DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-19 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 19 are amended. Claims 9, 12, 13, and 16-18 are as previously presented. Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are original. Claims 2 and 7 are cancelled.
This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 1/29/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application FR21/06268 Filed in France on 06/14/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/18/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 12 under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 12-17 under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), and US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), US2020/0048867A1 (Kimura et al.), JP2013221527A (Ishii), JP2002326785A (Ishihara), US2023/0331524A1 (Wijning et al.), EP708053A1 (Rask), US2006/0250102A1 (Payne), US2015/0122761A1 (Ford et al.), EP3495310A1 (Bourgeois), US2019/0112165A1 (Palberg et al.), JP2010083659A (Kurio), and US2010/0175484A1 (Saigh).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a control-command system” performing detection, evaluating, switching, applying, and displaying, in Claim 1,
(b) "a processing unit" delivering respective event information, in Claims 19,
(c) "a control-command system" to manage movements of the crane, in Claim 19,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “unit” or “system” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification p. 19 and Figure 5 show the control-command system as integrated within the processing unit, which p. 18 states may be a microcontroller, microprocessor, or electronic control card.
(b) specification p. 18 states that the processing unit may be a microcontroller, microprocessor, or electronic control card,
(c) specification p. 19 and Figure 5 show the control-command system as integrated within the processing unit, which p. 18 states may be a microcontroller, microprocessor, or electronic control card.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
(d) “the securing method comprises the following steps of” in Claim 1,
(e) “the return to nominal operation phase comprises a step of” in Claim 3,
(f) “the return to nominal operation phase further comprises a step of” in Claim 4,
Examiner’s note: “If the claim element uses the phrase ‘step for,’ then Section 112, Para. 6 is presumed to apply…. On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation." See MPEP 2181 (I) (A).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Schoonmaker discloses a securing method (see Figure 13) for securing a crane (see Figures 11, 13, method including [0123-0125] step 1905, securing via slowing or stopping) on the occurrence of an exceptional event (see [0119, 0125] proximity distance of boom being less than slowdown threshold) among a plurality of predefined exceptional events (see [0119, 0125] boom proximity event and hook block proximity event), the crane comprising a control-command system (see [0044, 0047]) connected to actuators of the crane to manage movements of the crane (see [0100]) and of a load suspended from the crane (see [0117] load coupled to hook block, i.e. movement of crane also manage movement of load) and integrated within a processing unit of the crane (see [0047]), the processing unit being connected to a plurality of sensors (see [0051]) and delivering respective event information representative of the exceptional events (see [0119] computed distance of boom and hook block being event information), and the securing method comprises the following steps of:
- defining a list of exceptional events (see [0046-0049] code on memory for the functions, i.e. the boom proximity and hook block proximity being defined when running the code) detectable by the plurality of sensors (see [0103] set up and use of WRL 360, which [0051] uses the sensors) and storing the list of exceptional events in a memory unit connected to the processing unit (see [0046-0049]);
- defining secure operating modes, each of the secure operating modes being associated with a safety instruction relating to the actuators and defining at least one degree of limitation of at least one movement of the crane (see [0125] slow and stop being modes of operation), said secure operating modes comprising the following modes:
a "degraded 2" mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its speed capacity (see [0125] slow or stop or both being degraded 2 mode);
- associating exceptional events of the list of exceptional events with levels of severity (see [0125] boom proximity and hook block proximity events each associated with slowdown threshold (first level) and shutdown threshold (second level)), each level of severity being a function of a value of the event information of at least one of the plurality of sensors (see [0125] severity as function of distance (the event information) which [0051, 0103] is based on sensor information);
- associating, the exceptional events and the levels of severity, with one of the secure operating modes implementing the safety instruction relating to the actuators and defining at least one degree of limitation of at least one movement of the crane (see [0125] slowdown threshold associated with safety instruction to slow and shutdown threshold associated with safety instruction to stop movement, speed limitation);
- the crane operating in a nominal operating mode (see [0125] operation before reaching the slowdown threshold being the nominal operation), detection by the control-command system of an exceptional event from the list of exceptional events according to the event information from at least one of the plurality of sensors (see [0125] determination of either the boom or hook block reaching the slowdown threshold);
- evaluating by the control-command system of the level of severity of the detected exceptional event based on the value of the corresponding event information (see [0125] determination of either only reaching of the slowdown threshold or also reaching the shutdown threshold);
- switching to a secure operation, comprising the control-command system switching the crane from the nominal operating mode to one of the secure operating modes by selecting the "degraded 2" mode, such that the control- command system applies the safety instruction associated with the severity level assessed for the detected exceptional event modes (see [0125] the slowing down or the stopping of the crane based on the distance versus the threshold establishing the severity),
wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least one critical exceptional event (see [0125] the boom proximity event) associated with at least one critical severity level among the severity levels associated with said critical exceptional event (see [0125] boom proximity reaching shutdown threshold).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the plurality of sensors:
placed on elements of the crane,
and does not explicitly recite the method comprising:
- displaying by the control-command system of an alert message informing of the occurrence of the exceptional event.
However, Tamazato teaches a technique in construction equipment (see e.g. [0063]), with sensors:
placed on elements of the crane (see [0066]),
and - displaying by the control-command system of an alert message informing of the occurrence of the exceptional event (see Figures 12, 13, [0090-0091] display of visual message including zone information (see Figure 3 corresponding to proximity events)).
Therefore, 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 sensors and determination of an event in Schoonmaker to include sensors on the crane and a message output as taught by Tamazato, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing safety by improving accident avoidance with more consistent communication of position of tools and implements to the operator for any condition (see Tamazato [0006, 0013, 0014, 0066]).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite
- defining secure operating modes, comprising the following modes:
a "degraded 0" mode, in which only movements necessary to make the crane safe are authorized:
and does not explicitly recite switching to the secure operation:
by selecting one of the "degraded 0" mode.
However, Schneider et al. teaches a technique for a crane (see [0059]), corresponding to an exceptional event (see Claim 1, a damage possible condition), defining a secure operating mode comprising:
a "degraded 0" mode, in which only movements necessary to make the crane safe are authorized (see Claim 1, limiting movement vector to those which do not result in damage incidents).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events and secure modes of Schoonmaker to further include the damage event and degraded 0 mode which can be selected for the corresponding event, as taught by Schneider et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and safety of the control system by allowing it to secure additional dangerous conditions (see Schneider et al., [0004]).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite
defining secure operating modes, comprising the following modes:
a "degraded 1" mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its maximum load or moment capacities: and
switching to a secure operation:
by selecting one of the "degraded 1" mode.
However, Benton et al. teaches a technique in a crane (see [0039]), corresponding to an exceptional event (see [0077] potential overload), defining a secure operating mode comprising:
a "degraded 1" mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its maximum load or moment capacities (see [0077, 0141] limiting the maximum allowed load, and Figure 11, less than maximum for some configurations).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events and secure modes of Schoonmaker to further include the damage event and degraded 1 mode which can be selected for the corresponding event, as taught by Benton et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and safety of the control system by allowing it to secure additional dangerous conditions and informing a crane operator of load conditions (see Benton et al., [0009-0011]).
Schoonmaker further discloses the switching to secure operation following the detection of said critical exceptional event and the evaluation of said critical severity level (see [0125] stopping movement of boom), but does not explicitly recite:
after the switching to the secure operation following the detection of said critical exceptional event and the evaluation of said critical severity level, said securing method implements a return to the nominal operation phase comprising:
receiving by the control-command system an unlocking code: and
switching of the crane by the control-command system from the secure operating mode to the nominal operating mode, in response to the reception of said unlocking code.
However, Ishikawa teaches a technique for a cargo handling machine (see e.g. [0011]), wherein:
after the switching to secure operation (see Figure 3, for a subsequent iteration after previous mode was emergency operating mode in S21), said securing method implements a return to the nominal operation phase comprising:
receiving by the control-command system an unlocking code (see Figure 3, [0066] password entry at S15): and
switching of the machine by the control-command system from the secure operating mode to the nominal operating mode (see Figure 3, switching to normal mode in S23 in the subsequent iteration after previous operation in emergency mode), in response to the reception of said unlocking code (see Figure 3, in response to S15-S17).
Therefore, 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 use of a restricted mode in Schoonmaker to have a return to normal mode as taught by Ishikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience and safety by also allowing intentional selection of restricted operation for the case of emergency use (see Ishikawa, [0009-0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the return to nominal operation phase comprises a step of entering the unlocking code on an entering interface in communication with the control-command system.
However, Ishikawa teaches the technique as above,
wherein the return to nominal operation phase comprises a step of entering the unlocking code on an entering interface in communication with the control-command system (see [0059], Figures 1, 2A, display device 11 in communication with control unit 10).
The motivation to combine Schoonmaker and Ishikawa was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the return to nominal operation phase further comprises a step of identifying the unlocking code received in a series of unlocking codes pre-recorded in the memory unit.
However, Ishikawa teaches the technique as above,
wherein the return to nominal operation phase further comprises a step of identifying the unlocking code received in a series of unlocking codes pre-recorded in the memory unit (see Figure 3, [0067] identifying password match to normal mode in S16, and [0042, 0045] normal mode and emergency mode passwords stored in memory unit).
The motivation to combine Schoonmaker and Ishikawa was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Schoonmaker discloses the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: detection of a selected inappropriate behavior of the crane, the associated event information being detected by the control-command system (see [0119-0125] operation within the slowdown threshold being corrected by the control system (i.e. deemed inappropriate)).
Regarding Claim 19, Schoonmaker discloses a crane (see Figure 11) comprising:
- a processing unit (see [0044-0047] cab computing device) connected to a plurality of sensors (see [0051] sensors) and delivering respective event information representative of exceptional events (see [0119] computed distance of boom and hook block being event information);
- a memory unit connected to the processing unit (see [0046-0049]), and storing a list of exceptional events (see [0046-0049] code on memory for the functions, i.e. the boom proximity and hook block proximity being established events in the program) detectable by the plurality of sensors (see [0103] set up and use of WRL 360, which [0051] uses the sensors), each exceptional event being associated with levels of severity (see [0125] boom proximity and hook block proximity events each associated with slowdown threshold (first level) and shutdown threshold (second level)), each level of severity being a function of a value of the event information of at least one of the plurality of sensors (see [0125] severity as function of distance (the event information) which [0051, 0103] is based on sensor information), and in which each exceptional event and for each level of severity is associated with a safety instruction relating to actuators (see [0125] slowdown threshold associated with safety instruction to slow and shutdown threshold associated with safety instruction to stop movement) and defining at least one degree of limitation of at least one movement of the crane (see [0125] defining at least speed limitation);
- a control-command system (see [0044, 0047]) connected to actuators of the crane to manage movements of the crane (see [0100]) and of a load suspended from the crane (see [0117] load coupled to hook block, i.e. movement of crane also manage movement of load) and integrated within the processing unit of the crane (see [0047]),
said control-command system being configured for:
- the crane operating in a nominal operating mode (see [0125] operation before reaching the slowdown threshold being the nominal operation), detecting an exceptional event from the list of exceptional events according to the event information from at least one of the plurality of sensors (see [0125] determination of either the boom or hook block reaching the slowdown threshold);
- assessing the level of severity of the exceptional event according to the value of the corresponding event information (see [0125] determination of either only reaching of the slowdown threshold or also reaching the shutdown threshold);
- switching the crane from the nominal operating mode to at least one of a secure operating modes in which the control-command system applies the safety instruction associated with the level of severity assessed for the detected exceptional event (see [0125] the slowing down or the stopping of the crane based on the distance versus the threshold establishing the severity);
wherein the secure operating modes comprise:
a "degraded 2" mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its speed capacity (see [0125] slow and/or stop mode),
wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least one critical exceptional event (see [0125] the boom proximity event) associated with at least one critical severity level among the severity levels associated with said critical exceptional event (see [0125] boom proximity reaching shutdown threshold).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the sensors:
placed on elements of the crane,
and does not explicitly recite the method comprising:
displaying an alert message informing of the occurrence of the exceptional event.
However, Tamazato teaches a technique in construction equipment (see e.g. [0063]), with sensors:
placed on elements of the crane (see [0066]), and
displaying an alert message informing of the occurrence of the exceptional event (see Figures 12, 13, [0090-0091] display of visual message including zone information (see Figure 3 corresponding to proximity events).
Therefore, 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 sensors and determination of an event in Schoonmaker to include sensors on the crane and a message output as taught by Tamazato, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing safety by improving accident avoidance with more consistent communication of position of tools and implements to the operator for any condition (see Tamazato [0006, 0013, 0014, 0066]).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite wherein the secure operating modes comprise:
a "degraded 0" mode, in which only movements necessary to make the crane safe are authorized.
However, Schneider et al. teaches a technique for a crane (see [0059]), corresponding to an exceptional event (see Claim 1, a damage possible condition), defining a secure operating mode comprising:
a "degraded 0" mode, in which only movements necessary to make the crane safe are authorized (see Claim 1, limiting movement vector to those which do not result in damage incidents).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events and secure modes of Schoonmaker to further include the damage event and degraded 0 mode as taught by Schneider et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and safety of the control system by allowing it to secure additional dangerous conditions (see Schneider et al., [0004]).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite wherein the secure operating modes comprise:
a "degraded 1"mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its maximum load or moment capacities.
However, Benton et al. teaches a technique in a crane (see [0039]), corresponding to an exceptional event (see [0077] potential overload), defining a secure operating mode comprising:
a "degraded 1" mode, in which the crane operates at a fraction of its maximum load or moment capacities (see [0077, 0141] limiting the maximum allowed load, and Figure 11, less than maximum for some configurations).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events and secure modes of Schoonmaker to further include the damage event and degraded 1 mode as taught by Benton et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and safety of the control system by allowing it to secure additional dangerous conditions and informing a crane operator of load conditions (see Benton et al., [0009-0011]).
Schoonmaker further discloses switching to the at least one of the secure operating modes following the detection of said critical exceptional event and the evaluation of said critical severity level (see [0125]), but does not explicitly recite:
after the switching to the at least one of the secure operating modes, the control-command system is configured for receiving an unlocking code and for switching the crane to the nominal operating mode in response to the reception of said unlocking code.
However, Ishikawa teaches a technique for a cargo handling machine (see e.g. [0011]), wherein:
after the switching to the at least one of the secure operating modes (see Figure 3, for a subsequent iteration after previous mode was emergency operating mode in S21), the control-command system is configured for receiving an unlocking code (see Figure 3, [0066] password entry at S15): and for switching the machine to the nominal operating mode (see Figure 3, switching to normal mode in S23 in the subsequent iteration after previous operation in emergency mode), in response to the reception of said unlocking code (see Figure 3, in response to S15-S17).
Therefore, 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 use of a restricted mode in Schoonmaker to have a return to normal mode as taught by Ishikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience and safety by also allowing intentional selection of restricted operation for the case of emergency use (see Ishikawa, [0009-0010]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication JP2013221527A (Ishii) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 8, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: exceedance of a predefined temperature, the associated event information corresponding to a measured temperature exceeding the predefined temperature.
However, Ishii teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
exceedance of a predefined temperature, the associated event information corresponding to a measured temperature exceeding the predefined temperature (see [0022] multiple threshold levels (severities) 70, 80, 100°, and secure modes limiting flow rate, [0021] based on temperature sensor).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events of Schoonmaker to further include temperature as taught by Ishii, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving work efficiency while reducing damage (see Ishii, [0002-0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication JP2002326785A (Ishihara) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 9, Schoonmaker further discloses the lifted load being sensed (see [0051]).
Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: intensive use of the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a load spectrum value or to a load factor value calculated from a history of use of the crane.
However, Ishihara teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
intensive use of the crane (see [0036] exceeding maximum load factor is intensive use), the associated event information corresponding to a load spectrum value or to a load factor value calculated from a history of use of the crane (see [0036] maximum based on load factor history).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, 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 exceptional events at two severity levels of Schoonmaker to further include an intensive use as taught by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and avoiding interruptions in work flow while promoting safe loading (see Ishihara, [0005-0007]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Published Application US2023/0331524A1 (Wijning et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: a loss of a load from the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a measured mass of the load lifted by the crane.
However, Wijning et al. teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
a loss of a load from the crane (see [0088] loss of load, or [0180] partial loss, a lower severity level), the associated event information corresponding to a measured mass of the load lifted by the crane (see [0026] tension in the luffing wire will correspond to mass of load, via gravity force).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events of Schoonmaker to further include a loss of a load as taught by Wijning et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and be used in offshore applications by responding to loss of load (see Wijning et al., [0014]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication EP708053A1 (Rask).
Regarding Claim 11, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: an overload of the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a measured mass of the load carried by the crane.
However, Rask teaches a technique in a crane (see 1:55-60) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
an overload of the crane (see Figure 4, Claim 1, overload being a predefined event, with almost or max as severity levels), the associated event information corresponding to a measured mass of the load carried by the crane (see 3:6-12, Claim 1, pressure sensors 16, 17, sensing downward moment on boom for load, i.e. corresponding to mass).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events of Schoonmaker to further include an overload, as taught by Rask, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving safety by warning of overload conditions (see Rask, Figure 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication US2006/0250102A1 (Payne).
Regarding Claim 12, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: an accidental overload of the crane in operation greater than 125% of a maximum operating load of the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a measured load detected by a load measurement sensor.
However, Payne teaches a technique in a crane (see [0018]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
an accidental overload of the crane in operation greater than 125% of a maximum operating load of the crane (see [0005] For example, an overload of about 125 percent of the rated current of the motor), the associated event information corresponding to a measured load detected by a load measurement sensor (see [0020]).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events with various severity in Schoonmaker to further include an overload as described by Payne, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and reduction of damage (see Payne, [0007]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication US2015/0122761A1 (Ford et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: a collision of the crane with an obstacle, the associated event information corresponding to a signal of collision transmitted by a sensor mounted on the crane.
However, Ford et al. teaches a technique in a crane (see [0081]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
a collision of the crane with an obstacle, the associated event information corresponding to a signal of collision transmitted by a sensor mounted on the crane (see [0017], load sensor detecting increase in applied load after application can indicate collision).
Therefore, 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 plural severity levels related to an event as taught by Schoonmaker to be used for additional events such as collision as taught by Ford et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving safety (see Ford et al., [0004]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication EP3495310A1 (Bourgeois) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 14, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: a wind speed greater than a defined wind speed limit, the associated event information corresponding to a measure of wind speed.
However, Bourgeois teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
a wind speed greater than a defined wind speed limit, the associated event information corresponding to a measure of wind speed (see [0015] wind speed, two thresholds and corresponding actions, which [0060] is detected by part of system 5).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events of Schoonmaker to further include wind speed as taught by Bourgeois, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and minimizing risk of a crane overturning (see Bourgeois, [0005]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication US2019/0112165A1 (Palberg et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: detection of autorotation or oscillation of the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a moment of rotation of the crane measured using an accelerometer.
However, Palberg et al. teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
detection of autorotation or oscillation of the crane (see [0028], oscillations taken into account in the control device, i.e. known as an input), the associated event information corresponding to a moment of rotation of the crane measured using an accelerometer (see [0043] acceleration sensors can be provided in order to detect rotatory dynamic effects on the boom).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, 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 events with plural severities in Schoonmaker to further include oscillations as taught by Palberg et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving user friendliness while avoiding risk of pendular load movements (see Palberg et al., [0004]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of JP2010083659A (Kurio) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 16, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: detection of the crane being put across in wind, the associated event information corresponding to a measurement of a wind direction using one or more wind vanes.
However, Kurio teaches a technique in a crane (see [0001]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
detection of the crane being put across in wind (see [0024] deviation between the turning angle θ of the jib 5 and the wind direction α is -90°), the associated event information corresponding to a measurement of a wind direction using one or more wind vanes (see [0020] anemometer with tail).
Therefore, 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 exceptional events with plurality of severity thresholds of Schoonmaker to further include detection of the crane being put across in the wind as taught by Kurio, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving safety and avoiding obstacles by controlling the crane in an appropriate manner for wind direction (see Kurio, [0010]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0179029A1 (Schoonmaker), in view of Published Application US2021/0295460A1 (Tamazato), further in view of Publication US2008/0053945A1 (Schneider et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0062130A1 (Benton et al.), further in view of Publication US2010/0259359A1 (Ishikawa), further in view of Publication US2010/0175484A1 (Saigh).
Regarding Claim 18, Schoonmaker does not explicitly recite the securing method according to claim 1, wherein the list of exceptional events comprises at least the following event: a crushing of foundations of the crane, the associated event information corresponding to a measurement of an angle of inclination of the base of the crane.
However, Saigh teaches a technique in a crane (see [0070]) wherein an exceptional event comprises:
a crushing of foundations of the crane (see [0003], deformation and tilt as a result of foundation load build-up or pressure), the associated event information corresponding to a measurement of an angle of inclination of the base of the crane (see [0003] by measuring tilt).
Therefore, 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 list of events with plural severities of Schoonmaker to additional include a crushing of a foundation, as taught by Saigh, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the crane to respond to additional events and improving safety of users of and surrounding persons (see Saigh, [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Clam 1, the claim is rejected as obvious for the reasons presented above.
US2020/0048867A1 (Kimura et al.) further teaches a series of instructions being presented as a way to re-start crane operation (see [0047-0057], Figure 4, 7).
However Regarding Claim 5, the references do not disclose or render obvious the method of Claim 1 further wherein:
at least one critical exceptional event is associated with at least one non-critical severity level distinct from the critical severity level(s) and in which after the switching to secure operation following the detection of said critical exceptional event and the evaluation of said non-critical severity level, said securing method implements a return to nominal operation phase comprising:
- transmitting by the control-command system of a series of instructions characterizing a procedure to be followed for a return to the nominal operating mode; and
- switching of the crane by the control-command system from the secure operating mode to the nominal operating mode, in response to effective execution of the series of instructions.
Regarding Claim 6, the references do not disclose or render obvious the method of Claim 1 further wherein:
the list of exceptional events comprises at least one non-critical exceptional event, distinct from the critical exceptional event(s), and in which after switching to secure operation following the detection of said non-critical exceptional event and regardless of an assessment of the associated level of severity, said securing method implements a return to nominal operation phase comprising:
- transmitting by the control-command system of a series of instructions characterizing a procedure to be followed for a return to the nominal operating mode; and
- switching of the crane by the control-command system from the secure operating mode to the nominal operating mode, in response to effective execution of the series of instructions.
The combination of limitations defining the particular events and/or severity levels, specified as critical or non-critical, combined with the particular methods to return to nominal operation, with the particularly claimed parts integrated into the crane is not found or made obvious by the prior art. Although individual limitations are taught by various references, the particular configuration as claimed cannot be found to be obvious without improper hindsight reconstruction of the claim. The combination with the other claim limitations, clearly claimed for a patent, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such, Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669