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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 11 August 2025 has been acknowledged.
Claim 1 is amended.
Currently, claims 1 – 18 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection,
Applicant's arguments filed on 11 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues, “As an initial matter, Applicant submits that the rejection under § 101 is improper for at least the reason that the claims clearly are not directed to any of the judicial exceptions enumerated by the courts (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes). The Office Action alleges that the claims recite a mental process. However, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. As such, the claims are patent-eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception. For at least this reason alone, the rejection of claim 1-8 and 11-18 under § 101 is improper and should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that merely insisting the claim is not directed to an abstract idea is not persuasive argument.
The Applicant further argues, “Indeed, when viewed in light of the specification, the character of the claims, as a whole, is not directed to merely a mental process, but is instead directed to technical improvements to crane systems. For example, the amended claims recite a crane collision avoidance system that includes image capturing device(s), object detecting sensor(s), and a computer system configured to utilize image(s) and data from the image capturing device(s) and object detecting sensor(s), respectively, along with crane telematics information, to identify in real-time a danger object external to the crane, generate a display surrounding the crane that includes an indication of the identified danger object, and provide an audible warning to an operator of the crane. As explained in the as-filed Specification, such a system "provide[s] improved situational awareness to an operator of a crane." … Accordingly, the claims are clearly not directed merely to "a mental process," as alleged in the Office Action. Even if the claims were directed towards a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In particular, and as explained in the as-filed Specification, the system embodied in the claims is able to integrate the use of, for example, image capture and data processing, object triangulation, predictive algorithms and/or trajectory analysis, and other techniques into a practical application that provides an improvement to the field of crane operation and safety.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that even though the claims need to be interpreted in the light of specification, the name of the game is the claim. Since claim is directly involving receiving image data from the image sensors from different locations of the crane, and analyzing the image data to determine the object in relation to the crane and identifying any dangers or risks. Then the analyzed data is used to display and providing audible alarm. As it has been already explained by the examiners in the previous rejection, obtaining the data is mere data gathering process (insignificant extra solution activities) and displaying and providing audible warning is post solution activities. None of those activities makes the abstract idea a practical application or add significantly more to abstract idea. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument of mage capture and data processing, object triangulation, predictive algorithms and/or trajectory analysis, and other techniques is not newly invented by the Applicant and merely using the exiting technologies and some of the argued technologies are not claimed in the claims. In order to have fully given weight of the technologies used for the claim limitations, then the technologies of arguments need to be presented as actual claim elements. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues, “Moreover, in some implementations of the claimed subject matter, new capabilities are provided by the disclosed system that existing systems cannot provide. As will be discussed below, the amended claims include subject matter that is allowable over the prior art and is therefore directed towards a novel concept not disclosed by the prior art. The claims as amended, and taken as a whole, perform functions that are not merely generic and that are both novel and non-obvious, and novel and non-obvious functionality is one not well understood, routine, or conventional. "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility." See MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that “the amended claims include subject matter that is allowable over the prior art and is therefore directed towards a novel concept not disclosed by the prior art,” is the Applicant’s opinion which is not true as the claims are not allowed over the record of prior arts. Furthermore, the functions of amended claim limitations are merely making the sensor to be “capable of capturing” the images of surrounding area of crane or object near the crane. This amended claim limitations do not make the claims allowable, nor make the function to be not merely generic and that are both novel and non-obvious, and novel and non-obvious functionality is one not well understood, routine, or conventional as the image capturing device is a generic sensor that can take images. The claims are not directed a specific improvement of sensors, hence the image sensors are one that is generic and widely available in the market. The display and the audible device which generates audible warning are not one that is improved in this claims either. Therefore, all the additional elements are generic and widely available input and output of generic computer and electric parts. For this reason, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection,
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 11 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under Pinel et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rudy et al. (See the updated rejection below).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a collision avoidance system for a crane. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A crane collision avoidance system comprising:
one or more image capturing devices attached to a crane and capable of capturing images of an area surrounding the crane;
one or more object detecting sensors attached to the crane and capable of detecting objects within a proximity of the crane; and
a computer system comprising one or more physical computer processors and computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical computer processor, program the computer system to:
receive one or more images from the one or more image capturing devices;
obtain location, speed, and direction data for one or more objects external to the crane from the one or more object detecting sensors;
obtain crane telematics information indicating a position, orientation, speed of movement, and/or direction of movement of one or more components of the crane;
identify in real-time a danger object from the one or more objects based on the location, speed, and direction data for the one or more objects and the crane telematics information;
generate a display comprising a view of the area surrounding the crane based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices, wherein the display includes an indication of the identified danger object; and
provide an audible warning to an operator of the crane responsive to identification of the danger object.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A crane collision avoidance system comprising:
one or more image capturing devices attached to a crane and capable of capturing images of an area surrounding the crane;
one or more object detecting sensors attached to the crane and capable of detecting objects within a proximity of the crane; and
a computer system comprising one or more physical computer processors and computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical computer processor, program the computer system to:
receive one or more images from the one or more image capturing devices;
obtain location, speed, and direction data for one or more objects external to the crane from the one or more object detecting sensors;
obtain crane telematics information indicating a position, orientation, speed of movement, and/or direction of movement of one or more components of the crane;
identify in real-time a danger object from the one or more objects based on the location, speed, and direction data for the one or more objects and the crane telematics information;
generate a display comprising a view of the area surrounding the crane based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices, wherein the display includes an indication of the identified danger object; and
provide an audible warning to an operator of the crane responsive to identification of the danger object.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive …,” and “obtain …,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computer system processor) to perform the process. In particular, the “receive …,” and “obtain …,” steps from the crane collision avoidance system is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering object information from surrounding of crane and telematic of crane for use in the identify step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, regarding the additional limitations of “generate …,” and “provide …,” the examiner submits that this limitation is post solution activities.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receive …,”, “obtain …,” “generate …,” and “provide …,” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive …,”, and “obtain …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities, and “generate …,” and “provide …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are post solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receive …,”, “obtain …,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the crave, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a crane. Similarly the display and the audible device is generic device which are widely available. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8 and 11 - 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 8 and 11 - 18 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 11 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudy et al. (Hereinafter Rudy)(US 10544012 B2).
As per claim 1, Rudy teaches a crane collision avoidance system (See column 1 line6 - 16) comprising:
one or more image capturing devices attached to a crane and capable of capturing images of an area surrounding the crane (See at least column 6 line 3 – 10; Referring generally to FIGS. 5-19 and 23, in the embodiments described herein and below, the present disclosure makes use of cameras to achieve the desired results of outrigger length detection and/or monitoring of the outriggers and a surrounding area. For example, the mobile crane 100 may include an optical outrigger monitoring system 300 (see FIG. 23) that includes one or more camera assemblies 302 mounted on the mobile crane 100);
one or more object detecting sensors attached to the crane and capable of detecting objects within a proximity of the crane (See at least column 10 line 55 – column 11 line 3; llustrates another embodiment in which the camera assemblies 302, either individually or in conjunction with the control system 317, may automatically detect objects 96 and warn the operator of the presence of the object 96. In combination with the ability to view the outrigger 110 as it is being moved, the system 300 may allow the operator to see any objects 96 in the path of the outrigger 110 that would otherwise be hidden from the view of the cab 116. For example, the system 300 may alert the operator to the presence of the object 96, which may then be displayed on a user interface 95 as shown in FIG. 14. The object 96 may be detected and tracked by using any of several known video tracking algorithms such as “blob tracking”. The video tracking algorithm may be stored in a memory and/or executed by a processor of the control system 317, and/or at individual camera assemblies 302.); and
a computer system comprising one or more physical computer processors and computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical computer processor (See at least column 1 line 51 – 62; there is provided an outrigger monitoring system having a camera assembly configured to monitor a length of an outrigger and a control system operably and communicably connected to the camera assembly. The control system includes a processor and computer readable storage media in communication with the processor, the computer readable storage media storing instructions, that when executed by the processor cause the control system to implement functions including an image recognition function configured to receive an image of the outrigger from the camera assembly and determine the length of the outrigger based on the received image.), program the computer system to:
receive one or more images from the one or more image capturing devices (See at least column 10 line 39 – 54; the camera assemblies 302 are not limited only to monitoring and detecting extension of the outriggers 110. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 14, in some embodiments, the optical outrigger detection system 300 may be used to view the surrounding area of the outrigger 110 as it is being moved. For example, visibility of the outrigger 110 may be restricted from the cab 116 of the mobile crane 100 and it would be beneficial to be able to observe the outrigger 110 as it is being extended. This may be done by detecting a change in the outrigger 110 image, or it may result from an output from the crane control system 117. When a command is given to move one of the outriggers 110, the outrigger control system 117 could send a signal to the optical outrigger detection system 300 and switch a user interface 95 to a closer view of the outrigger 110 being moved.);
obtain location, speed, and direction data for one or more objects external to the crane from the one or more object detecting sensors (See at least column 10 line 55 – column 11 line 25; the camera assemblies 302, either individually or in conjunction with the control system 317, may automatically detect objects 96 and warn the operator of the presence of the object 96. In combination with the ability to view the outrigger 110 as it is being moved, the system 300 may allow the operator to see any objects 96 in the path of the outrigger 110 that would otherwise be hidden from the view of the cab 116. For example, the system 300 may alert the operator to the presence of the object 96, which may then be displayed on a user interface 95 as shown in FIG. 14. The object 96 may be detected and tracked by using any of several known video tracking algorithms such as “blob tracking”. The video tracking algorithm may be stored in a memory and/or executed by a processor of the control system 317, and/or at individual camera assemblies 302. … an outrigger envelope is defined. If a change is detected in an image of the outrigger envelope, the position of the object 96 may be calculated with one of the above methods. In some embodiments, the position of the object 96 may be determined through triangulation by a plurality of cameras, or the position may be determined through the use of an additional sensor such as an ultrasonic distance sensor, a laser distance sensor, light detection and ranging techniques (commonly referred to as “LIDAR”), and/or infrared techniques. If the position of the object 96 is in the defined envelope of the outriggers (or larger area if desired), then a warning may be given. … In another embodiment illustrated in FIG. 16, the system detects and alerts when objects 96 are moving in the proximity of the crane 100. In FIG. 16, a person 96 has walked into the defined envelope of the mobile crane 100. It would be advantageous to alert the operator to any objects 96 that are moving in the crane working envelope. The video tracking detects objects 96 that are moving in the crane envelope and gives a warning to the crane operator. The tracking of the moving object may be done with any known video tracking techniques.);
obtain crane telematics information indicating a position, orientation, speed of movement, and/or direction of movement of one or more components of the crane (See at least column 11 line 50 – column 12 line 20; the camera assemblies 302, either individually or in conjunction with the control system 317, may automatically detect objects 96 and warn the operator of the presence of the object 96. In combination with the ability to view the outrigger 110 as it is being moved, the system 300 may allow the operator to see any objects 96 in the path of the outrigger 110 that would otherwise be hidden from the view of the cab 116. For example, the system 300 may alert the operator to the presence of the object 96, which may then be displayed on a user interface 95 as shown in FIG. 14. The object 96 may be detected and tracked by using any of several known video tracking algorithms such as “blob tracking”. The video tracking algorithm may be stored in a memory and/or executed by a processor of the control system 317, and/or at individual camera assemblies 302. … an outrigger envelope is defined. If a change is detected in an image of the outrigger envelope, the position of the object 96 may be calculated with one of the above methods. In some embodiments, the position of the object 96 may be determined through triangulation by a plurality of cameras, or the position may be determined through the use of an additional sensor such as an ultrasonic distance sensor, a laser distance sensor, light detection and ranging techniques (commonly referred to as “LIDAR”), and/or infrared techniques. If the position of the object 96 is in the defined envelope of the outriggers (or larger area if desired), then a warning may be given. … the system detects and alerts when objects 96 are moving in the proximity of the crane 100. In FIG. 16, a person 96 has walked into the defined envelope of the mobile crane 100. It would be advantageous to alert the operator to any objects 96 that are moving in the crane working envelope. The video tracking detects objects 96 that are moving in the crane envelope and gives a warning to the crane operator. The tracking of the moving object may be done with any known video tracking techniques.) to lower load 104 may be sent to controller 114 such that controller 114 may know that load 104 is being lowered.);
identify in real-time a danger object from the one or more objects based on the location, speed, and direction data for the one or more objects and the crane telematics information (See at least column 10 line 55 – column 11 line 25);
generate a display comprising a view of the area surrounding the crane based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices, wherein the display includes an indication of the identified danger object (See at least column 11 line 4 – column 11 line 49; an outrigger envelope is defined. If a change is detected in an image of the outrigger envelope, the position of the object 96 may be calculated with one of the above methods. In some embodiments, the position of the object 96 may be determined through triangulation by a plurality of cameras, or the position may be determined through the use of an additional sensor such as an ultrasonic distance sensor, a laser distance sensor, light detection and ranging techniques (commonly referred to as “LIDAR”), and/or infrared techniques. If the position of the object 96 is in the defined envelope of the outriggers (or larger area if desired), then a warning may be given. … the system detects and alerts when objects 96 are moving in the proximity of the crane 100. In FIG. 16, a person 96 has walked into the defined envelope of the mobile crane 100. It would be advantageous to alert the operator to any objects 96 that are moving in the crane working envelope. The video tracking detects objects 96 that are moving in the crane envelope and gives a warning to the crane operator. The tracking of the moving object may be done with any known video tracking techniques. In addition to the detection of the outrigger positioning, it is also possible to detect the extension of the outrigger jacks 206. As shown in FIG. 17, detecting the position of the jacks 16 is done in the same manner as the detection of the outrigger 110 position. However, because the distance from the mobile crane 100 will affect the detected amount of extension of the jacks 206, the system may take into account the position of the outriggers 110 before determining a jack 206 position. Beyond detecting the position of the outrigger jacks 206, the system 300 would also allow for the detection of the placement of the outrigger pads 208 as illustrated in FIG. 18. In some instances, an outrigger pad 208 may fail to be attached to the outrigger jack 206. If the outrigger jack 206 were extended to contact the ground without a pad 208 it is likely that the outrigger jack 206 would sink or otherwise penetrate the base surface resulting in a loss of stability. The outrigger pad 208 can be detected in similar manners as above with the end of the outrigger detection. Once located, the system can determine if it is mounted to the end of the outrigger jack 206. If not, the system can signal a warning to the operator that the crane setup is not correct. The outrigger pad 208 may be painted with a contrasting color to help with detection.); and
provide an audible warning to an operator of the crane responsive to identification of the danger object (See at least column 11 line 4 – column 11 line 49 and column 14 line 29 – 38; The warnings described in the various examples above may be provided, for example, as an audio warning, visual warning, tactile warning or combinations thereof. An audio warning may include, for example, an alarm or buzzer. A visual warning may include, for example, a light, flashing light, a color, text or indicia displayed on a display screen, user interface or other interface within a viewing area of the operator, and/or a flashing color, text or indicia on the display screen, user interface or other interface within a viewing area of the operator).
As per claim 4, Rudy teaches limitations of:
detect a counterweight swing on the crane based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices and/or information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors (See at least column 6 line 35 - 51); and
provide an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane responsive to detection of the counterweight swing (See at least column 6 line 35 – 51 and column 11 line 4 - 15).
As per claim 11, Rudy teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the display comprising the view of the area surrounding the crane comprises a display of one or more blind spots of the operator of the crane (See at least figure 14 - 16).
As per claim 12, Rudy teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the display comprising the view of the area surrounding the crane comprises a 360-degree view of the area surrounding the crane (See at least figure 14 – 16).
As per claim 13, Rudy teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a first subset of the one or more image capturing devices and the one or more object detecting sensors is associated with a first operating state of the crane, and wherein a second subset of the one or more image capturing devices and the one or more object detecting sensors is associated with a second operating state of the crane See at least column 10 line 55 – column 12 line 20).
As per claim 14, Rudy teaches limitation of:
wherein the first operating state of the crane includes when the crane is in transit or when outriggers of the crane are not deployed, and wherein the second operating state of the crane includes when the crane is in operation or when one or more outriggers of the crane are deployed, wherein only a first set of features of the crane collision avoidance system are active when the crane is in the first operating state, and wherein only a second set of features of the crane collision avoidance system are active when the crane is in a second operating state (See at least column 2 line 15 - 30).
As per claim 15, Rudy teaches limitation of:
wherein the computer system is further programmed to:
determine that one or more outriggers of the crane have been deployed (See at least column 2 line 15 - 30); and
responsive to the determination that the one or more outriggers of the crane have been deployed, switch from the first operating state of the crane to the second operating state of the crane (See at least column 2 line 15 – 30 and line 47 – 57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 – 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudy in view of Delplace (US 9688518 B2).
As per claim 2, Rudy teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the crane comprises a dolly configured to support a boom of the crane during transit (See at least figure 1 and column 4 line 37 - 42), but does not teach
wherein at least one image capturing device or object detecting sensor is attached to the dolly and is configured to provide information regarding objects in a proximity of the dolly to the computer system.
Delplace teaches the limitations of:
wherein at least one image capturing device or object detecting sensor is attached to the dolly and is configured to provide information regarding objects in a proximity of the dolly to the computer system (See at least column 7 line 1 – 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein at least one image capturing device or object detecting sensor is attached to the dolly and is configured to provide information regarding objects in a proximity of the dolly to the computer system as taught by Delplace in the system of Rudy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the combination of Rudy and Delplace teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the at least one image capturing device or object detecting sensor attached to the dolly is connected to a cab of the crane via a wired connection (Delplace, see at least column 7 line 1 – 29).
As per claim 18, the combination of Rudy and Delplace teaches the computer system is programmed to predict a future location and a route of the one or more objects external to the crane using a predictive algorithm and a trajectory analysis of the one or more objects external to the crane (Delplace, see at least column 7 line 16 – 29 and column 10 line 9 - 29).
Claims 5 – 10 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudy in view of Pinel et al. (Hereinafter Pinel) (US 2020/0307965 A1).
As per claim 5, Rudy teaches the crane collision avoidance system of claim 1, but does not teach the limitations of:
monitor a load zone based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices and/or information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors, wherein the load zone comprises an area under an active load of the crane; and
provide an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane responsive to detection of an object inside the load zone.
Pinel teaches limitations of:
monitor a load zone based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices and/or information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors, wherein the load zone comprises an area under an active load of the crane (See at least paragraph 26 - 27 and 51); and
provide an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane responsive to detection of an object inside the load zone (See at least paragraph 51 – 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include monitor a load zone based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices and/or information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors, wherein the load zone comprises an area under an active load of the crane; and provide an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane responsive to detection of an object inside the load zone as taught by Pinel in the system of Rudy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is further programmed to:
determine one or more attributes of the active load based on the one or more images received from the one or more image capturing devices and/or information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors (Pinel, see at least paragraph 26 - 27 and 51); and
identify the load zone based on the one or more attributes of the active load and the crane telematics information (Pinel, see at least paragraph 26 - 27 and 51).
As per claim 7, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is further programmed to:
cause a visual indication of a proximate location of the load zone to be provided to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane (Pinel, see at least paragraph 51).
As per claim 8, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is further programmed to:
detect that one or more components of the crane have been energized due to contact with a power source based on information obtained from the one or more object detecting sensors (Pinel, see at least paragraph 34); and
provide an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane responsive to detection that at least one component of the crane has been energized due to contact with a power source (Pinel, see at least paragraph 34).
As per claim 9, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is further programmed to:
automatically activate an interlock of the crane responsive to identification of the danger object (Pinel, see at least paragraph 34 and 52).
As per claim 10, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is programmed to automatically activate an interlock of the crane responsive to identification of the danger object without requiring communication from the operator of the crane (Pinel, see at least paragraph 34 and 52).
As per claim 16, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of: wherein the one or more object detecting sensors attached to the crane are configured to determine the location, speed, and direction data for the one or more objects external to the crane and provide determined location, speed, and direction data to the computer system (Pinel, see at least paragraph 33 and 50 – 51).
As per claim 17, the combination of Rudy and Pinel teaches limitations of:
wherein the computer system is programmed to receive sensor data related to one or more objects external to the crane from the one or more object detecting sensors and determine the location, speed, and direction data for the one or more objects external to the crane based on the sensor data received from the one or more object detecting sensors (Pinel, see at least paragraph 33 and 50 – 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662