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 .
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, 6-8, and 10-14, 16-18, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (WO 2013/175075) in view of Wang (US 8,134,499 B2) and further in view of Huusko (US 2019/0352144 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Eriksson teaches a method for correlating position and profile measurements of an object ([0041]) to be manipulated (Figure 1b, 106) by a hoisting appliance (Figure 8a, 820 and 802; [0042]), the method being implemented in a centralized control unit (Figure 1a, 134; Figure 1b, 100; [0043, 0044]) configured for controlling the hoisting appliance and comprising:
receiving position data from at least one position sensor, said position sensor being configured to perform position measurements of the hoisting appliance within the hoisting area ([0030]-[0041]; Figure 1a, 132; Figure 6, 604);
receiving profile data from at least one profile scanner located on the hoisting appliance, the profile scanner being configured to perform profile measurements of the object to be manipulated located below the hoisting appliance ([0041]: “According to an embodiment, the positioning means produce information on the dimensions and/or position of the load in a selected coordinate system by means of cameras or a laser-based system, for example”; Table 1 Row 6 notes that the device can retrieve the 3D dimensions of the load, which the examiner reasonably interprets to encompass a profile of the load);
determining a speed of the hoisting appliance (Table 4; [0079]), wherein determining the speed of the hoisting appliance comprises obtaining historical data of speed of the hoisting appliance and calculating an evolution of position of the hoisting appliance (Equation 1; [0090]);
Eriksson does not teach and Wang does teach calculating a true positioning of the object by compensating the position data received from the position sensor for a time delay associated with at least one of (i) obtaining the position data and the profile data, (ii) communicating the position data and the profile data to the centralized control unit, and (iii) processing of the position data and the profile data by the centralized control unit, wherein compensating the position data is performed using the determined speed of the hoisting appliance (Columns 30 and 31: “However, during time delays 452, 454, and 456, the computer does not have correct time tags logically associated with the incoming data and the platform (150) is often changing its velocity V(t) and position P(t) in the interim before the data gets latched at step 457. Moreover, in box 482b, further adjustment is made by modeling the sum of delays 452, 454 and 456 as a sensor latency value, .delta.t.sub.imu, where the latter is supplied by estimator 474b. The latency corrected values for the inertially-defined platform velocity and position at true time t.sub.1, therefore become V.sub.y(t.sub.1) and P.sub.y(t.sub.1).”; “Finally, as the sensor output stages 455 convert the sensor responses into electrical or optical signals and forward them to the memory unit 458 of the processing computer, there can be various signal transport delays (Delay.sub.3) 456 involved.” This satisfies the limitation of a delay in communicating data to the central control unit.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eriksson with the teaching of Wang to calculate the true position based on latencies and the velocity of the platform during the latency period. The invention of Wang solves a similar problem in a related field of fast-moving agile platforms, in which the platforms can move a long distance during short intervals. This problem is closely related to the problem in the instant application, where precise positions are required to properly handle objects with moving lifts. Indeed, Wang notes in Column 3 that “compensating corrections for drift of clock bias, of data synchronization latency, and of sensor latency are provided so as to improve the accuracy of various signals within the UTC system.” More accurate signals are highly desirable, and can result in better and more accurate handling of objects, as well as safer operation.
Eriksson in view of Wang does not teach and Huusko does teach correlating the true position of the object and the profile data to calculate object dimensions ([0020], [0027: “a change in the mutual three-dimensional distance data of the hoisting apparatus and the identifiable object.” The shape of the object may appear to change as the lift moves, and thus the profile data must be understood with the distance data for proper identification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of correlating position and profile measurements of an object to be manipulated by a hoisting appliance of Eriksson to incorporate the teaching of Huusko interpret the image points representing the shape of the object in light of the distance from the object. Huusko notes that identifying objects in images saved at different times “may improve the accuracy and reliability of the speed and direction of travel as well as the position data of the hoisting apparatus, because the data may be determined and computed separately based on the two or more identifiable objects and the values thus obtained may be compared with each other.”
Regarding Claim 6, Eriksson further teaches controlling the hoisting appliance based on the calculated dimensions of the object ([0071]).
Regarding Claim 7, Eriksson teaches a hoisting appliance ([0030]; Figure 8a, 802, 820, 830) comprising a trolley (Figure 8a, 820) provided with a position sensor and a profile scanner (Figure 1a, 132; [0041]) , and a central control unit (Figure 1b, 100), wherein the central control unit is configured for executing the method according to claim 1 [0047].
Regarding Claim 8, Eriksson teaches a central control unit for a hoisting appliance (Figure 1b, 100; [0043], [0044]), the central control unit being configured for executing the method according to claim 1 [0047].
Regarding Claim 10, Eriksson teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Figure 1b, 110), with a computer program stored thereon ([0044], [0047], [0048]), said computer program comprising instructions for, when executed by a processor, carrying out the method according to claim 1 [0044].
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson further discloses wherein the hoisting appliance is configured to handle objects in a warehouse, shipyard, or industrial storage area ([0003]: “The operating environment of the lifting device may be a warehouse”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson further discloses wherein the hoisting appliance comprises a bridge crane, a gantry crane, or an overhead travelling crane ([0017]: “According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided a bridge crane, gantry crane, harbour crane (container crane, container straddle carrier, etc.) or a tower crane comprising a device according to an aspect.”).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson further discloses wherein the hoisting appliance comprises a trolley movable along a girder or a set of rails ([0038]: “According to an embodiment, the positioning means or a part thereof may be attached to a crane, e.g. to a crane trolley, crane bridge, crane hook block or an operating environment of the crane.”; [0043]: “The device 100 may be e.g. a lifting device, such as a crane, bridge crane, gantry crane, tower crane or a harbour crane, such as a container crane, continer straddle carrier, rubber tyre gantry crane or a gantry crane moving on rails.”)
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson further discloses wherein the hoisting appliance further comprises a load suspension device associated with cables ([0042]: “In a lifting device in which the load is moved by lifting it by a rope or a cable, swaying of the load may appear.”; Figure 8a) , a length of the cables being controlled to enable displacement of the object along a vertical axis ([0114]: “The moving of the lifting device may also comprise a vertical movement of the lifting device, when the gripping means of the lifting device are lowered or raised, for example.”).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson further discloses wherein the profile scanner comprises a light source and at least two light sensors configured to detect light reflected by the object ([0041]: “According to an embodiment, the positioning means produce information on the dimensions and/or position of the load in a selected coordinate system by means of cameras or a laser-based system, for example.” Cameras qualify as light sensors which detect reflected light.).
Regarding Claim 17, Eriksson discloses a method for correlating position and profile measurements of an object ([0041]) to be manipulated (Figure 1b, 106) by a hoisting appliance (Figure 8a, 820 and 802; [0042]), the method being implemented in a centralized control unit (Figure 1a, 134; Figure 1b, 100; [0043, 0044]) configured for controlling the hoisting appliance and comprising:
-receiving position data from at least one position sensor, said position sensor being configured to perform position measurements of the hoisting appliance within a hoisting area ([0030]-[0041]; Figure 1a, 132; Figure 6, 604), wherein the hoisting appliance comprises a bridge crane, a gantry crane, or an overhead travelling crane ([0017]: “According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided a bridge crane, gantry crane, harbour crane (container crane, container straddle carrier, etc.) or a tower crane comprising a device according to an aspect.”);
-receiving profile data from at least one profile scanner located on the hoisting appliance, the profile scanner being configured to perform profile measurements of the object to be manipulated located below the hoisting appliance ([0041]: “According to an embodiment, the positioning means produce information on the dimensions and/or position of the load in a selected coordinate system by means of cameras or a laser-based system, for example”; Table 1 Row 6 notes that the device can retrieve the 3D dimensions of the load, which the examiner reasonably interprets to encompass a profile of the load);
-obtaining information indicative of a delay associated with the position data and the profile data ([0038]: “In that case the device 130 may position dimensions of the loads moved by the lifting device and the dimensions of the load may be taken into account in distance calculations.”; [0039]: “The position of the object may be calculated by triangulation bn the .sup."basis of received signal strength (RSSI) from radio frequency signals received from a radio transmitter placed in the object and/or from a propagation time and reception direction angle of the radio signal.” The propagation time of a radio signal used to calculate or refine position is interpreted here as a delay.) ;
-determining a speed of the hoisting appliance (Table 4; [0079]), wherein determining the speed of the hoisting appliance comprises obtaining historical data of speed of the hoisting appliance and calculating an evolution of position of the hoisting appliance (Equation 1; [0090]);
Eriksson does not teach and Wang does teach calculating a true positioning of the object by compensating the position data received from the position sensor based on the obtained information indicative of the delay and the determined speed of the hoisting appliance (Columns 30 and 31: “However, during time delays 452, 454, and 456, the computer does not have correct time tags logically associated with the incoming data and the platform (150) is often changing its velocity V(t) and position P(t) in the interim before the data gets latched at step 457. Moreover, in box 482b, further adjustment is made by modeling the sum of delays 452, 454 and 456 as a sensor latency value, .delta.t.sub.imu, where the latter is supplied by estimator 474b. The latency corrected values for the inertially-defined platform velocity and position at true time t.sub.1, therefore become V.sub.y(t.sub.1) and P.sub.y(t.sub.1).”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eriksson with the teaching of Wang to calculate the true position based on latencies and the velocity of the platform during the latency period. The invention of Wang solves a similar problem in a related field of fast-moving agile platforms, in which the platforms can move a long distance during short intervals. This problem is closely related to the problem in the instant application, where precise positions are required to properly handle objects with moving lifts. Indeed, Wang notes in Column 3 that “compensating corrections for drift of clock bias, of data synchronization latency, and of sensor latency are provided so as to improve the accuracy of various signals within the UTC system.” More accurate signals are highly desirable, and can result in better and more accurate handling of objects, as well as safer operation.
- Eriksson in view of Wang does not teach and Huusko does teach correlating the true position of the object and the profile data to calculate object dimensions ([0027: “a change in the mutual three-dimensional distance data of the hoisting apparatus and the identifiable object”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of correlating position and profile measurements of an object to be manipulated by a hoisting appliance of Eriksson to incorporate the teaching of Huusko to calculate the true position based on a predetermined time delay associated with the speed of the hoisting appliance. Huusko notes that identifying objects in images saved at different times “may improve the accuracy and reliability of the speed and direction of travel as well as the position data of the hoisting apparatus, because the data may be determined and computed separately based on the two or more identifiable objects and the values thus obtained may be compared with each other.”
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 17, Eriksson and Huusko do not teach and Wang does teach wherein the delay is associated with at least one of (i) obtaining the position data and the profile data, (ii) communicating the position data and the profile data to the centralized control unit, or (iii) processing of the position data and the profile data by the centralized control unit (Columns 30 and 31: ““Finally, as the sensor output stages 455 convert the sensor responses into electrical or optical signals and forward them to the memory unit 458 of the processing computer, there can be various signal transport delays (Delay.sub.3) 456 involved.” This satisfies the limitation of a delay in communicating data to the central control unit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eriksson with the teaching of Wang to calculate the true position based on latencies and the velocity of the platform during the latency period associated with the transmission of data from a sensor to the processing unit. The invention of Wang solves a similar problem in a related field of fast-moving agile platforms, in which the platforms can move a long distance during short intervals. This problem is closely related to the problem in the instant application, where precise positions are required to properly handle objects with moving lifts. Indeed, Wang notes in Column 3 that “compensating corrections for drift of clock bias, of data synchronization latency, and of sensor latency are provided so as to improve the accuracy of various signals within the UTC system.” More accurate signals are highly desirable, and can result in better and more accurate handling of objects, as well as safer operation.
Regarding Claim 21, which depends from rejected Claim 17, Eriksson further discloses controlling the hoisting appliance based on the calculated dimensions of the object ([0080]: “According to an embodiment, the type of the restricted object is identified on the basis of the dimensions of the restricted object.”; [0081]: “In an example where a height dimension of the restricted object prevents the lifting device from being driven within the restricted object area, i.e. above the object, the type of the restricted object may be determined as a human being.”)
Regarding Claim 22, which depends from rejected Claim 17, Eriksson further discloses a hoisting appliance ([0030]; Figure 8a, 802, 820, 830) configured to handle objects in a warehouse, shipyard, or industrial storage area ([0003]: “The operating environment of the lifting device may be a warehouse”), comprising a trolley (Figure 8a, 820) provided with a position sensor and a profile scanner (Figure 1a, 132; [0041]) , and a central control unit (Figure 1b, 100), wherein the central control unit is configured for executing the method according to claim 17 ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 23, which depends from rejected Claim 17, Eriksson further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Figure 1b, 110), with a computer program stored thereon ([0044], [0047], [0048]), said computer program comprising instructions for, when executed by a processor, carrying out the method according to claim 17 ([0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Hipp (US 7,787,105 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as noted in the analysis above. The combination of Eriksson in view of Huusko does not teach that the delay time is predetermined by a calibration process.
Hipp teaches that the delay time is predetermined by a calibration process (Column 7, line 60 – Column 8, line 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Eriksson in view of Huusko to incorporate the teaching of Hipp to calibrate delay times. Hipp notes that the delay times may be temperature-dependent (Column 9, lines 5-16), so calibration would be needed to correct for temperature-induced changes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko as applied to Claim 17 and further in view of Hipp.
Regarding Claim 19, Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko teaches the limitations of Claim 17 as noted in the analysis above. The combination of Eriksson in view of Huusko does not teach that the delay time is predetermined by a calibration process.
Hipp teaches that the delay time is predetermined by a calibration process (Column 7, line 60 – Column 8, line 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Eriksson in view of Huusko to incorporate the teaching of Hipp to calibrate delay times. Hipp notes that the delay times may be temperature-dependent (Column 9, lines 5-16), so calibration would be needed to correct for temperature-induced changes.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Jones (2020/0361155 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko teaches all of the elements of the current invention stated in the analysis of Claim 1.
Eriksson also teaches a reference object ([0120]:“positioning pattern”) of known dimensions at a known location in the hoisting area. Eriksson also teaches scanning the reference object with the sensor ([120]: “… by means of one or more cameras and pattern recognition…”).
Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko does not teach scanning the reference object travelling at different reference speeds, obtaining position and profile measurements from the sensor and scanner associated with the reference speed, verifying the measurements against known dimensions and position of the reference object and determining the delay time, or storing the delay time associated with each respective reference speed.
Jones teaches a method of calibrating the speed and position of an additive manufacturing apparatus, and thereby solves a problem similar to the one in the instant application. The additive manufacturing tool is calibrated using position and profile data as it moves along a gantry above the work piece. The system is structurally very similar to the embodiments in the specification of the instant application, and the method presented therein is as well is highly applicable to both the printing errors of additive manufacturing and the manipulation errors of ‘pick-and-place’ operations in an industrial setting.
More specifically, Jones teaches calibration process ([0159]; Figs. 16 and 17), which provides a reference object of known dimensions at a known location ([0151]: ‘reference bed’; Fig. 14) in the hoisting area. Jones also teaches scanning the reference object with the sensor ([0162] – [0163]) with the hoisting appliance travelling at a different reference speeds ([0186]: ‘backlash’ upon movement change; [0207]: “compensation amount adjusted by a factor that depends on movement direction and movement speed”). Jones also teaches obtaining position and profile measurements from the sensor and scanner associated with the reference speed ([0162] – [0163]). Jones further teaches verifying the measurements against known dimensions and position of the reference object ([0207]) and determining the delay time ([0186]: “a delay occurs between initiation of a movement source and the actual observed movement in a component of interest.”). Finally, Jones teaches storing the delay time associated with each respective reference speed ([0201]).
The teachings of Jones are directed towards minimizing ‘gantry errors’ and delays associated with motor backlash. These teachings are applicable to the instant application as well, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of correlating position and profile measurements of an object to be manipulated by a hoisting appliance of Eriksson to incorporate the teaching of Jones to implement a calibration process. Jones notes ([0150]) that ‘gantry deviations’ influence the measurement and printing operations of the device, and that a ‘need exists in the art to detect such gantry deviations as gantry errors and compensate for such errors, so that the apparatus may perform accurate measurement and printing operations.” Given that both the printing operations of additive manufacturing and the pick-and-place operations of warehouse and other industrial applications require precise relationships between profile and position measurements, the need exists in the field of endeavor of the instant application as well.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Jones.
Regarding Claim 20, Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko teaches all of the elements of the current invention stated in the analysis of Claim 17.
Eriksson also teaches a reference object ([0120]:“positioning pattern”) of known dimensions at a known location in the hoisting area. Eriksson also teaches scanning the reference object with the sensor ([120]: “… by means of one or more cameras and pattern recognition…”).
Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko does not teach scanning the reference object travelling at different reference speeds, obtaining position and profile measurements from the sensor and scanner associated with the reference speed, verifying the measurements against known dimensions and position of the reference object and determining the delay time, or storing the delay time associated with each respective reference speed.
Jones teaches a method of calibrating the speed and position of an additive manufacturing apparatus, and thereby solves a problem similar to the one in the instant application. The additive manufacturing tool is calibrated using position and profile data as it moves along a gantry above the work piece. The system is structurally very similar to the embodiments in the specification of the instant application, and the method presented therein is as well is highly applicable to both the printing errors of additive manufacturing and the manipulation errors of ‘pick-and-place’ operations in an industrial setting.
More specifically, Jones teaches calibration process ([0159]; Figs. 16 and 17), which provides a reference object of known dimensions at a known location ([0151]: ‘reference bed’; Fig. 14) in the hoisting area. Jones also teaches scanning the reference object with the sensor ([0162] – [0163]) with the hoisting appliance travelling at a different reference speeds ([0186]: ‘backlash’ upon movement change; [0207]: “compensation amount adjusted by a factor that depends on movement direction and movement speed”). Jones also teaches obtaining position and profile measurements from the sensor and scanner associated with the reference speed ([0162] – [0163]). Jones further teaches verifying the measurements against known dimensions and position of the reference object ([0207]) and determining the delay time ([0186]: “a delay occurs between initiation of a movement source and the actual observed movement in a component of interest.”). Finally, Jones teaches storing the delay time associated with each respective reference speed ([0201]).
The teachings of Jones are directed towards minimizing ‘gantry errors’ and delays associated with motor backlash. These teachings are applicable to the instant application as well, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of correlating position and profile measurements of an object to be manipulated by a hoisting appliance of Eriksson to incorporate the teaching of Jones to implement a calibration process. Jones notes ([0150]) that ‘gantry deviations’ influence the measurement and printing operations of the device, and that a ‘need exists in the art to detect such gantry deviations as gantry errors and compensate for such errors, so that the apparatus may perform accurate measurement and printing operations.” Given that both the printing operations of additive manufacturing and the pick-and-place operations of warehouse and other industrial applications require precise relationships between profile and position measurements, the need exists in the field of endeavor of the instant application as well.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Habib (US 2020/00327696 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko does not teach and Habib does teach wherein the time delay is provided by a supplier of the hoisting appliance ([0011]: “For LiDAR sensors, manufacturer-based time synchronization is quite accurate since any time delay issues will result in point clouds with poor quality.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eriksson in view of Wang and further in view of Huusko with the teaching of Habib to use a manufacturer-based time synchronization. It is well-known in the art to use manufacturer information about time delays and data processing behavior to properly interpret data and results, and a skilled worker would be able to incorporate this teaching into the existing method with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Niemala (2019/0345007 A1) teaches a method of positioning the moveable structure of an overhead crane, and estimates certain state variables based on measurements of other historical state variables.
Gu, et al. (Gu, Lichen, Xueqin Kou, and Jia Jia. "Distance measurement for tower crane obstacle based on multi-ultrasonic sensors." 2012 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2012.) teaches distance measurements from a tower crane using multiple ultrasonic sensors. However, this work neglects the effects of the crane’s motion on the fusion of the resultant measurements into a single data product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645