DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 4-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “an operation amount of the fine adjustment operation” renders the claim indefinite because the term “an operational amount” is a relative term that is not clearly defined by the specification. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is meant by “an operational amount”? How is the term “operational amount” defined in the specification?
For this office action, “an operation amount of the fine adjustment operation” will be interpreted as referring to any operation amount of movement of the crane hook during the second operation mode (i.e. If the crane hook moves during a second operation mode, there is an amount of operation movement of the crane hook).
Regarding claim 11, this claim claims “wherein in the second operation mode, an operation lever operated in the fine adjustment operation is operable in a plurality of directions” (see lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether 1) the operation lever a part of the operation device in claim 1, or 2) the operation lever is separate additional structure from the operation device of claim 1. Is the operation lever a part of the operation device of claim 1? If not, how do both the operation device of claim 1 and the operation lever of this claim operate in the fine adjustment operation?
For this office action, the above limitation will be interpreted as the operation lever being separate addition structure from the operation device of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami (WO 2020/153325 A1, see US Publication 2022/0063965 A1 as an English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Minami discloses a crane (see figures 1-11B) comprising:
A crane operation support device (considered the structure shown in figure 2) that supports a driving operation of a crane (1, see figure 1) that includes a boom (9, see figure 1), comprising:
a controller (35, see figure 2); and
an operation device (at least one of slewing operation tool 18, luffing operation tool 19, sub drum operation tool 21s, 20, 21m, 34 and/or 34a, see figure 2) configured to output an operation signal (see s1 for 18, 19, and/or 21s in figure 2), which corresponds to at least one of a turning operation (slewing of the crane from tool 18), a derricking operation (luffing of the crane from tool 19), a lifting and lowering operation (lifting and lowering of the hook of the crane from 21s), and a fine adjustment operation, to finely adjust a position of a hook suspended from a tip of the boom, to the controller (The use of “at least one of” in the limitation only requires the operation device to be configured to output an operation signal to at least one of the operations claimed. Thus, the prior art does not need have a fine adjustment operation to finely adjust a position of a hook to meet this limitation.),
wherein the controller is configured to switch (by the tap of display 34 and/or 34a, see paragraph 0089) a driving operation mode (see below) between
a first operation mode (considered manual operation of the crane, see paragraphs 0060-0065) in which each operation of lifting and lowering of a hook (11 and 11a, see figure 1) and turning and derricking of the boom is independently operated (see paragraphs 0060-0065), and
a second operation mode (considered automatic control of the crane, see paragraphs 0066-0073) in which a movement of the hook is operated by a combined operation of the turning of the boom and at least one of the lifting and lowering and the derricking of the hook (see paragraphs 0066-0073, especially paragraph 0068) according to an operation amount of the fine adjustment operation (see paragraph 0066, as the automatic control of the crane moves the hook to a predetermined position),
the second operation mode is a driving operation mode in which operations are restricted compared to the first operation mode (as the automatic driving operation in the second mode restricts operations to only the operations needed to move the sub hook 11a to a position above a load W, see paragraph 0069), and
in the second operation mode, at least one of a maximum rotational speed of a winch that winds and unwinds a rope for suspending the hook and a maximum turning angular speed of the boom is restricted (as the automatic driving operation in the second mode restricts at least the turning angular speed of the boom to the speed needed to move the sub hook 11a to a position above a load W, see paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 4, Minami further shows wherein the operation device includes a first operation device (at least one of tools 18, 19, 20, 21m, and/or 21s, see figure 2) configured to accept operation input in the first operation mode; and a second operation device (34 and/or 34a, see figures 2 and 4B, and see paragraphs 0056-0059 and 0089) configured to accept operation input in the second operation mode and that is different from the first operation device.
Regarding claim 5, Minami further shows wherein the second operation mode is a mode in which a combined operation of the lifting and lowering of the hook and the turning and derricking of the boom is operated by the fine adjustment operation (see paragraphs 0066-0073). Alternatively, according to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Regarding claim 6, Minami further shows wherein in the second operation mode, in addition to the fine adjustment operation, the lifting and lowering operation is further performed (See paragraphs 0065-0066. Paragraph 0065, last sentence, discloses that in addition the crane can move sub hook 11a to a given position by moving the sub hook up and down using tool 21s. Paragraphs disclose that in addition the crane can automatically move the sub hook to a predetermined position, which is a lifting position.). Alternatively, according to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Regarding claim 7, Minami further shows wherein the operation device includes a switching operation device (one of 34 and/or 34a, see figures 2 and 4b) configured to accept a switching operation for switching the driving operation mode between the first operation mode and the second operation mode (see paragraphs 0056-0059 and 0089).
Regarding claim 8, Minami further shows:
a camera (one of cameras 9b and/or 31, see figure 2) configured to acquire an image (see paragraphs 0043 and 0051),
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine whether slinging work or unslinging work is performed on the hook based on the image acquired by the camera (see paragraphs 0071-0073 and see figure 2); and
select a first operation mode (when the touchscreen of 34 and/or 34a is not touched) in an ordinary state; and
in a case where a determination is made that slinging work or unslinging work is performed on the hook, output a message (the image from the camera to the controller, and then from the controller to the display showing the operator that the work is being performed) to a display unit (34 and/or 34a) to prompt an operator (as the operator is prompted by the image) to perform switching from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (as the operator taps the display 34 and/or 34a to switch between manual operation to automatic operation of the crane), or perform the switching is from the first operation mode to the second operation mode.
Regarding claim 9, Minami further shows:
wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether a worker is present in a vicinity directly below the hook based on the image acquired by the camera (as the cameras 9b and/or 31 shows a worker below the hook to the controller 35, see figure 2B, 4B, and 5B), and in a case worker is present in the vicinity directly below the hook, the operator is prompted (By seeing the worker on the display, which gets images of the hook from the cameras) to perform switching from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (as the operator taps the display 34 and/or 34a to switch between manual operation to automatic operation of the crane), or the switching is performed .
Regarding claim 10, Minami further shows a crane (1, see figures 1-2) comprising: the crane operation support device according to claim 1 (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Minami further shows wherein in the first operation mode (manual operation), each operation of the lifting and lowering of the hook suspended from the tip of the boom, and the turning and the derricking of the boom is independently operated according to an amount of operation input (see paragraph 0060).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (WO 2020/153325 A1, see US Publication 2022/0063965 A1 as an English Translation) in view of Palberg et al. (US Publication 2019/0177131 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Minami does not explicitly disclose wherein in the second operation mode, an operation lever operated in the fine adjustment operation is operable in a plurality of directions, moving directions of the hook are respectively associated with the plurality of directions by combining operations of the turning of the boom and at least one of the lifting and lowering and the derricking of the hook, and the hook moves in a different direction for each direction in which the operation lever is operated by combining the operations of the turning of the boom and at least one of the lifting and lowering and the derricking of the hook.
Palberg et al. (from here on just referred to as Palberg) discloses a construction machine (see figure 1) comprising control device (3) that that finely sets the position of the lifting hook (see paragraph 0071). Palberg teaches of additionally providing a travel control module (65, see figure 2, and paragraphs 0071-0075) further comprising a tiltable or rotatable joystick (69, paragraph 0075) to operate the crane (see paragraphs 0071-0075, especially paragraph 0075). Palberg teaches that travel control module is provided as additionally control structure to control the position of the hook (see paragraphs 0072-0075).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Minami by additionally connecting (either by wired connection or wireless connection) an additional travel control module with a joystick (i.e. an operation lever) that controls operation of the crane to the controller of Minami, to provide additional control structure to control the position of the hook as taught by Palberg, to allow the operator of the crane a closer view of the hook for better hook positioning as the operator can position the hook while being close to the hook and not in the crane cabin, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With modification above of Minami in view of Palberg, moving directions of the hook are respectively associated with the plurality of directions by combining operations of the turning of the boom and at least one of the lifting and lowering and the derricking of the hook, and the hook moves in a different direction for each direction in which the operation lever is operated by combining the operations of the turning of the boom and at least one of the lifting and lowering and the derricking of the hook.
Alternatively, according to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 (see Remarks REM of 03/16/2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Regarding Minami, the Office Action asserts that Minami's automatic control corresponds to the second operation mode and applies paragraphs [0066]-[0073] of Minami (see, page 8 of the Office Action). However, Minami merely discloses an automatic driving operation that automatically moves the sub hook 11a to a position above a load W based on an image obtained by cameras (see Minami, paragraphs [0066]-[0073]). While the automatic operation in Minami may be initiated by a simple switch input on a touchscreen, Minami completely fails to teach or suggest that the movement of the hook is operated by a combined operation "according to an operation amount" of a fine adjustment operation (i.e., manual proportional control). In Minami's automatic mode, the hook moves automatically along a calculated trajectory; it does not continuously receive a manual operation amount from an operator to proportionally control the combined movement in real-time.”
“Furthermore, Minami fails to disclose a controller configured to restrict at least one of a maximum rotational speed of a winch and a maximum turning angular speed of the boom in this second operation mode compared to the first operation mode. Minami only teaches moving the hook automatically at a speed determined by the system itself, not restricting the physical upper speed limits to safely perform a delicate manual fine adjustment based on an operation amount.”,
See page 4 lines 1-16 of the Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s):
First, neither the claims nor the specification are clear as to what is meant by an operation amount of a fine adjustment operation.
Second, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of at least claim 1 because there is no manual operation claimed in claim 1.
Third, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Minami restricts the maximum turning angular speed of the boom (as the automatic driving operation in the second mode restricts at least the turning angular speed of the boom to the speed needed to move the sub hook 11a to a position above a load W, see paragraph 0069).
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 JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights