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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17 are amended.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 5 and 7 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the detected position” and “the detected deflection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and similarly 14, and 18-20 belongs to a statutory category
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 14, and 18-20 recite(s) “determining a position and a deflection of the load, wherein the determination device has a first determiner for determining a deflection of the upper pendulum including a deflection of the hoisting cable and a position of the load hook;”, “determining or estimating a deflection of the lower pendulum including the deflection of the sling and the position of the load from the acceleration and rotation rate signals of the inertial measurement device, taking into account an estimated length of the sling, and from signals of the first determiner which characterize the position of the load hook and the deflection of the hoisting cable;”, and “take into account as an input variable a determined deflection and tilt of the sling and the load and determine the deflection of the sling and the load relative to vertical from an inertial acceleration at the load and the sling, wherein the filter or observer device is configured to estimate a length of the sling as an additional state variable” are considered to be directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on the applicant’s description in the specification.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “an inertial measurement device (IMU) attached to the sling and the load, wherein the IMU comprises acceleration and rotation rate sensors for providing acceleration and rotation rate signals,” and “wherein the second determiner comprises a filter or observer device which is configured to” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method. The elements of “a revolving tower crane or boom crane comprising: a hoisting cable that extends from a crane boom and carries a load hook; a sling rigged to the load hook; a load attached to the sling such that the load hangs down, spaced apart from the load hook by the sling; wherein a double pendulum is formed and comprises an upper pendulum including the hoisting cable and the load hook, said upper pendulum being deflected with a first deflection angle, and a lower pendulum including the sling and the load being deflected with a second deflection angle, wherein the first deflection angle is not equal to the second deflection angle;” and “an electronic control apparatus for controlling drive devices for moving crane elements and relocating the load hook according to a detected position and a detected deflection of the load;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. The limitations “a determination device for”, “a first determiner”, and “a second determiner is provided for” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an inertial measurement device (IMU) attached to the sling and the load, wherein the IMU comprises acceleration and rotation rate sensors for providing acceleration and rotation rate signals,” and “wherein the second determiner comprises a filter or observer device which is configured to” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a revolving tower crane or boom crane comprising: a hoisting cable that extends from a crane boom and carries a load hook; a sling rigged to the load hook; a load attached to the sling such that the load hangs down, spaced apart from the load hook by the sling; wherein a double pendulum is formed and comprises an upper pendulum including the hoisting cable and the load hook, said upper pendulum being deflected with a first deflection angle, and a lower pendulum including the sling and the load being deflected with a second deflection angle, wherein the first deflection angle is not equal to the second deflection angle;” and “an electronic control apparatus for controlling drive devices for moving crane elements and relocating the load hook according to a detected position and a detected deflection of the load;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record, for example US 20130161279 A1, US 20200148510 A1). The limitations “a determination device for”, “a first determiner”, and “a second determiner is provided for” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8-9 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi).
In claim 16 “wherein the acceleration signals are determined with respect to three spatial axes” is considered to further describe the abstract ideas above. The elements of “wherein the rotation rate signals are detected with respect to at least two spatial axes” are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi).
In claims 2-4, 6, 10-13 and 17 the elements are not integrated into a practical
application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be well understood and
routine activity per 2106.05(d) in view of US 20200148510 A1, WO2019007541A1, US
20130161279 A1 as well as the prior art of record.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1 and similarly 14, and 18-20, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, US 20200148510 A1, US 20130161279 A1 and US 20150316921 A1 in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “an input variable a determined deflection and tilt of the sling and the load and determine the deflection of the sling and the load relative to vertical from an inertial acceleration at the load and the sling, wherein the filter or observer device is configured to estimate a length of the sling as an additional state variable” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding the 101 rejection examiner notes that as claimed the “control apparatus for controlling drive devices for moving crane elements and relocating the load hook according to a detected position and a detected deflection of the load” in all of the claims the “a detected position” and “a detected deflection” can’t be considered to integrate the abstract ideas as they are not specified in the claim. The claim recites several determinations of determining different positions and deflections of the sling and load but it’s not clear when or even if that is then the detected position/deflection of the load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150360779 A1 EXTERNAL LOAD MASS ROPE OF A ROTORCRAFT.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights