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 .
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.
The term “around” in claims 3 and 14 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what specifically the frequency band the antenna operates within.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Bell (US Pat Pub# 2019/0319345) and further in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627).
Regarding claim 1, Cameron teaches a first antenna 126 (Fig. 1A) configured for mounting on a crane, a second antenna 128 (Fig. 1A) configured for mounting on the crane, wherein the first and second antennas are aimed in opposite directions (Fig. 1A, as shown the antennas are opposite to teach other etc.), and transmitting data to and/or receiving data from digital equipment disposed on the crane (Sections 0127-0130, digital channel processors and signals in the crane system etc.). Cameron fails to teach a microwave directional antenna and a transceiver.
Bell teaches a first microwave directional antenna configured for mounting, a second microwave directional antenna configured for mounting (Claims 3 and 16, first and second microwave directional antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a microwave directional antenna as taught by Bell into Cameron’s device in order to improve antenna performance and communication.
Cameron and Bell fail to teach a transceiver.
Maclean teaches transceiver equipment connected to the first antenna and the second antenna, the transceiver equipment configured to be capable of (a) relaying to the second antenna, data the first antenna receives, (b) relaying to the first antenna, data the second antenna receives (Sections 0328 and 0343 and Claim 36, transceiver connected to a first and second antennas to receive/transfer/transmit data between the antennas etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a transceiver as taught by Maclean into a microwave directional antenna as taught by Bell into Cameron’s device in order to improve communication between devices.
Regarding claim 3, Bell further teaches wherein at least one of the first microwave directional antenna and the second microwave directional antenna operates at around 60 GHz (Claims 3 and 16, microwave communication being in the range of 60GHz).
Regarding claim 8, Cameron further teaches wherein one of the first antenna and the second antenna is configured to communicate with an end point 106 (Figs. 1A and 1B) other than a crane (Figs. 1A-1B, antennas communicating with the fixed cab etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Cameron further teaches wherein the end point other than a crane comprises a fixed tower 106 (Figs. 1A-1B, fixed cab).
Regarding claim 10, Cameron further teaches wherein the equipment is further configured to change direction in which it relays received signals (Fig. 2A, shows the crane changing direction that changes antenna positions etc.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Bell (US Pat Pub# 2019/0319345) and further in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Yen (US Pat Pub# 2005/0013616).
Regarding claim 2, Cameron in view of Bell and further in view of Maclean teaches the limitations in claim 1. However, Cameron, Bell, and Maclean fail to teach an antenna being laser aligned.
Yen teaches wherein at least one of the first antenna and the second antenna is laser-aligned (Section 0009, aligning by alignment beam into detector etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an antenna being laser aligned as taught by Yen into a transceiver as taught by Maclean into a microwave directional antenna as taught by Bell into Cameron’s device in order to improve alignment to improve performance and communication.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Bell (US Pat Pub# 2019/0319345) and further in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Roh et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0365848).
Regarding claim 5, Cameron in view of Bell and further in view of Maclean teaches the limitations in claim 1. However, Cameron, Bell, and Maclean fail to teach latency less than 10 milliseconds.
Roh teaches wherein the wireless backhaul provides latency of less than 10 milliseconds and preferably less than 1 millsecond of latency delay (Section 0029, the wireless backhaul having latency less than 5 milliseconds etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate latency less than 10 milliseconds as taught by Roh into a transceiver as taught by Maclean into a microwave directional antenna as taught by Bell into Cameron’s device in order to improve performance.
Claims 11-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Guymon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0089416).
Regarding claim 11, Cameron teaches a container loading facility comprising a first mobile crane having first radio equipment 126 (Fig. 1A) and a first container handling device installed thereon, a second radio equipment 128 (Fig. 1A), and a fixed tower 163 (Fig. 1B) having a third radio equipment installed thereon (Figs. 1A and 1B, crane having a first and second radio equipment and a fixed device having third radio equipment etc.). Cameron fails to teach transceiving equipment and a second crane.
Maclean teaches wherein the first radio transceiving equipment is configured to operate in a mode that relays data between the second radio transceiving equipment and the third radio transceiving equipment with fiber-like performance in terms of low latency, low jitter, high bandwidth, availability and reliability (Sections 0258, 0268, 0307, 0328 and 0343 and Claim 36, transceiver connected to a first, second, third antennas to receive/transfer/transmit data between the antennas with good performance etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transceiving equipment as taught by Maclean into Cameron’s device in order to improve communication between devices.
Cameron and Maclean fail to teach a second crane.
Guymon teaches a second mobile crane and a second container handling device installed thereon (Figs. 1A-C and Section 0030, second crane etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second crane as taught by Guymon into transceiving equipment as taught by Maclean into Cameron’s device in order to improve functionality.
Regarding claim 12, Guymon further teaches wherein the first and second mobile cranes are disposed and movable on a common rail (Figs. 1A-C and Section 0030, first and second cranes etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Cameron further teaches wherein the fixed tower provides network connectivity between the first and a remote control facility providing control signals to the first and second cranes (Figs. 1A and 1B, crane having a first and second radio equipment and a fixed device having third radio equipment etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Guymon further teaches wherein the first and second cranes each comprise mechanisms that move the crane along a path (Figs. 1A-C and Section 0030, first and second cranes etc.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Guymon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0089416) and further in view of Bell (US Pat Pub# 2019/0319345).
Regarding claim 14, Cameron in view of Maclean and further in view of Guymon teaches the limitations in claim 11. However, Cameron, Guymon, and Maclean fail to teach a transceiver operating at around 60 GHz.
Bell further teaches wherein the transceiving equipments operates at around 60 GHz (Claims 3 and 16, microwave communication being in the range of 60GHz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a transceiver operating at around 60 GHz as taught by Bell into a second crane as taught by Guymon into transceiving equipment as taught by Maclean into Cameron’s device in order to improve communication.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Guymon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0089416) and further in view of Roh et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0365848).
Regarding claim 17, Cameron in view of Maclean and further in view of Guymon teaches the limitations in claim 11. However, Cameron, Guymon, and Maclean fail to teach latency less than 10 milliseconds.
Roh teaches wherein the wireless backhaul provides latency of less than 10 milliseconds and preferably less than 1 millsecond of latency delay (Section 0029, the wireless backhaul having latency less than 5 milliseconds etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate latency less than 10 milliseconds as taught by Roh into a second crane as taught by Guymon into a transceiver as taught by Maclean into Cameron’s device in order to improve performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US Pat Pub# 2014/0266875) in view of Maclean et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0347627) and further in view of Guymon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0089416) and further in view of Yen (US Pat Pub# 2005/0013616).
Regarding claim 19, Cameron in view of Maclean and further in view of Guymon teaches the limitations in claim 11. However, Cameron, Guymon, and Maclean fail to teach laser aligning.
Yen teaches wherein first equipment is laser-aligned with the second and third equipment (Section 0009, aligning by alignment beam into detector etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate laser aligning as taught by Yen into a second crane as taught by Guymon into a transceiver as taught by Maclean into Cameron’s device in order to improve alignment to improve performance and communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, 16, and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 11/21/2025