DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination. This action is made in response to the claims filed April 17, 2023.
Claims 1-8 are objected to.
Claims 1-8 are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Lei.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claims 6 and 7 recite, “when it is determined […]” These limitations are contingent limitations that, as recited, have no patentable weight. While these elements have no patentable weight, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Office Action will provide review as if the rejections have weight; however, this effort to expedite prosecution does not give these elements patentable weight. The Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to take the branch of satisfying the conditions in these claims in order to give the substance of the current “when it is determined […]” limitations in both claims patentable weight.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Sufficiency of the First Condition
Claim 3 recites, “sufficiency of the first specified condition.” The claims do not assess the adequacy of a condition set. The claims and specification determine the satisfaction, not the sufficiency, of the condition.
Attachment
Claim 1 recites, “in a state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and an attachment is in a specified posture.” It is unclear from the language of the claim what the structural relationship is between the claimed crane and attachment. An attachment is a relative term, in that the attachment exists to attach to something else. For purposes of examination, the attachment will be interpreted to be attached to the crane.
Presence/Absence of The Crane
The “presence/absence” feature of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis, and this becomes an issue with subsequent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 that also present the feature without any antecedent basis.
A Hook Corresponding To The Mass of The Material
Claim 5 recites, “having a hook corresponding to the mass of the material.” This does not mean anything to the ordinarily skilled artisan. The recited correspondence is not a term of art and is not described in the specification in a manner that the ordinarily skilled artisan can discern the term’s meaning.
Recognize
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 recite, “recognize,” or variations thereof. It is unclear what the term recognizes means in the context of the claims and the specification. Recognition is a term associated with discerning something using intelligence (“cognizance”) rather than merely receiving data as an input. The specification does not provide reasonable bounds for this term. Accordingly, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not, based on the specification, be able to discern the metes and bounds of the term recognize.
Is / Is Not Present
Claim 6 recites, “and the specified place is present.” Claim 7 recites, “when it is determined that the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions is not present for the specified place recognized by the first planning support processing element.” It is not clear what “is / is not present” means. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not be able to discern the metes and bounds of the claim.
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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “a first planning support processing element,” “a type selection support processing element,” “a second planning support processing element”
Claim 2: “the type selection support processing element” and “the first planning support processing element”
Claim 3: “the first planning support processing element” and “the type support processing element”
Claim 4: “the first planning support processing element” and “the type selection support processing element”
Claim 5: “the first planning support processing element” and “the type selection support processing element”
Claim 6: “the type selection support processing element” and “the second planning support processing element”
Claim 7: “the first planning support processing element” and “the type selection support processing element”
Claim 8: “the second planning support processing element” and “the first planning support processing element”
Based on the description of the Applicant’s FIG. 1, these are being interpreted as software elements executed by a generic processor, such as one the server of FIG. 1 suggests. The Applicant is advised to amend the claim to the form of a computer/server/processor/non-transitory medium with stored instructions configured to perform gerund form operations in the interest of clarity and to expedite prosecution if the Applicant did not intend to invoke this interpretation.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Modes
Claims 1, 2, and 8 recite “modes,” including “[a/the] space occupancy mode of a building”; “space occupancy mode when lifting a material as a suspended load”; “the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element.” These “modes” are not terms of art and are not defined in the specification. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be able to discern the metes and bounds of the recited “modes.”
Configured to Determine/Based On
Claim 1 recites,
a type selection support processing element configured to determine, based on the space occupancy mode of the building, the topography of a specified place included in the area around the building and the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element, presence/absence of a crane of a type satisfying specified conditions including a first specified condition of having such a load-lifting level that an interval between an upper end of the building and a lower end of the material is equal to or larger than a threshold in a state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and an attachment is in a specified posture;
The terms of this element of the claim renders it unclear which elements the support processing element is configured to determine and which elements are the basis/es for this determination. For example, is the “attachment is in a specified posture” something that the support processing element is configured to determine? The term “presence/absence” not only lacks any antecedent basis, but it is unclear if it is an element of a list of elements the support processing element is configured to determine, or a basis for the determination. The language must be clarified in order to allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to discern the metes and bounds of the claim. The Applicant is advised to amend the claim to clearly distinguish between that which is determined and that which forms the basis of the determination.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The elements of the claims fail to recite any additional limitations that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, or that combine with other elements of the claims to provide significantly more than the abstract idea, that would confer an inventive concept. The elements of the claims represent longstanding practices, and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as demonstrated in the references of record, including: The four Lei references, including Lei’s PhD Thesis; Homam (PhD Thesis); Ji et al.; Shahanavaz et al.; Wang et al.; Dutta et al.; Reddy et al.; Huang et al.; Sadeghpour et al.Sawodney et al.; the two Schneider references; The two Bellows references; Cai et al.; Fulton et al.; Skotschek et al.; Hartmann et al.; Fu et al.; Rosth et al.; Ogawa et al.; and Rohrauer et al.
Independent Claim
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite mental processes. The claims recite determinations humans previously made without the aid of a computer. The Applicant concedes this in the Applicant’s specification [0004], which states, “[h]owever, work of selecting a type and/or an arrangement location of a crane depends on an experience of a construction work planner.”
[…] recognize a space occupancy mode of a building, topography of an area around the building and a space occupancy mode when lifting a material as a suspended load; (Mental Process – Recognition of modes and topography is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so this is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification [0004])
[…] determine, based on the space occupancy mode of the building, the topography of a specified place included in the area around the building and the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element, presence/absence of a crane of a type satisfying specified conditions including a first specified condition of having such a load-lifting level that an interval between an upper end of the building and a lower end of the material is equal to or larger than a threshold in a state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and an attachment is in a specified posture; and (Mental Process – Selecting things based on considerations is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so this is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification [0004])
Therefore, claim 1 recites a mental process and a mathematical concept, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
a second planning support processing element configured to make an output interface output information regarding a determination result by the type selection support processing element
Firstly, output, such as displaying, is a generic computer function recited at a high level, so it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, presenting data is insignificant extra-solution activity akin to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”; “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display “; “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus.” Accordingly, under MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g), this limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
a construction work planning support device […]
a first planning support processing element configured to […]
a type selection support processing element configured to […]
a second planning support processing element configured to make an output interface […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level, so they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05(f).
None of the additional limitations of claim 1, whether in isolation or combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
a second planning support processing element configured to make an output interface output information regarding a determination result by the type selection support processing element
Firstly, output, such as displaying, is a generic computer function recited at a high level, so it fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, presenting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity akin to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”; “iii. Electronic recordkeeping “; “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Accordingly, under MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g), this limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
a construction work planning support device […]
a first planning support processing element configured to […]
a type selection support processing element configured to […]
a second planning support processing element configured to make an output interface […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level, so they fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f).
None of the additional limitations of claim 1, whether in isolation or combination, combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are also rejected as ineligible.
Claim 2
wherein the type selection support processing element determines, based on the space occupancy mode of the building and a space coordinate value of the specified place recognized by the first planning support processing element, presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a second specified condition of having a working radius that includes the building in the state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and a posture of the attachment is the specified posture.
Determining the presence of a crane that satisfies conditions is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
The support processing element, is a generic computing element, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 2 is ineligible
Claim 3
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes a spatial margin around the material, and
Recognizing a spatial margin is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paoer, so it is a menta process
the type selection support processing element determines sufficiency of the first specified condition, based on the spatial margin in addition to the space occupancy mode of the building, the topography of the specified place included in the area around the building and the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element.
Determining whether a condition is satisfied based on multiple factors is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and papert, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
The generic computer implementation fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f) for the same reasons disclosed above.
Claim 3 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 3 is ineligible
Claim 4
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes mass of the material, and
Recognizing mass, including reading a weight off of a sheet, is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a third specified condition of having a rated load equal to or larger than the mass of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element.
Determining the presence of something that satisfies criteria is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
The generic computer implementation fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f) for the same reasons disclosed above.
Claim 4 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 4 is ineligible
Claim 5
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes mass of the material, and
Recognizing mass, including reading a weight off of a sheet, is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a fourth specified condition of having a hook corresponding to the mass of the material.
Determining the presence of something that satisfies criteria is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
The generic computer implementation fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f) for the same reasons disclosed above.
Claim 5 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 5 is ineligible
Claim 6
wherein the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of a combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and the specified place, and
Determining the presence of something that satisfies criteria is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
the second planning support processing element makes the output interface output information regarding the combination of the crane of the type and the specified place,
This is insignificant generic computer functionality, extra-solution activity, and WURC for the same reasons as the output operation of the independent claim.
when it is determined by the type selection support processing element that the combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and the specified place is present.
Determining the presence of something that satisfies criteria is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 6 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 6 is ineligible
Claim 7
wherein the first planning support processing element recognizes the specified place inputted through an input interface, and
This is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) and is WURC akin to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”; “iii. Electronic recordkeeping”; “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.” Therefore, this fails to confer eligibility.
the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and a new specified place, when it is determined that the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions is not present for the specified place recognized by the first planning support processing element.
Determining the presence of something that satisfies criteria is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 7 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 7 is ineligible
Claim 8
wherein the second planning support processing element makes the output interface output the space occupancy mode of the building and the space occupancy mode when lifting the material, and
This is insignificant generic computer functionality, extra-solution activity, and WURC for the same reasons as the output operation of the independent claim.
the first planning support processing element recognizes the specified place or the topography of the specified place inputted through an input interface by a user in contact with the output interface.
Recognizing input is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
This is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) and is WURC akin to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”; “iii. Electronic recordkeeping”; “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.” Therefore, this fails to confer eligibility.
Claim 8 fails to provide additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL: “A methodology for mobile crane lift path checking in heavy industrial projects” by Lei et al. (Lei).
Regarding claim 1, Lei teaches:
A construction work planning support device comprising: (Lei Page 42, Right Column, Last Paragraph – Page 43, Left Column, First Paragraph “Similarly to previous path planning research [11,22,20,34], the proposed methodology also utilized configuration space concept to simplify the site layout. However, our work differentiates from previous research that a unique mapping method is proposed to solve the path checking problem. This method considers not only the surroundings, but also the mobile crane's configuration; more importantly, the crane's tail swing equipment is taken into consideration when checking the crane lift path, which has not been addressed in previous research. Another unique contribution of this research is that the proposed methodology is a generic method designed for industrial projects particularly, and previous research has not focused on path planning problem for industrial projects; the proposed methodology is implemented in industrial projects to automatically check the paths for hundreds of heavy lifts, and same method can be used for other industrial projects as well. One limitation of this research is that the proposed method does not consider the wind effect on the heavy lift, which may lead to safety issue. Also, the alternatives for the crane lift need to be developed if the mobile crane cannot perform the heavy lift at given location.” Page 48, Right Column, Last Paragraph – Page 49 – Right Column, First Paragraph “The lift path checking is linked to PCL's existing systems, which perform analysis before and after path checking. For instance, a simulation system is used to plan the erection sequence, which is considered as schedule input information for the path checking. The site layout and boundaries onsite are retrieved in terms of coordinates and automatically stored in the database. The proposed methodology is incorporated into a computer application to perform the path checking. The built application consists of a calculation module and a visualization interface; the calculation module conducts the path checking, and the results are presented in the designed interface. In order to describe the application of the proposed method, this paper presents a module for demonstration.” – This is a construction work planning computer system for planning crane positioning and path planning.)
a first planning support processing element configured to recognize a space occupancy mode of a building, topography of an area around the building and a space occupancy mode when lifting a material as a suspended load; (Lei Page 50, Left Column, Second Paragraph - Right Column, First Paragraph “In Fig. 11, the lifted module is shown at its set point (it is planned to be lifted on May 30th, 2012). Modules with an earlier date are also shown (erected modules). The existing site structures (such as an oil tank and existing supporting structures) are illustrated as a dash line boundary in Fig. 11.” See Also FIG. 11 – A “recognized” space occupancy mode of a building, topography of an area around a building, and a space occupancy mode when lifting (see lifted module set point).)
PNG
media_image1.png
837
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a type selection support processing element configured to determine, based on the space occupancy mode of the building, the topography of a specified place included in the area around the building and the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element, (Lei Page 50, Left Column, Second Paragraph - Right Column, First Paragraph “In Fig. 11, the lifted module is shown at its set point (it is planned to be lifted on May 30th, 2012). Modules with an earlier date are also shown (erected modules). The existing site structures (such as an oil tank and existing supporting structures) are illustrated as a dash line boundary in Fig. 11.” See Also FIG. 11 – A “recognized” space occupancy mode of a building, topography of an area around a building, and a space occupancy mode when lifting (see lifted module set point).)
PNG
media_image1.png
837
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
presence/absence of a crane of a type satisfying specified conditions including a first specified condition of having such a load-lifting level that an interval between an upper end of the building and a lower end of the material is equal to or larger than a threshold in a state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and an attachment is in a specified posture; and (Lei Page 45, Lifting range adjustment “Industrial project sites often are congested with existing obstructions. As a result, the crane lift becomes more challenging. The lifting range determined in step 1 may not represent the actual feasible lifting range for the mobile crane. Two more constraints must be accounted for: (1) the height of the existing obstruction; and (2) the crane's tail-swing or the superlift, an attachment of the mobile crane to increase crane lift capacity. The effect of these two constraints on Rmin and Rmax will be discussed in the following sections.” – The size of the crane and attachments is considered when determining lifting range, with minimum and maximum thresholds. Page 50, 3.2 Lifting range adjustment “The lifting range adjustments are subject to two constraints: (1) height of site obstructions; (2) tail-swing or superlift equipment. Fig. 12 presents the impact of the height of site obstructions constraint on Rmax. Due to the height of site obstructions (module 191 and module 157 in Fig. 11), the Rmax is modified at “Rmax modification 1” and “Rmax modification 2” (see Fig. 11). The green curves represent the modified Rmax considering the height of site obstructions. The impact of crane's superlift equipment is presented in Fig. 13. A superlift circle (the brown circle in Fig. 13 (A)) with a radius equal to superlift counterweight length is plotted which conflicts with existing site structures. Then a sector is erased from Rmin and Rmax, based on the opposite angle where the superlift conflicts with existing site structures in Fig. 13 (B).” See Also, Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 with relevant calculations, and FIGs. 6 and 13 for reference – In providing these site layouts with the path planning and the posture of the crane including necessary heights to avoid buildings or other obstacles (e.g., having such a load-lifting level that an interval between an upper end of the building and a lower end of the material is equal to or larger than a threshold))
PNG
media_image2.png
714
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
452
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a second planning support processing element configured to make an output interface output information regarding a determination result by the type selection support processing element. (Lei Page 51, 3.3 The constraint of C-Obstacle and mapping method “In Fig. 14 (A), the C-Obstacle is created for module 157 since the elevation of module 157 is higher than the lifted module's elevation. The C-Obstacle is created based on the lifted module's orientation at its set point and the geometric center of the lifted module is selected as the representing point. Fig. 14 (B) presents the implementation of the mapping method with all site structures, and Fig. 14 (C) shows the results of the mapping method without any site structure. Compared with Rmin and Rmax in Fig. 11, three parts are erased from Rmin and Rmax in Fig. 14 (C), namely the “C-Obstacle erased area,” “Rmax modification,” and “Superlift erased area.” The pink areas in Fig. 14 (C) illustrate the crane's feasible lifting area, in which the selected crane is capable of lifting the targeted module considering constraints (crane capacity, boom clearance, superlift, and site obstructions). Path checking is performed in Fig. 14 (D). The pick area (yellow dashed line in Fig. 14 (D)) overlaps with the crane's feasible lifting area, and the module's geometric center locates within the feasible lifting area; thus, the lifted module passes the path checking. The designed system then writes “yes” as a binary check result back to the database. – The determination result of the path planning is output by the system, including feasibility of a lift and move path with the equipment in a current position (with its attachment) to lift over an obstacle/building.)
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Lei teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the type selection support processing element determines, based on the space occupancy mode of the building and a space coordinate value of the specified place recognized by the first planning support processing element, presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a second specified condition of having a working radius that includes the building in the state where the crane is arranged at the specified place and a posture of the attachment is the specified posture. (Lei Page 51, 3.3 The constraint of C-Obstacle and mapping method “In Fig. 14 (A), the C-Obstacle is created for module 157 since the elevation of module 157 is higher than the lifted module's elevation. The C-Obstacle is created based on the lifted module's orientation at its set point and the geometric center of the lifted module is selected as the representing point. Fig. 14 (B) presents the implementation of the mapping method with all site structures, and Fig. 14 (C) shows the results of the mapping method without any site structure. Compared with Rmin and Rmax in Fig. 11, three parts are erased from Rmin and Rmax in Fig. 14 (C), namely the “C-Obstacle erased area,” “Rmax modification,” and “Superlift erased area.” The pink areas in Fig. 14 (C) illustrate the crane's feasible lifting area, in which the selected crane is capable of lifting the targeted module considering constraints (crane capacity, boom clearance, superlift, and site obstructions). Path checking is performed in Fig. 14 (D). The pick area (yellow dashed line in Fig. 14 (D)) overlaps with the crane's feasible lifting area, and the module's geometric center locates within the feasible lifting area; thus, the lifted module passes the path checking. The designed system then writes “yes” as a binary check result back to the database. – The determination result of the path planning is output by the system, including feasibility of a lift and move with the equipment in a current position (with its attachment) to lift over an obstacle/building over validated paths.)
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes a spatial margin around the material, and the type selection support processing element determines sufficiency of the first specified condition, based on the spatial margin in addition to the space occupancy mode of the building, the topography of the specified place included in the area around the building and the space occupancy mode of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element. (Lei Page 44, Right Column, First Full Paragraph “Rmin and Rmax also depend on boom clearance and rigging height requirements. The boom clearance ensures sufficient free space between the lifted module and the crane's boom. A minimum boom clearance buffer (Bmbc) (see Fig. 4 (A)) is required for safe operations. The corresponding boom angle (θmbc) to this buffer (Bmbc) with the horizontal line (see Fig. 4 (A)) defines the corresponding distance (Dmbc) to the crane's center, which is calculated satisfying Eq. (2). Dmbc is compared to the lifting range from the capacity chart to determine the value of Rmin.” See also FIG. 4A,B and FIG. 5 – Many buffers are taught. For example, the boom clearance buffer distance is required to determine the minimum safe distance in combination with all of the other considerations to determine appropriate paths for the crane. This is based on the boom angle satisfying a minimum clearance buffer, which affects the minimum height necessary to have a sufficient boom angle relative to the fixed position (space occupancy) of the crane in the environment (topography) to lift the load (material) sufficiently to avoid an obstacle while moving the crane arm and attachment for the given crane.)
PNG
media_image4.png
822
1213
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
688
1088
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes mass of the material, and the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a third specified condition of having a rated load equal to or larger than the mass of the material recognized by the first planning support processing element. (Lei Pages 43-44, 2.1 Step 1: Rmin and Rmax calculation “As illustrated in Fig. 2, the first step for the path check is to calculate the mobile crane's Rmin and Rmax, which represent the nearest and furthest lifting range for the mobile crane respectively. The determination of Rmin and Rmax depends on two factors: 1) total weight of the lifted module (Wt), which is calculated satisfying Eq. (1); and 2) boom clearance and rigging height requirements. The total weight of the lifted module (Wt) is used to identify the crane's feasible lift range based on the capacity chart provided by the crane manufacturer. Practitioners often apply a user-defined safety percentage (Ps) (e.g. 85%) to ensure the lift's safety.” See Also Eq. 1 and its parameters – The adequacy of the crane and adequate paths to take are determined based on the rated load.)
PNG
media_image6.png
385
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
105
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the first planning support processing element further recognizes mass of the material, and the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions further including a fourth specified condition of having a hook corresponding to the mass of the material. (Lei Pages 43-44, 2.1 Step 1: Rmin and Rmax calculation “As illustrated in Fig. 2, the first step for the path check is to calculate the mobile crane's Rmin and Rmax, which represent the nearest and furthest lifting range for the mobile crane respectively. The determination of Rmin and Rmax depends on two factors: 1) total weight of the lifted module (Wt), which is calculated satisfying Eq. (1); and 2) boom clearance and rigging height requirements. The total weight of the lifted module (Wt) is used to identify the crane's feasible lift range based on the capacity chart provided by the crane manufacturer. Practitioners often apply a user-defined safety percentage (Ps) (e.g. 85%) to ensure the lift's safety.” See Also Eq. 1 and its parameters – The adequacy of the crane to carry the weight of the load and the valid paths over which to carry the load are partially based on the load block weight, which includes the weight of the corresponding hook.)
PNG
media_image6.png
385
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
105
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of a combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and the specified place, and the second planning support processing element makes the output interface output information regarding the combination of the crane of the type and the specified place, when it is determined by the type selection support processing element that the combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and the specified place is present. (Lei Page 41, Introduction “Based on pre-construction data and design drawings, engineers perform the crane analysis in order to determine the crane configuration considering job requirements, select possible crane locations, and determine the minimum and maximum crane radii accounting for crane boom clearance and crane capacity. Traditionally, the lifting path for a specific module is planned manually relying on available information and practitioners' intuition and experience. In order to address the challenges associated with the crane planning process, scientists and practitioners have conducted research to automate and integrate the planning process with computer technology. For example, some researchers have focused on crane type and location selection [1,3,7,23]. Database management systems have also been developed to support the crane planning process [5,17]. Furthermore, 3D graphics and simulation tools have been applied to the crane planning process [10,12,16,25,33]. Recently, digital technologies and equipment have been adopted in order to improve crane operation productivity and enhance crane operation safety.” – Determining the adequacy of a crane based on type and location has been done since long before this study. The claim is sufficiently broad to be taught by this alone, but the Applicant is also invited to look at references 1, 3, 5, 7, 10-12, 16-17, 23, 25, and 33 of the primary Lei reference for more details. Page 49, Right Column, Last Paragraph – Page 50, Left Column, First Paragraph “The targeted module, ID 159, is 19.68 ft (6 m) wide and 98.42 ft (30 m) long, and weighs 243,300 lbs. It is planned to be lifted to its set elevation from the ground. The selected crane for this job is Liebherr LR 1400/2 with a superlift, and the length of the superlift counterweight is 49 ft (15 m). The path checking for the targeted module follows the methodology described in Fig. 2 and is discussed below.” Pages 43-44, Step 1: Rmin and Rmax calculation “The total weight of the lifted module (Wt) is used to identify the crane's feasible lift range based on the capacity chart provided by the crane manufacturer.” – The specifications of the crane selected (type) are provided by the manufacturer and are incorporated along with the crane occupancy/location into calculations to determine whether the crane is adequate and adequate paths that satisfy constraints.)
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the first planning support processing element recognizes the specified place inputted through an input interface, and the type selection support processing element determines presence/absence of the combination of the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions and a new specified place, when it is determined that the crane of the type satisfying the specified conditions is not present for the specified place recognized by the first planning support processing element. (Lei Page 43, 2. Proposed methodology “The flowchart for the proposed methodology is illustrated in Fig. 2. Inputs related to site layout, which includes the site boundary and onsite existing obstructions, which are obtained from the coordinates from 2D and 3D CAD models.” See Also Fig. 2, with inputs, selected crane position, check results – The inputs introduced via an interface include the position of the crane and the output includes valid paths, if any. If none, then the crane is an inadequate selection, and another should be chosen.)
PNG
media_image8.png
993
1235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Lei teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the second planning support processing element makes the output interface output the space occupancy mode of the building and the space occupancy mode when lifting the material, and the first planning support processing element recognizes the specified place or the topography of the specified place inputted through an input interface by a user in contact with the output interface. (Lei Page 43 2. Proposed Methodology “The flowchart for the proposed methodology is illustrated in Fig. 2. Inputs related to site layout, which includes the site boundary and onsite existing obstructions, which are obtained from the coordinates from 2D and 3D CAD models. The modules are installed based on planned schedule; modules are usually delivered by trucks to predetermined pick locations, and then erected by mobile cranes. Modules' pick dates and locations are also entered as inputs. Specific crane locations are selected for lifting modules in terms of coordinates. All the inputs are stored in a user-defined database, and the lift path check system reads the data and performs path checking.” Page 51, Conclusion “The proposed method is implemented in the VB.Net system, and a database is used to store data and results. All algorithms are programmed as a VB.Net library, and the user can easily reference the library for different projects to automate path checking.” – User defined inputs, including the space occupancy of the building when the crane is lifting the material into a computing system that outputs the results of the path planning.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL: “Heavy lift analysis at FEED stage for industrial project” by Lei et al. (Teaches automated crane path planning and is a likely 102 reference for most of the claims)
NPL: “The constructs of site layout modeling: An overview” by Sadeghpour et al. (Teaches automated worksite layout modeling)
NPL: “Automated Simulation Model for Crane Motion Planning in Heavy Industrial Projects.” By Lei et al. (PhD thesis that also likely serves as a 102 reference for the claims)
NPL: “Application of Robotic Obstacle Avoidance in Crane Lift Path Planning” by Lei et al. (Teaches automated crane path planning and is a likely 102 reference for most of the claims)
NPL: “Point Cloud Based Path Planning for Tower Crane Lifting” by Huang et al. (Teaches many crane path planning elements of the claims)
NPL: “Automated Path Planning for Mobile Crane Lifts. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering” by Reddy et al. (Teaches automated crane path planning and most of the elements of the claims)
NPL: “Automatic re-planning of lifting paths for robotized tower cranes in dynamic BIM environments” by Dutta et al. (Teaches real-time adjustable crane path planning)
NPL: “A BIM-based approach for automated tower crane layout planning” by Wang et al. (Teaches crane layout planning with many features of the claims)
NPL: “Automated tower crane planning: leveraging 4-dimensional BIM and rule-based checking. Automation in Construction” by Ji et al. (Teaches automation of worksite planning, including placement of cranes and path generation)
NPL: “Multi crane lift simulation using Building Information Modeling, Automation in Construction” by Shahnavaz et al. (Teaches another automated crane placement and path training method)
NPL: “Real-Time Motion Planning and Simulation of Cranes in Construction” by Homam et al. (PhD thesis teaching real-time adjustable crane path planning)
JP 2004239050 A to Yoshisita et al. (Potential 102 reference for most If not all of the claims)
US 20230242380 A1 to Ogawa et al. (Teaches path planning methods for cranes)
US 20220411238 A1 to Fu et al. (Teaches crane hook related crane considerations for positioning and path planning)
US 20220355719 A1 to Rosth et al. (Teaches crane placement and path planning methods)
US 20220355719 A1 to Bellows et al. (Teaches crane path panning methods)
US 10480541 B2 to Bellows et al. (Teaches crane path panning methods)
US 20190100382 A1 to Skotschek (Teaches crane path planning methods)
US 20190084808 A1 to Hartmann et al. (Teaches crane path planning methods)
US 20170369288 A1 to Fulton et al. (Teaches crane path planning methods)
US 20160247067 A1 to Cai et al. (Teaches intelligent crane path planning)
US 8190288 B2 to Rohrauer et al. (Teaches crane placement and path planning methods)
US 20090008351 A1 to Schneider et al. (Teaches crane placement and path planning methods)
US 20080053945 A1 to Schneider et al. (Teaches crane placement and path planning methods to satisfy safety constraints)
US 20040164041 A1 to Sawodny et al. (Teaches elements of a crane and crane attachments used in the path planning methods)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights