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 19 November 2025 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6 – 10, and 12 – 14 have been amended.
Currently, claims 1 – 15 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, 35 U.S.C. 112, (a), rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 112, (b), rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevenet et al. (Hereinafter Thevenet) (FR 3113899 A1) in view of Benton et al. (Hereinafter Benton) (US 2014/0116975 A1).
As per claim 1, Thevenet teaches the limitations of: a system for managing working modes of a mobile crane in a job site, the system comprising:
- a position sensor for the mobile crane in the job site (See at least abstract; set of position or movement sensors of components of the crane),
- a position sensor for the hook of the mobile crane relative to a reference point of said mobile crane (See at least page 7; one or more position sensors 35 of the hook 144 in height relative to the boom 132 and/correlative to the ground (generally a cable length sensor 146 unwound)),
- a communication device configured to communicate an indication of the working mode of the mobile crane to at least one other crane of the job site (Page 7; The various components of the anti-collision system are connected to the computer 23 by wired or wireless links (not shown in FIG. 1). The computer 23 communicates with the crane control controller 21 (its automatons, its central unit, etc.) in order to provide the instructions resulting from the implementation of the anti-collision program which uses calibration parameters associated with the crane. The anti-collision system further comprises one or more radio transmitters 27 intended to allow communications with other cranes and/or with a worksite management unit (having the characteristics associated with all the cranes on the worksite) in order to transmit information on the characteristics of the environment of the crane 1 and to receive instructions or information from the other cranes or from the central management unit. Furthermore, sound and/or visual indicators (not represented in FIG. 1) and other user interfaces are generally provided. The Examiner construes that the working volume for possible collision is transmitted to other crane, hence the work mode should be communicated to other crane for possible collision analysis).
While Thevenet teaches the displacement/travel of crane or being fixed for crane, Thevenet is silent regarding limitations of:
- a control circuitry configured to determine a working mode of the mobile crane configured to define the working mode of the mobile crane selected from:
- the "displacement" mode corresponding to a displacement of the mobile crane in the job site,
- the "fixed work" mode corresponding to a situation in which the mobile crane is fixed in the job site and the position of its hook is variable,
the control circuitry determining the working mode based at least on signals from the position sensor for the mobile crane and/or the position sensor for the hook and/or a state of deployment of shoes of the mobile crane.
Benton teaches the limitations of:
- a control circuitry configured to determine a working mode of the mobile crane configured to define the working mode of the mobile crane selected from:
- the "displacement" mode corresponding to a displacement of the mobile crane in the job site,
- the "fixed work" mode corresponding to a situation in which the mobile crane is fixed in the job site and the position of its hook is variable,
the control circuitry determining the working mode based at least on signals from the position sensor for the mobile crane and/or the position sensor for the hook and/or a state of deployment of shoes of the mobile crane (See at least abstract; An outrigger pad monitoring system for determining crane stability includes a plurality of outriggers having sensors for measuring a load placed on the outriggers. A crane control system utilizes the measured load on the outriggers to determine the stability of the crane. A crane control system utilizes the measured load on the outriggers with positional information for the crane boom to determine if the crane boom is in a side-load condition. The outrigger pad monitoring system may be used during the setup of the crane and to verify the proper operation of a rated capacity limiter. The Examiner construes that if the pads are extended and out triggered to the ground, then it is considered a fixed work mode as the mobile crane is fixed and hook position is variable. Furthermore, as the crane of Benton is a mobile crane, the mobile crane would be in displacement mode if pads are not out triggered to the ground).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a control circuitry configured to determine a working mode of the mobile crane configured to define the working mode of the mobile crane selected from: the "displacement" mode corresponding to a displacement of the mobile crane in the job site, the "fixed work" mode corresponding to a situation in which the mobile crane is fixed in the job site and the position of its hook is variable, the control circuitry determining the working mode based at least on signals from the position sensor for the mobile crane and/or the position sensor for the hook and/or a state of deployment of shoes of the mobile crane as taught by Benton in the system of Thevenet, 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 2, the combination of Thevenet and Benton teaches the limitation of: wherein the communication device is configured to communicate in real time an indication of the position of the mobile crane in the job site as well as the position of the hook of the mobile crane when the mobile crane is in the "displacement" mode to said at least one other crane (Thevenet, see at least page 7, 11 and 15 and Benton, see at least abstract).
As per claim 3, the combination of Thevenet and Benton teaches the limitation of: wherein the communication device is configured to communicate in real time an indication of the position of the hook of the mobile crane when the mobile crane is in the "fixed work" mode to said at least one other crane (Thevenet , see at least page 8 – 9 and 15 and Benton, see at least abstract).
As per claim 4, Thevenet teaches the limitation of: wherein the position of the hook of the mobile crane is determined by the orientation of the boom of the mobile crane and/or the extension of the boom of the mobile crane and/or the height of the hook of the mobile crane and/or the pitch of the boom of the mobile crane (Thevenet , see at least page 6and 15 and Benton, see at least abstract).
As per claim 5, Thevenet teaches the limitation of: wherein the communication device is configured to communicate an indication of the position of the mobile crane in the job site when switching to the "fixed work" mode (Thevenet , see at least page 7 and Benton, see at least abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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