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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on November 04, 2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending, with Claim 4 being amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP2023-165293, filed on September 27, 2023. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to the declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to the PCT filing of Application No. PCT/JP2024/024547, filed on July 08, 2024. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on November 04, 2025, and September 16, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a work position setting unit …”, “a state determination unit …”, and a “work position correction unit …” in Claims 1 and 5.
“a notification unit …” in Claim 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitations of “a work position setting unit …”, “a state determination unit …”, “a work position correction unit …”, and “a notification unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0022]-[0023] at least states that “The controller 50 includes a work position setting unit 51, a state determination unit 53, a work position correction unit 55, a driving control unit 57, and a notification unit 59 …” and “The controller 50 is a computer … and the function of the controller 50 is implemented by executing a program stored in a storage unit …”. The structure for these limitations is software or hardware for implementing the functions of the controller.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0230827 A1, to Bitter (hereinafter referred to as Bitter).
As per Claim 1, Bitter discloses the features of a work assistance system that assists a work machine (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where a work machine can be operated in an automatic dump sequence) including
a machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a body) and
an attachment that includes a tip attachment for performing work and is operably attached to the machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a bucket (10) which is mounted on an arm assembly (40), which is pivotably mounted on the boom and to the body of the digging machine (1)),
the work assistance system comprising a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0046], [0057]; where the control system (70) may comprise instructions stored in memory and executed by a processor, and where the control system (70) controls operation of the actuator assembly), wherein the controller includes:
a work position setting unit that sets a work position that is a target position at which the tip attachment releases a work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0058], [0064]-[0065]; Figures 9-10; where the dumping sequence may be implemented responsive to receiving the dump command (10) in combination with sensor input from load or position sensors (71), and the dump sequence comprises a pre-positioning step (111, 114) in which the system moves the bucket to a first dump orientation); and
a state determination unit that determines a state of the work object captured by the tip attachment (e.g. Paragraphs [0063], [0067]; where the position sensors (710) are arranged to sense the relative positions of all the moving parts of the machine, and where the load sensors (71) of the control system may sense the weight of a load of material (2) in the bucket); and
a work position correction unit that corrects the work position with a correction value based on the state of the work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0076]; where the load sensors (71) of the control system (70) may be arranged to sense the weight of a load of loose material (2) in the bucket and to change the first predefined angular position or range of positions of the dump orientation responsive to the sensed load).
As per Claim 2, Bitter discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bitter further discloses the features of the work assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the controller further includes a driving control unit that controls the attachment so as to release the work object at the corrected work position (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0067], [0076]; where the load sensors (71) of the control system (70) may be arranged to sense the weight of a load of loose material (2) in the bucket and to change the first predefined angular position or range of positions of the dump orientation responsive to the sensed load).
As per Claim 5, Bitter discloses the features of a work machine (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where a work machine can be operated in an automatic dump sequence) comprising:
a machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a body);
an attachment that includes a tip attachment for performing work and is operably attached to the machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a bucket (10) which is mounted on an arm assembly (40), which is pivotably mounted on the boom and to the body of the digging machine (1)); and
a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0046], [0057]; where the control system (70) may comprise instructions stored in memory and executed by a processor, and where the control system (70) controls operation of the actuator assembly), wherein the controller includes:
a work position setting unit that sets a work position that is a target position at which the tip attachment releases a work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0058], [0064]-[0065]; Figures 9-10; where the dumping sequence may be implemented responsive to receiving the dump command (10) in combination with sensor input from load or position sensors (71), and the dump sequence comprises a pre-positioning step (111, 114) in which the system moves the bucket to a first dump orientation);
a state determination unit that determines a state of the work object captured by the tip attachment (e.g. Paragraphs [0063], [0067]; where the position sensors (710) are arranged to sense the relative positions of all the moving parts of the machine, and where the load sensors (71) of the control system may sense the weight of a load of material (2) in the bucket); and
a work position correction unit that corrects the work position with a correction value based on the state of the work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0076]; where the load sensors (71) of the control system (70) may be arranged to sense the weight of a load of loose material (2) in the bucket and to change the first predefined angular position or range of positions of the dump orientation responsive to the sensed load).
As per Claim 6, Bitter discloses the features of a work assistance program used for a work machine (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where a work machine can be operated in an automatic dump sequence) including
a machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a body) and
an attachment that includes a tip attachment for performing work and is operably attached to the machine body (e.g. Paragraph [0041]; where the digging machine (1) comprises a bucket (10) which is mounted on an arm assembly (40), which is pivotably mounted on the boom and to the body of the digging machine (1)),
the work assistance program causing a computer (e.g. Paragraphs [0046], [0057]; where the control system (70) may comprise instructions stored in memory and executed by a processor, and where the control system (70) controls operation of the actuator assembly) to execute:
a work position setting step of setting a work position that is a target position at which the tip attachment releases a work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0058], [0064]-[0065]; Figures 9-10; where the dumping sequence may be implemented responsive to receiving the dump command (10) in combination with sensor input from load or position sensors (71), and the dump sequence comprises a pre-positioning step (111, 114) in which the system moves the bucket to a first dump orientation);
a state determination step of determining a state of the work object captured by the tip attachment (e.g. Paragraphs [0063], [0067]; where the position sensors (710) are arranged to sense the relative positions of all the moving parts of the machine, and where the load sensors (71) of the control system may sense the weight of a load of material (2) in the bucket); and
a work position correction step of correcting the work position with a correction value based on the state of the work object (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0076]; where the load sensors (71) of the control system (70) may be arranged to sense the weight of a load of loose material (2) in the bucket and to change the first predefined angular position or range of positions of the dump orientation responsive to the sensed load).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0230827 A1, to Bitter (hereinafter referred to as Bitter), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0290178 A1, to Suzuki, et al (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki).
As per Claim 3, Bitter discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bitter fails to disclose every feature of wherein the controller further includes a notification unit that notifies the corrected work position.
However, Suzuki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a loaded guide system, where the display shows the position of the bucket (213), which does not coincide with the next gravity center position (902a), and the operator operates the hydraulic shovel (202) with reference to the information displayed on the display unit (12) in such a manner that the two positions coincide with each other, and the system changes the display to an oval (902b) or by changing the display of the bucket position (903) (e.g. Paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; Figures 3, 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the shovel system of Bitter, with the feature of notifying an operator of the corrected position in the system of Suzuki, in order to clearly notify the user that the bucket position is in line with the new gravity center (see at least Paragraph [0103] of Suzuki).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0230827 A1, to Bitter (hereinafter referred to as Bitter), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0302794 A1, to Kean, et al (hereinafter referred to as Kean).
As per Claim 4, Bitter discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bitter further discloses the features of the work assistance system according to any one of claim 1, wherein the tip attachment is a bucket having an opening surface (e.g. Paragraph [0044]; Figure 1; where the leading edge (21) of the front part (20) of the bucket may form a leading, lower edge, or lip of the digging aperture (11) through which the bucket is loaded with loos material) ‘…’.
Bitter fails to disclose every feature of the state determination unit determines a protrusion height of the bucket from the opening surface with respect to the work object held by the bucket, and the work position correction unit determines the correction value based on the protrusion height, and sets, based on the correction value, a position shifted from the work position in a direction in which the attachment protrudes from the machine body as the corrected work position.
However, Kean, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a targeted loading assistance system for a work machine, where the measuring system (204) is configured to determine the measure of a load (108) located in the load carrying mechanism (106) of the work machine (102), which can include determining weight, pressure, force, volume, heaviness, or mass of a material location within the load carrying mechanism, a type of load carried by the carrying mechanism, physical dimensions of the load (108), and the prediction logic (218) can receive control data (226), indicative of the mass acceleration, minimum/maximum height of the bucket, min/max bucket tilt, bucket/boom/stick acceleration, boom swing speed/ acceleration. Bucket max load, etc., and may also receive measurements of the load distribution, load type, stack quality, height of a load; and where the prediction logic (218) can generate signals to control the machine (102) to avoid a collision or to ensure the bucket can clear an obstacle along the path (i.e., corrects the swing of the attachment) (e.g. Paragraphs [0025], [0033]-[0034], [0039]-[0040]; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the shovel system of Bitter, with the feature of determining height/ dimension calculations of material in a bucket of a work machine in the system of Kean, in order to ensure the boom/ bucket clears an obstacle along its travel path (see at least Paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of Kean).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hatake, et al (U.S. 2023/0193588 A1), which teaches a work system control method for determining a target position of the boom and arm based on the work stage, and correcting the control amount to the target position.
Hong, et al (KR 20200132217 A), which teaches a method for measuring the shape of material in a bucket, and updating the boom, arm, and bucket positions of the excavator.
Kim (KR 20000024991 A), which teaches a method for measuring bucket displacement of an excavator and displaying updated bucket positions to the user.
Kim, et al (U.S. 2024/0271393 A1), which teaches a method for controlling an excavator based on determining the height information of the plane of the target object.
Matsuo, et al (U.S. 2017/0328032 A1), which teaches a method for determining height and volume of an object in a bucket, and displaying the information to an operator.
Ready-Campbell, et al (U.S. 2022/0364321 A1), which teaches a method for determining the state and loading of a tool of the vehicle, and change the bucket position in response.
Oasa, et al (U.S. 2025/0327273 A1), which teaches a method for determining a load height of an object inside the bucket of an excavator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
