide a greater degree of control (over a two-dimensional plane) compared a lever (over a one-dimensional line), for example, increasing utility of the interface without requiring the user to switch between controls. Furthermore, allowing differentiated control mapping dependent on the machine controlled may advantageously allow for a greater number and variety of machines to be more accurately controlled at the interface, improving utility of the system, for example.
Regarding claim 17, Okada further discloses wherein a first mapping of user inputs at the first user input interface corresponds to control of the first work element (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100) and
a second mapping of user inputs at the first user input interface corresponds to control of the second work element (In paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the second mapping is different from the first mapping.
However, Funke teaches wherein the second mapping is different from the first mapping (In paragraph [0024], Funke teaches that the universal remote operator station 102 may be configured to communicate with a database to extract a number of functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104, and based on the extracted functionalities associated with the control operations of the operator selected machine 104, the universal remote operator station 102 is configured to map the extracted functionalities to a number of control devices placed within the universal remote operator station 102, and therefore, the control devices in the universal remote operator station 102 may work or provide control operations required for controlling the operator selected machine 104; see also paragraph [0047] where Funke teaches an example where the functionalities particular to the excavator 1 are mapped onto the control devices 204 within the universal remote operator station 102).
Funke is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to providing particular control mappings to an interface depending on the machine controlled. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement differentiating control mapping as taught by Funke with the interface as disclosed by Okada, where allowing differentiated control mapping dependent on the machine controlled may advantageously allow for a greater number and variety of machines to be more accurately controlled at the interface, improving utility of the system, for example.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 2022/0290402 A1), in view of Eklund (US 2021/0388577 A1).
Regarding claim 5, although in paragraph [0019] Okada discloses a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels as an example, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first power machine is an excavator and the second power machine is a loader.
However, Eklund teaches wherein the first power machine is an excavator and the second power machine is a loader (In paragraph [0002], Eklund teaches that the invention is applicable on autonomous vehicles, for example working machines within the fields of industrial construction machines and in particular haulers and excavators, where the invention is not restricted to these particular working machines, but may be used in other construction equipment or in other vehicles, such as wheel loaders, trucks, etc.; in paragraph [0070], Eklund teaches that at least some of the haulers or other autonomous vehicles may be members of a common collaborative group, i.e. a group of autonomous vehicles collaborating in performing a specific task).
Eklund is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the collaborative operation of excavators and loaders. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the excavators and loaders as taught by Eklund with the system as disclosed by Okada, where the Examiner understands that the use of excavators and loaders in a collaborative operation is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that doing so may increase the efficiency of operations, such as transportation of loads at a worksite as suggested by Eklund in paragraph [0003], for example.
Regarding claim 6, Okada further discloses wherein the task is a work task and the cooperative control to complete the task includes control of one or more workgroup work elements of the first and second power machines by the first user input device (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26; in paragraph [0031], Okada discloses an operation mechanism 52 that operates the master machine 100, and communication equipment 53 that transmits and receives various types of signals among slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C, where the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface) corresponding to both an operation of the master machine 100 and an operation of the slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C).
Regarding claim 7, Okada further discloses wherein the cooperative control further includes control of one or more tractive elements of the first and second power machines by the first user input device (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26; in paragraph [0031], Okada discloses an operation mechanism 52 that operates the master machine 100, and communication equipment 53 that transmits and receives various types of signals among slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C, where the operation mechanism 52 includes a lever and a button, for example (i.e., a common operation interface) corresponding to both an operation of the master machine 100 and an operation of the slave machines 20A, 20B, and 20C).
Regarding claim 12, although in paragraph [0019] Okada discloses a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels as an example, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first power machine is an excavator and the second power machine is a loader.
However, Eklund teaches wherein the first power machine is an excavator and the second power machine is a loader (In paragraph [0002], Eklund teaches that the invention is applicable on autonomous vehicles, for example working machines within the fields of industrial construction machines and in particular haulers and excavators, where the invention is not restricted to these particular working machines, but may be used in other construction equipment or in other vehicles, such as wheel loaders, trucks, etc.; in paragraph [0070], Eklund teaches that at least some of the haulers or other autonomous vehicles may be members of a common collaborative group, i.e. a group of autonomous vehicles collaborating in performing a specific task).
Eklund is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the collaborative operation of excavators and loaders. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the excavators and loaders as taught by Eklund with the system as disclosed by Okada, where the Examiner understands that the use of excavators and loaders in a collaborative operation is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that doing so may increase the efficiency of operations, such as transportation of loads at a worksite as suggested by Eklund in paragraph [0003], for example.
Regarding claim 13, Okada further discloses wherein the first work element includes one or more of a first workgroup work element of the excavator or a first tractive element of the excavator (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26; in paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the master machine 100 is set to a “master machine operation mode” as a mode for performing work of the master machine 100 itself in a state where an abnormality of work has not occurred (hereinafter referred to as a normal working state) in any one of the plurality of slave machines 200 (STEP 101), where in the master machine operation mode, the operator operates the operation lever constituting the operation mechanism 52, for example, to perform excavation work or the like around the master machine 100); and
wherein the second work element includes one or more of a second workgroup work element of the loader or a second tractive element of the loader (In paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26; in paragraphs [0055-0058], Okada discloses that the control device 61 in the master machine 100 switches an operation mode with receiving of an alert from the slave machine 200 as a trigger (STEP 102) switching from the “master machine operation mode” to a “remote control mode” as an operation mode for remotely controlling the slave machine 200 as a transmission source of the alert among the plurality of slave machines 200, and the master machine 100 remotely controls the slave machine 200 in response to the operation performed by the operator (STEP 103)).
Regarding claim 14, Okada further discloses wherein the task is a digging operation, the first workgroup element includes the first workgroup work element of the first power machine and the second work element includes the second tractive element of the loader (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example; in paragraphs [0023-0024], Okada discloses that the construction machine 10 is a hydraulic shovel, and includes a lower traveling body 12 and a boom 21 and a boom cylinder 22 that rotates the boom 21 are rotatably pivotally supported on the upper turning body 14, where a bucket 25 as a distal end attachment is pivotally supported on the arm 23 to be rotated by a bucket cylinder 27 via a link section 26).
Regarding claim 19, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first power machine and the second power machine are different types of power machines.
However, Eklund teaches wherein the first power machine and the second power machine are different types of power machines (In paragraph [0002], Eklund teaches that the invention is applicable on autonomous vehicles, for example working machines within the fields of industrial construction machines and in particular haulers and excavators, where the invention is not restricted to these particular working machines, but may be used in other construction equipment or in other vehicles, such as wheel loaders, trucks, etc.; in paragraph [0070], Eklund teaches that at least some of the haulers or other autonomous vehicles may be members of a common collaborative group, i.e. a group of autonomous vehicles collaborating in performing a specific task).
Eklund is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the collaborative operation of different types of power machines. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the excavators and loaders as taught by Eklund with the system as disclosed by Okada, where the Examiner understands that the use of excavators and loaders in a collaborative operation is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that doing so may increase the efficiency of operations, such as transportation of loads at a worksite as suggested by Eklund in paragraph [0003], for example.
Regarding claim 20, Okada further discloses wherein the task is a digging operation (In paragraph [0019], Okada discloses that the work system includes a master work machine 100 (hereinafter referred to as “master machine”), where in the present embodiment, a case where both the master machine 100 and the slave machine 200 are respectively hydraulic shovels will be described as an example).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10-11, 17, 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,305,364 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated below:
Instant Claim 1
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,305,364 B2
A power machine system, comprising:
A power machine system comprising:
a first power machine, including:
a first power machine, including: …
a first work element;
a first workgroup work element … ;
a first power source to power the first work element;
a first power source; a first actuator arranged to receive power from the first power source to move the first workgroup work element relative to the first main frame;
a first user input device to control the first work element; and
a first user input device … configured to transmit control signals based on inputs provided by a user at the first user input device; and
a first processing device that cooperatively controls the first power machine and a second power machine to complete a task, including by controlling:
a first control device; the first control device including first one or more processor devices configured to: receive, from the first user input device, a control signal corresponding to a power-machine operation; and cooperatively control execution of the first power machine and a second power machine to complete a work task…
the first power machine, via local control of the first work element by the first user input device of the first power machine; and
a local control mode, in which the first control device controls the first power machine via the first actuator, based on the control signal, to move the first workgroup work element relative to the first main frame; …
a second power machine, via remote control of a second work element of the second power machine by the first user input device of the first power machine.
a remote control mode, in which the first power machine controls the second power machine via the first control device transmitting a wireless signal to a second power machine, based on the control signal, to control operation of a second actuator of the second power machine to move a second workgroup work element relative to a second main frame.
Similar reasoning is applied to claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 19 in view of claims 2-3, 10-11, 17, 19-23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kean (US 2023/0092265 A1) teaches where a remote user interface and vehicle control systems for respective work machines may be further coordinated or otherwise interact with a remote server or other computing device for the performance of operations in a system.
Kobel (US 2023/0046835 A1) teaches an equipment utilization monitoring system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights