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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for monitoring an operation of a work machine (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring an operation of a work machine, the work machine comprising: a body and an arm, the arm comprising:
a stick, the stick comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to the body at a stick pivot and configured to rotate about the stick pivot;
a tool comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to a distal end of the stick at a tool pivot and configured to rotate about the tool pivot;
a tool position sensor, configured to determine a position of the tool; wherein the method comprises:
determining, based on the determined position of the tool, a tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; and
determining an output signal,
based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” and “comparing…” in the context of this claim observing a work machine and forming a simple judgement regarding the tool angle. Additionally, the “comparing…” step is not too complicated to be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to
those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the specification does not provide any indication that the data processor is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar analysis applied to independent claim 13.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-23 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20200224383 A1; hereinafter Ishida) in view of Hatake et al. (US 20240352705 A1; Hatake).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches a method for monitoring an operation of a work machine, the work machine comprising a body and an arm, the arm comprising: a stick, the stick comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to the body at a stick pivot and configured to rotate about the stick pivot (see at least, Fig 1, [0036] a hydraulic excavator 1..the machine body 1B...The front work implement 1A is constituted by coupling a plurality of driven members…an arm 9); a tool comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to a distal end of the stick at a tool pivot and configured to rotate about the tool pivot (see at least, [0039] bucket 10…constitute driven members driven by…a bucket cylinder 7); a tool position sensor, configured to determine a position of the tool (see at least, [0072] The posture calculating section 43b calculates the posture of the work implement 1A and the position of the toe of the bucket 10 based on information from the work implement posture sensor 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the method comprises: determining, based on the determined position of the tool, a tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, Fig 5; [0072] The excavator coordinate system in FIG. 5 is a coordinate system set for the upper swing structure 12, and has its origin at the base bottom section of the boom 8 supported pivotably by the upper swing structure 12, and has its Z-axis and X-axis in the vertical direction and horizontal direction, respectively, of the upper swing structure 12. The angle of inclination of the boom 8 to the X-axis is defined as a boom angle α, the angle of inclination of the arm 9 to the boom 8 is defined as an arm angle β, and the angle of inclination of the bucket toe to the arm is defined as a bucket angle γ).
Ichida does not explicitly teach determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles. However, Hatake teaches this limitation.
Hatake teaches determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles (see at least, [0063] after the automatic loading control is started, “0” is output as the stick operation command while the bucket angle is not less than the allowable angle or the actual bucket pin height is not higher than the stick control start height threshold…when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Hatake further teaches wherein the work machine further comprises: a stick position sensor, configured to determine a position of the stick (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may measure the cylinder lengths….the stick cylinder 135…and convert the cylinder lengths into angles to detect angles of the inclination); and wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the determined position of the stick and the determined position of the tool, the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, [0057] The determination unit 404 determines whether the angle of the bucket plane 133S is less than the allowable angle and determines whether the position of the bucket pin 133P is higher than the
stick control start height threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determining, based on the determined position of the stick and the determined position of the tool, the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 2. Hatake further teaches wherein: the determined position of the tool comprises a tool angle of rotation with respect to a first reference direction (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may detect relative rotation angles using potentiometers provided at the proximal end portions of…the bucket 133); and the determined position of the stick comprises a stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may measure the cylinder lengths….the stick cylinder 135…and convert the cylinder lengths into angles to detect angles of the inclination), wherein the method further comprises: determining the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick based on a sum of the stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction and the tool angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction (see at least, Fig 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determining the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick based on a sum of the stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction and the tool angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 3. Ishida further teaches wherein, the first reference direction is a vertical direction, preferably aligned with the direction of gravity (see at least, [0072] The excavator coordinate system in FIG. 5 is a coordinate system set for the upper swing structure 12, and has its origin at the base bottom section of the boom 8 supported pivotably by the upper swing structure 12, and has its Z-axis and X-axis in the vertical direction and horizontal direction, respectively, of the upper swing structure 12).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Ishida further teaches wherein the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles further comprises: setting the output signal to a negative signal if the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick is outside a target range of the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; and/or setting the output signal to a positive signal if the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick is within a target range of the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, Fig 10, [0079] the distribution of the limiting value ay when the level of intervention is positive has a V-shape, and the distribution of the limiting value ay when the level of intervention is negative has an inverse V-shape…there are five stages of correction amounts of the level of intervention, −10, −5, 0, +5, and +10).
PNG
media_image3.png
389
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Hatake further teaches comprising: determining whether a dig operation is in progress prior to determining the output signal (see at least, [0074] when the stick 132 is already extended when the automatic loading control is started, an operation for driving the bucket 133 to lift the boom 131 is performed…when the posture of the bucket 133 is out of the predetermined range from the target posture, the posture control of the bucket 133 is prioritized over the position control of the bucket 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determining whether a dig operation is in progress prior to determining the output signal as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Ichida further teaches wherein the work machine further comprises: a stick actuation assembly connected between the body and the stick (see at least, Fig 1, [0041] A hydraulic fluid delivered from the hydraulic pump 2 is supplied to the…arm cylinder 6), and configured to extend and/or retract to cause a rotation of the stick about the stick pivot (see at least, [0041] With extension and contraction of the…arm
cylinder 6…revolve(s) individually); a tool actuation assembly connected between the stick and the tool (see at least, Fig 1, [0041] A hydraulic fluid delivered from the hydraulic pump 2 is supplied to the
…bucket cylinder 7), and configured to extend and/or retract to cause a rotation of the tool about the tool pivot (see at least, [0041] With extension and contraction of the…bucket cylinder7…revolve(s) individually).
Hatake further teaches wherein the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles (see at least, [0063] after the automatic loading control is started, “0” is output as the stick operation command while the bucket
angle is not less than the allowable angle or the actual bucket pin height is not higher than the stick control start height threshold…when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command) further comprises: determining a suggested action based on the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; wherein the suggested action comprises one or more of: an instruction to extend and/or retract the stick actuation assembly; and/or an instruction to extend and/or retract the tool actuation assembly (see at least, [0042] Output signals of the operation device 123…a stick operation command that is an operation command of the stick cylinder 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles further comprises: determining a suggested action based on the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; wherein the suggested action comprises one or more of: an instruction to extend and/or retract the stick actuation assembly; and/or an instruction to extend and/or retract the tool actuation assembly as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of a claim 1. Ishida further teaches comprising: providing the output signal to one or more of: a user interface; and/or a controller configured to autonomously control the work machine (see at least, [0058] The output section 95 creates a signal to…display device 53 to thereby drive/control the hydraulic actuators 5 to 7, displays, on a display screen of a monitor which is the display device 53, an image of the machine body 1B, the bucket 10, the target surface 60).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Ishida further teaches wherein the tool comprises one or more of: a bucket; and/or a ground engaging tool; and/or a drill (see at least, Fig 1, [0032] a hydraulic excavator provided with a bucket 10 as an attachment to the tip of a work implement).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Ishida further teaches wherein the target range of tool angles is a fixed target range of tool angles (see at least, [0121] control to keep an angle of the bucket 10 at a desired angle by controlling the solenoid proportional valves 56c and 56d may be added such that the angle B of the bucket 10 to the target surface 60
becomes a constant value in order to perform levelling work easily).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Hatake further teaches wherein the target range of tool angles is a dynamic target range of tool angles (see at least, [0063] when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command thereafter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include the target range of tool angles is a dynamic target range of tool angles as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of claim 1. Ishida further teaches data processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 1 (see at least, [0148] controller 40 may be embodied in a program (software) that realizes the respective functions related to the configurations of the controller 40 by being read out and executed by an arithmetic processing apparatus…for example, a CPU).
Regarding claim 13, Ishida teaches a work machine comprising a body and an arm, the arm comprising: a stick, the stick comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to the body at a stick pivot and configured to rotate about the stick pivot (see at least, Fig 1, [0036] a hydraulic excavator 1..the machine body 1B...The front work implement 1A is constituted by coupling a plurality of driven members…an arm 9); a tool comprising a proximal end pivotably connected to a distal end of the stick at a tool pivot and configured to rotate about the tool pivot (see at least, [0039] bucket 10…constitute driven members driven by…a bucket cylinder 7); a tool position sensor, configured to determine a position of the tool (see at least, [0072] The posture calculating section 43b calculates the posture of the work implement 1A and the position of the toe of the bucket 10 based on information from the work implement posture sensor 50);
PNG
media_image1.png
466
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a data processing apparatus for monitoring the operation of the work machine (see at least, [0148] controller 40 may be embodied in a program (software) that realizes the respective functions related to the configurations of the controller 40 by being read out and executed by an arithmetic processing apparatus…for example, a CPU), the data processing apparatus being configured to: determine, based on the determined position of the tool, a tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, Fig 5; [0072] The excavator coordinate system in FIG. 5 is a coordinate system set for the upper swing structure 12, and has its origin at the base bottom section of the boom 8 supported pivotably by the upper swing structure 12, and has its Z-axis and X-axis in the vertical direction and horizontal direction, respectively, of the upper swing structure 12. The angle of inclination of the boom 8 to the X-axis is defined as a boom angle α, the angle of inclination of the arm 9 to the boom 8 is defined as an arm angle β, and the angle of inclination of the bucket toe to the arm is defined as a bucket angle γ).
Ichida does not explicitly teach determine an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles. However, Hatake teaches this limitation.
Hatake teaches determine an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles (see at least, [0063] after the automatic loading control is started, “0” is output as the stick operation command while the bucket angle is not less than the allowable angle or the actual bucket pin height is not higher than the stick control start height threshold…when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determine an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of claim 13. Hatake further teaches comprising: a stick position sensor, configured to determine a position of the stick (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may measure the cylinder lengths….the stick cylinder 135…and convert the cylinder lengths into angles to detect angles of the inclination); and wherein the data processing apparatus is further configured to: determine, based on the determined position of the stick and the determined position of the tool, the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, [0057] The determination unit 404 determines whether the angle of the bucket plane 133S is less than the allowable angle and determines whether the position of the bucket pin 133P is higher than the stick control start height threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determine, based on the determined position of the stick and the determined position of the tool, the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of claim 14. Hatake further teaches wherein: the determined position of the tool comprises a tool angle of rotation with respect to a first reference direction (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may detect relative rotation angles using potentiometers provided at the proximal end portions of…the bucket 133); and the determined position of the stick comprises a stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction (see at least, [0030] Angle sensors…may detect angles of the inclination with respect to another reference plane…may measure the cylinder lengths….the stick cylinder 135…and convert the cylinder lengths into angles to detect angles of the inclination); and wherein the data processing apparatus is further configured to: determine the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick based on a sum of the stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction and the tool angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction (see at least, Fig 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include determine the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick based on a sum of the stick angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction and the tool angle of rotation with respect to the first reference direction as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of claim 15. Ishida further teaches wherein the first reference direction is a vertical direction, optionally aligned with the direction of gravity (see at least, [0072] The excavator coordinate system in FIG. 5 is a coordinate
system set for the upper swing structure 12, and has its origin at the base bottom section of the boom 8 supported pivotably by the upper swing structure 12, and has its Z-axis and X-axis in the vertical direction and horizontal direction, respectively, of the upper swing structure 12).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. Ishida further teaches wherein as part of the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles, the data processing apparatus is further configured to: set the output signal to a negative signal if the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick is outside a target range of the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; and/or set the output signal to a positive signal if the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick is within a target range of the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick (see at least, Fig 10, [0079] the distribution of the limiting value ay when the level of intervention is positive has a V-shape, and the distribution of the limiting value ay when the level of intervention is negative has an inverse V-shape…there are five stages of correction amounts of the level of intervention, −10, −5, 0, +5, and +10).
PNG
media_image3.png
389
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. Hatake further teaches wherein the data processing apparatus is further configured to: determine whether a dig operation is in progress (see at least, [0074] when the stick 132 is already extended when the automatic loading control is started, an operation for driving the bucket 133 to lift the boom 131 is performed…when the posture of the bucket 133 is out of the predetermined range from the target posture, the posture control of the bucket 133 is prioritized over the position control of the bucket 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include d determine whether a dig operation is in progress as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. Ichida further teaches comprising: a stick actuation assembly connected between the body and the stick (see at least, Fig 1, [0041] A hydraulic fluid delivered from the hydraulic pump 2 is supplied to the…arm cylinder 6), and configured to extend and/or retract to cause a rotation of the stick about the stick pivot (see at least, [0041] With extension and contraction of the…arm cylinder 6…revolve(s) individually); a tool actuation assembly connected between the stick and the tool (see at least, Fig 1, [0041] A hydraulic fluid delivered from the hydraulic pump 2 is supplied to the…bucket cylinder 7), and configured to extend and/or retract to cause a rotation of the tool about the tool pivot (see at least, [0041] With extension and contraction of the…bucket cylinder7…revolve(s) individually).
wherein as part of the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles(see at least, [0063] after the automatic loading control is started, “0” is output as the stick operation command while the bucket
angle is not less than the allowable angle or the actual bucket pin height is not higher than the stick control start height threshold…when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command) further comprises: determining a suggested action based on the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; wherein the suggested action comprises one or more of: an instruction to extend and/or retract the stick actuation assembly; and/or an instruction to extend and/or retract the tool actuation assembly (see at least, [0042] Output signals of the operation device 123…a stick operation command that is an operation command of the stick cylinder 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include the step of determining an output signal, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles further comprises: determining a suggested action based on the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick; wherein the suggested action comprises one or more of: an instruction to extend and/or retract the stick actuation assembly; and/or an instruction to extend and/or retract the tool actuation assembly as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. Ishida further teaches comprising: providing the output signal to one or more of: a user interface; and/or a controller configured to autonomously control the work machine (see at least, [0058] The output section 95 creates a signal to…display device 53 to thereby drive/control the hydraulic actuators 5 to 7, displays, on a display screen of a monitor which is the display device 53, an image of the machine body 1B, the bucket 10, the target surface 60).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. Ishida further teaches wherein the tool comprises one or more of: a bucket; and/or a ground engaging tool; and/or a drill (see at least, Fig 1, [0032] a hydraulic excavator provided with a bucket 10 as an attachment to the tip of a work implement).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the work machine of any of claim 13. wherein the target range of tool angles is a fixed target range of tool angles. Ishida further teaches wherein the target range of tool angles is a fixed target range of tool angles (see at least, [0121] control to keep an angle of the bucket 10 at a desired angle by controlling the solenoid proportional valves 56c and 56d may be added such that the angle B of the bucket 10 to the target surface 60
becomes a constant value in order to perform levelling work easily).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ishida and Hatake teaches the method of any of claim 13. Hatake further teaches wherein the target range of tool angles is a dynamic target range of tool angles (see at least, [0063] when the bucket angle is less than the allowable angle and the actual bucket pin height is higher than the stick control start height threshold even once, the output of the table 511 is continuously output as the stick operation command thereafter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichida to include the target range of tool angles is a dynamic target range of tool angles as taught by Hatake in order to prioritize a control of the posture of the work tool over a control of the position of the work tool until the posture of the work tool falls within the predetermined range (Hatake, [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elkins et al. (US 10648160 B2) discloses determining an output signal for a work machine, based on comparing the tool angle of rotation with respect to the stick to a target range of tool angles (e.g. Col 2 lines 4-7, a work machine with a controller which outputs a bucket location signal corresponding to a current bucket position and a current bucket orientation based on a determined boom angle, stick extension, and bucket angle).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights