DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 3/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10 and 11, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener.
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.
1) Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0228239 by Mannari, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener.
2) Regarding claim 1, Mannari teaches an apparatus for determining the spatial position of pick-up elements of a container, said apparatus comprising: a moving sensor that is configured to acquire a respective set of spatial coordinates of points for a plurality of mutually different sensor positions (paragraphs 18 and 19; lidar sensors can be attached the trolley on a gantry [thereby being “moving” sensors] above a container and obtain data for building a point cloud), wherein the points lie in a spatial region that comprises the container (paragraph 19; lidar can detect containers); and an evaluation unit that is configured: to combine the respective sets of spatial coordinates into a fused totality of coordinates (paragraph 18; point cloud can be formed through repetitive line scanning [i.e. different positions of the sensor combined together]), to determine a respective spatial position of the pick-up elements of the container based on the fused totality of the coordinates of the points (paragraph 24; corner castings of a container can be detected); perform a three-dimensional registration of the respective sets of spatial coordinates of the points for the plurality of mutually different sensor positions by means of a predefined algorithm (paragraphs 17 and 24; algorithm can be utilized to build point cloud and identify landmarks); wherein the algorithm uses predetermined information with respect to the geometry of the container (paragraph 24; “predetermined information” is the lidar point cloud data of corners/edges [i.e. geometry] of a container, that specific geometry of a container [corner castings, twistlocks and doors] can be automatically detected using the disclosed algorithm thereby disclosing the “predetermined information” to classify such geometry).
Mannari does not specifically teach the predetermined information with respect to geometry of the container including prior knowledge with respect to the container and positions of the pick-up elements (a model trained on geometry of containers is not specifically disclosed).
Kriener teaches the predetermined information with respect to geometry of the container including prior knowledge with respect to the container and positions of the pick-up elements (paragraphs 122-124 and 129-130; model can be taught using prior knowledge container position and characteristics [including twistlocks]).
Mannari and Kriener are combinable because they are both from the container modeling field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Mannari with Kriener to add teaching a model based on container position. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to place detected objects in relation to a crane’s frame of reference (paragraph 92). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mannari with Kriener to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Mannari teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plurality of mutually different sensor positions are associated with a respective point in time at which the moving sensor acquires a respective set of the spatial coordinates of the points (paragraph 17; point cloud is created in real time thus each updated point is associated with a point in time of lidar capture).
4) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0228239 by Mannari. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener.
Mannari teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the sensor is attached to a trolley of a crane, said crane being provided to move the container (paragraph 19; sensors installed on the trolley).
Mannari does not specifically teach the evaluation unit is further configured: to detect a current position of the trolley and to determine a respective one of the mutually different sensor positions based on the current position of the trolley.
Kriener teaches the evaluation unit is further configured: to detect a current position of the trolley and to determine a respective one of the mutually different sensor positions based on the current position of the trolley (paragraph 92; measurement sensors [which can be lidar as disclosed in paragraph 90] locations on the crane [including a trolley] are known and are incorporated into the generation of a point cloud).
Mannari and Kriener are combinable because they are both from the container modeling field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Mannari with Kriener to add detecting a trolley position. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to place detected objects in relation to a crane’s frame of reference (paragraph 92). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mannari with Kriener to obtain the invention of claim 4.
5) Claim 10 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
6) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0228239 by Mannari., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0147192 by Klement et al.
Mannari does not specifically teach the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the moving sensor comprises one or more sensors and a device for respectively tilting the one or more sensors.
Klement teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the moving sensor comprises one or more sensors and a device for respectively tilting the one or more sensors (paragraph 53; sensors can be rotatable, sensors can be 3D laser scanners as disclosed in paragraph 50).
Mannari and Klement are combinable because they are both from the container modeling field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Mannari with Klement to add tilting sensors. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to achieve a larger field of view (paragraph 53). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mannari and Kriener with Klement to obtain the invention of claim 3.
7) Claims 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0228239 by Mannari. and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0286781 by Yang et al.
8) Regarding claim 7, Mannari does not specifically teach the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured: to determine a spatial position and a spatial orientation of the container based on the fused totality of the coordinates of the points, and to determine the respective spatial position of the pick-up elements of the container based on the spatial position and the spatial orientation of the container.
Yang teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured: to determine a spatial position and a spatial orientation of the container based on the fused totality of the coordinates of the points, and to determine the respective spatial position of the pick-up elements of the container based on the spatial position and the spatial orientation of the container (paragraph 50; container can be segmented and its angle determined, corners can then be detected).
Mannari and Yang are combinable because they are both from the container modeling field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Mannari with Yang to add detecting a container angle. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely segment the container within the point cloud. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mannari with Yang to obtain the invention of claim 7.
9) Regarding claim 8, Kriener (as combined with Mannari and Yang in the rejection of claim 7 above) teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 7, wherein the evaluation unit adapts the fused totality of the coordinates to a model of the container, the model of the container being based on prior knowledge with respect to the geometry of the container (paragraphs 122-124 and 129-130; prior container position knowledge is utilized to teach the model).
10) Claim 11 is taught in the same manner as disclosed in the rejections of claims 1 and 8 above.
11) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0228239 by Mannari, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0369493 by Kriener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0072997 by Chu et al.
Mannari does not specifically teach the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine a condition of the respective pick-up element of the container based on the fused totality of the coordinates of the points.
Chu teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine a condition of the respective pick-up element of the container based on the fused totality of the coordinates of the points (paragraph 102; state of container lock is judged utilizing machine vision).
Mannari and Chu are combinable because they are both from the container modeling field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Mannari with Chu to add detecting a container lock state. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the safety of personnel (paragraph 102). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Mannari and Kriener with Chu to obtain the invention of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights