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 6 April 2026 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claim 8 is cancelled
Currently, claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 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 argues, “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. For example, as amended, independent claim 1 recites detecting that one or more components of a crane have been energized due to contact with a power source and, if so, providing an alert to the operator of the crane, other crane personnel, and/or other individuals within a vicinity of the crane. The foregoing is not practically performed in the human mind, nor is it a limitation that is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Indeed, as explained below, the Office Action has not identified a single reference that teaches or suggests the foregoing feature. As such, the claims are patent-eligible because they do not recite simply a judicial exception”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that detecting the crane is being energized would be done by an sensor detection or abnormal voltage or current detection in crane, with a given data, a human definitely would be able to detect the crane is being energized by a power sources and providing alert would be a post solution activities. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
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 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, wherein the danger object comprises an object that represents a potential collision with the crane or a load of the crane;
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,
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 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.
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 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, wherein the danger object comprises an object that represents a potential collision with the crane or a load of the crane;
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,
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 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.
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 – 7 and 9 – 18 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 – 7 and 9 – 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 18 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 18 are allowed over the records of prior arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi (US 11772941 B2) discloses crane vehicle.
Tanizumi et al. (US 9300954 B2) disclsoes surrounding information-obtaining device for working vehicle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights