DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16 are pending in the application. In response to Applicant's amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections; the previous rejections under 112 and the rejection of claim 15 under 101; and maintains the previous rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16 under 101. Examiner notes that all previous objections and rejections pertaining to canceled claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16 under 101, Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Simply requiring a computer to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See section “C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As written in the rejection below, the determining, monitoring movement, and detecting steps of independent claims 1 and 13 are mental processes recited at a high level of generality, and the receiving, monitoring the environment, and providing an indication steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity or well‐understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16 are maintained. Claim 15, amended to be directed to a statutory category, is rejected under 101 under similar reasoning.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the additional/modified claim language by the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection.
Examiner maintains that Mannari ‘720 discloses monitoring a position of the spreader based on the received lidar data, as explained on page 24 of the Non-Final Rejection (see [0029-0030], [0038], and [0043]—the distance measurement data from the laser scanner of reflectors in/on the spreader is determined position data of the spreader). Examiner further notes that “Using the same lidar [sensor] for both determining the position of the spreader and the movement monitoring” (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 15) is not claimed and using a single coordinate system is not disclosed in the instant application.
However, Applicant’s argument against Mannari ‘720 is moot because the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, and Stocker (US 20110076130 A1), cited in the Non-Final rejection of claim 11, discloses determining a position of the spreader based on received lidar data. Specifically, Stocker teaches the claim limitations “one or more lidars that are installed on a trolley” (see [0011]) and “determining, by the computer system, based on the received [lidar] data, a position of the spreader” (see [0013] and claims 1 and 4). Stocker in combination with Mannari ‘720 (US 20180170720 A1) teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as explained in the rejection below.
Therefore, claim 1, and for similar reasons, claims 2-3, 6-13, and 15-16, are rejected under 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, lines 22-23: "This allows also to determination of the position" should read "This also allows determination of the position".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 13, “monitoring movement around the spreader using the one or more lidar” should read “monitoring movement around the spreader using the one or more lidars” for consistency with the “one or more lidars” previously recited in each claim.
In claims 2 and 6-10, “the obtained data” should read “the received data” for consistency with claim 1.
In claim 11, “a computing apparatus” should read “the computer system” for consistency with claim 1.
In claim 13, “receive data from one or more lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of a spreader…” should read “receive data from the one or more lidars that are installed on the trolley comprised in the gantry crane such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of the spreader…” because the gantry crane, trolley, spreader, and one or more lidars are previously recited in the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are directed toward a method, claims 13 and 16 are directed toward a system (a crane), and claim 15 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, each of the claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim, claim 1, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
Independent claim 1 recites “determining, by the computer system, based on the received data, a position of the spreader”. In light of the specification, the claimed determining is done at a high degree of generality by “any suitable algorithms” [page 9, lines 16-24]. Determining a position of the spreader is similar to a person observing plots of the obtained data, recognizing the shape of the spreader in the plots, and evaluating the corresponding locations relative to the detectors (lidars). Furthermore, a person can follow the steps of an algorithm. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 further recites “monitoring movement around the spreader using the one or more lidar”. The claimed monitoring is recited at a high level of generality in page 11, lines 2-11 and page 11, line 25 to page 12, line 2. A person can monitor movement around the spreader by observing the area around the spreader. A person can detect movement by observing an output of the data from the one or more lidars. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 further recites “detecting movement based on the received data”. The claimed monitoring is recited at a high level of generality in page 11, lines 2-11 and page 11, line 25 to page 12, line 2. A person can detect movement by observing an output of the data. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Independent claim 13 likewise recites the same or similar mental processes under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1 and 13 recite the additional elements of receiving, by a computer, data from one or more lidars; a computer system; data; one or more lidars; lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of a spreader and a load that is located beneath the spreader; a trolley, a gantry crane, a spreader, and a load; a field of view; a position of the spreader comprised in the gantry crane and configured to be moved by the trolley; monitoring, using the computer system the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load; the environment; the load that the spreader is capable of gripping to; movement; providing an indication if movement is detected; an indication; A gantry crane comprising a trolley, a spreader and one or more lidars installed beneath the trolley; wherein the gantry crane further comprises a computer system. These limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”), add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
receiving, by a computer system, data from one or more lidars… This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
a computer system… This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
data… This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
one or more lidars… This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of a spreader and a load that is located beneath the spreader… This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
a trolley, a gantry crane, a spreader, and a load… These limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
a field of view… This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
a position of the spreader comprised in the gantry crane and configured to be moved by the trolley… This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
monitoring, using the computer system, the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load… In light of the specification, this monitoring is equivalent to detecting via lidar [page 11, line 25 to page 12, line 2]. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
the environment… This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
the load that the spreader is capable of gripping to… This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
movement (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).)
providing an indication if movement is detected based on the obtained data (This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.)
an indication (This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).)
A gantry crane comprising a trolley, a spreader and one or more lidars installed beneath the trolley (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
wherein the gantry crane further comprises a computer system (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1 and 13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B, the claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use (lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of a spreader and a load that is located beneath the spreader; a trolley, a gantry crane, a spreader, and a load; the environment; the load that the spreader is capable of gripping to; movement; A gantry crane comprising a trolley, a spreader and one or more lidars installed beneath the trolley) cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional element of mere instructions to apply an abstract idea at a high degree of generality (a computer system; one or more lidars; a field of view; a position of the spreader comprised in the gantry crane and configured to be moved by the trolley; an indication; wherein the gantry crane further comprises a computer system) does not render the abstract idea eligible. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations of receiving, by a computer system, data from one or more lidars; monitoring, using the computer system the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load; and providing an indication if movement is detected based on the obtained data as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of receiving, by a computer system, data from one or more lidars; monitoring, using the computer system the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load; and providing an indication if movement is detected based on the obtained data have been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
receiving, by a computer system, data from one or more lidars… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); and/or Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
monitoring, using the computer system, the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load… is considered mere data gathering under In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); and/or retrieving information in memory (see above).
providing an indication if movement is detected is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Receiving or transmitting data over a network (see above); and/or Selecting information for collection, analysis and display under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 13 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-12, and 15-16 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-3, 6-12, and 15-16, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-3, 6-12, and 15-16 are patent ineligible. Notes regarding a few of the dependent claims are recited below for clarity purposes.
determining based on the obtained data a target landing position for the load (In light of the specification, the claimed determining is done “fully automatically” by analyzing the obtained data, potentially with software algorithms, or “with some input from a user” [page 8, lines 6-24]. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.)
a target landing position (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
wherein the target landing position is determined continuously when the load is being landed (This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).)
providing the obtained data to a monitoring system (This limitation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or Storing and retrieving information in memory (see citation above).)
a monitoring system (This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).)
calculating optimized trajectories in 3D based on the obtained data (This limitation, recited at a high degree of generality, amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).)
trajectories (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
detecting one or more containers from the obtained data (In light of the specification, the claimed detecting is done by software algorithms, or “by a user looking at the data” [page 7, lines 19-24]. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.)
one or more containers (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
detecting corner castings and/or twistlocks of the load based on the obtained data (In light of the specification, the claimed detecting is done “fully automatically” by analyzing the obtained data, potentially with software algorithms, or with “input from a user” [page 8, lines 6-24]. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.)
corner castings and twistlocks (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
detecting an open door based on the obtained data (The claimed detecting is recited at a high degree of generality in page 8, line 26 to page 9, line 14. It appears the detecting may be done with software algorithms or with input from a user, like the other claimed detecting steps. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.)
an open door (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
wherein a side profile of a short side of the spreader is stored in a memory of a computing apparatus (This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
a side profile of a short side (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
a memory of a computing apparatus (This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
calibrating values representing the position of the spreader based, on at least partly, an automated cycle (This limitation is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").)
values (This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
an automated cycle (This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing an apparatus to perform the method according to claim 1 (This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).)
wherein the gantry crane is a rubber tyred gantry crane or an automatic stacking crane (This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
Therefore, claims 2-3, 6-12, and 15-16 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The current rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be overcome by positively claiming control of the gantry crane’s motion. For example, avoiding collisions, moving the trolley or crane, and lowering or lifting the load is described in page 4, lines 11-26; stopping the loading process if movement is detected is described in page 11, lines 2-11; and controlling the position of the load/container is described in page 12, lines 4-22.
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 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannari et al. (US 20180170720 A1; hereafter “Mannari ‘720”) in view of Stocker and Bartel (US 20110076130 A1; hereafter “Stocker”).
Regarding claim 13, Mannari ‘720 discloses
A gantry crane comprising a trolley, a spreader and one or more lidars installed beneath the trolley (Gantry crane: see “the load handling equipment of FIG. 1 may be a gantry crane” [0035]. See trolley 108, spreader 106, and distance-measuring device 116 in Fig. 1. Distance-measuring device 116 is installed beneath trolley 108 in Fig. 1. Distance-measuring device 116 is a laser scanner (lidar) [0025]. See also [0028], [0036], and [0038].) and
wherein the gantry crane further comprises a computer system (See a processing unit or a computer “positioned in the load handling equipment” (crane) [0051]. See also [0035] and [0049-0050].) configured to:
receive data from one or more lidars… (Distance-measuring device 116 is a laser scanner (lidar) [0025]. Obtaining data: measurement data is sent to processing unit 504 from a laser scanner 502 in steps 605, 615, and 619b of Fig. 6; see [0064], [0066], and [0071]. See also [0028], [0036], and [0038], as well as laser scanners 216, 316, 416, and 417 in Figs. 2-4B.)
such that the one or more lidars provide a field of view that enables detection of a spreader and a load that is located beneath the spreader (See “In the laser scanner… there may be a motor, and controlling this motor allows the fan [field of view] to be turned… In this way, the laser scanner fan can be directed at… the transport means 106 [spreader] and/or the load 102” [0038]. Therefore, the laser scanner, at least with turning of the fan, has a field of view that enables detection of the spreader 106 and a load 102. See also Fig. 1 where a possible direction 118a of distance-measuring device 116 indicates that distance-measuring device 116 can detect load 102 beneath spreader 106 and, if lowered, spreader 106. See also [0028] and [0036].);
determine… a position of the spreader comprised in the gantry crane and configured to be moved by the trolley (See “The positioning system of the load handling equipment generates data on the position of the load handling equipment or one or more of its parts, such as the trolley or spreader” [0055]. Additionally, see “The laser scanner is mounted on the support structure in such a way that the laser scanner can generate distance measurement data on… a reflector and transport means for moving a load” [0029]. The transport means includes the spreader (“the laser scanner fan can be directed at… the [spreader:] transport means 106” [0038]), and additionally, “rod-like reflectors may be positioned in the spreader 106” [0043]. The distance measurement data is obtained position data in the coordinate system of the laser scanner; the position of the spreader is known/determined from the obtained data [0030]. See Fig. 1: the spreader 106 is comprised in the gantry crane 100. The trolley 108 moves the load, and therefore the spreader: “The load is fastened to the transport means by means of the spreader” [0036] and “The directions of motion of the load may comprise horizontal and/or vertical motion. …Horizontal motion can be generated by means of rails along which the trolley moves” [0037].); and
monitor the environment around the spreader during loading or unloading the load that the spreader is capable of gripping to (See “the turning direction of the fan forms at least a small angle relative to the spreading direction of the fan, which allows the laser scanner to carry out 3D measurements related to monitoring the operations in the volume. …A narrow sector is oriented in the direction that is the most interesting at the current moment with regard to the structure and the handling of the load, such as at a vehicle, vehicle door, person, load, transport means, fastening points or reflectors” [0053]. “The volume” is the region in the field of view of the laser scanner over time, which includes the spreader and the environment around the spreader. The operations monitored include “hoisting a load, lowering a load, transporting a load in the horizontal direction, transporting a load in the vertical direction and driving the load handling equipment in its operating area,” which are involved in loading and unloading a load [0054]. Gripping: see “The corners of a spreader are provided with special turnable twist-locks enabling a container to be gripped” [0004]. See also [0036], [0047], [0064], [0066], [0070], [0090], and [0096] for more details on monitoring and the spreader.);
monitor movement around the spreader using the one or more lidar (See [0061-0064] for monitoring/detecting motion of a vehicle by the processing unit using the laser scanner: “The measurement results [data from the laser scanner] are sent 605 to the processing unit where, on the basis of the measurement results, the position of the vehicle is located 606 on the traffic lane… the vehicle's motion status, i.e. whether it is in motion or has stopped, can be determined from the moving of the position of the front and/or rear of the vehicle in the measurement results” [0064]. In Fig. 1, the vehicle is around the spreader 106. Additionally, see “In FIG. 4b, the load handling equipment comprises a laser scanner 417 directed at a vehicle door 421. …A fan [of the laser scanner] directed at the vehicle door enables the opening [movement] of the door to be observed” [0047]. The laser scanner monitors the motion of the load attached to the spreader: “When the load is being moved, the laser scanner may follow 622 the load, whereby the laser scanner fan remains directed at the load” [0070]. See also [0029], [0047], [0053-0054], and [0085-0090].); and
detect movement based on the received data (See [0061-0064] for monitoring/detecting motion of a vehicle by the processing unit using the laser scanner: “The measurement results [data from the laser scanner] are sent 605 to the processing unit where, on the basis of the measurement results, the position of the vehicle is located 606 on the traffic lane… the vehicle's motion status, i.e. whether it is in motion or has stopped, can be determined from the moving of the position of the front and/or rear of the vehicle in the measurement results” [0064]. In Fig. 1, the vehicle is around the spreader 106. Additionally, see “In FIG. 4b, the load handling equipment comprises a laser scanner 417 directed at a vehicle door 421. …A fan [of the laser scanner] directed at the vehicle door enables the opening [movement] of the door to be observed” [0047]. The laser scanner monitors the motion of the load attached to the spreader: “When the load is being moved, the laser scanner may follow 622 the load, whereby the laser scanner fan remains directed at the load” [0070]. See also [0029], [0047], [0053-0054], and [0085-0090].) and
provide an indication if movement is detected (See “If 808 the result of the comparison [of data from the laser scanner to reference data] indicates that the door is open and/or a person is getting out of the vehicle, an alarm can be given 812” [0089]. A person getting out of a vehicle is movement, and an alarm is an indication of detected movement. The determination of movement is based on the obtained measurement data: “On the basis of the measurement results, the state of the vehicle door and/or whether there is a person getting out of the vehicle is determined 806” [0088]. See also [0029], [0065], and [0086-0087].).
However, Mannari ‘720 does not explicitly teach “one or more lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane” and “a computer system configured to… determine, based on the received data, a position of the spreader.”
Stocker, in the same field of endeavor (crane monitoring systems), teaches
a computer system configured to: receive data from one or more lidars that are installed on a trolley comprised in a gantry crane… (See “continuously emitting transceiver pulses downward from the trolley across an arc along the known path; …continuously transmitting data representing the time lapse between emitted and received pulses and the angle from the perpendicular of each emitted pulse to the computer; …further continuously constructing a dynamic third digital two-dimensional representation in the X and Z axes of the location of the first digital representation relative to both the trolley and the second digital representation from data received by the computer from the transceiver and storing that third digital representation in computer memory” [claim 1]. Therefore, the computer receives transmitted data from the transceiver, which is a lidar (laser scanner 45) mounted on trolley 20 of a gantry crane [0011]; see Fig. 1.);
determine, based on the received data, a position of the spreader comprised in the gantry crane and configured to be moved by the trolley (See the computer “further continuously constructing a dynamic third digital two-dimensional representation… from data received by the computer from the transceiver and storing that third digital representation in computer memory” [claim 1]. The third digital representation contains the position of the spreader: “at 245, the position of spreader 30 at all times relative both to trolley 20 and to the path profile in the X and Z axes is calculated as a third digital representation and then stored in memory at 250” [0013]. The spreader 30 is comprised in the gantry crane [0011] and configured to be moved by the trolley: “As the motor controlling trolley 20 initiates forward movement and increases velocity along boom 15, trolley 20 travels somewhat ahead of spreader 30 since spreader 30 is connected to trolley 20 by flexible wire ropes 40 or the like, and a potential for swaying motion in the X axis is imparted to spreader 30” [0014]. See also [0023-0025] and claims 4 and 8.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the crane that monitors movement around the spreader of Mannari ‘720 to place the lidars on the trolley of the crane as taught by Stocker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because “both the path profile and the spreader position [relative to the trolley] are determined by use of a single laser scanner. As a result, the necessity to have some means to adjust and align different frames of reference if two or more scanners were used is avoided thereby further simplifying the system and making it both more precise and more economical” (Stocker, [0013]).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, these claim limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 13; and, thus, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 2, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
wherein the method further comprises determining based on the obtained data a target landing position for the load (The processing unit 504 determines the locations of the fastening points, which define the target landing position on the vehicle, from the obtained measurement data: “Of the stopped vehicle, the fastening points of the load are located 616 for loading the vehicle. Locating the fastening points can be achieved by generating, by means of a laser scanner 3D, measurement results about the vehicle having stopped on the traffic lane. …The 3D measurements may be sent 615 to the processing unit to be used in locating 616 the fastening points” [0066]. See also Figs. 6 and 7 and [0065] and [0080].).
Regarding claim 6, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
further comprising providing the obtained data to a monitoring system (See Fig. 6: in steps 605 and 615, measurement data from laser scanner 502 is provided to the processing unit 504. The monitoring system (equipment 500) shown in Fig. 5 includes the processing unit 504 and the control system of the load handling equipment 508 [0049]. This equipment is a monitoring system because it may receive an alarm or stop load handling if improper movement is detected [0089] and because it generally monitors the environment around the crane. See also Fig. 6, [0053]-[0054], and [0064]-[0066].).
Regarding claim 8, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
wherein the method further comprises detecting one or more containers from the obtained data (See “When the load is being followed, the processing unit may receive 619b measurement data on the load from the laser scanner and compare the measurement data obtained on the load with the position data on the fastening points. On the basis of the position data on the fastening points and the measurement data obtained on the load, the load can be controlled 618a towards the fastening points” [0071]. The load is a container; see “Loads handled by the spreader are typically containers” [0036]. See also [0029], [0038], [0045], and [0068]-[0072].).
Regarding claim 9, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
wherein the method further comprises detecting corner castings and/or twistlocks of the load based on the obtained data (See “Although the above embodiments have been described with reference to loading a vehicle, the above embodiments are also applicable to unloading a vehicle. In such a case, instead of the fastening points of the vehicle, the fastening points of the load are located, and instead of the load, the transport means are followed which are moved to fetch the load from the vehicle” [0098]. Detecting the fastening points is based on obtained data: “Locating the fastening points can be achieved by generating, by means of a laser scanner 3D, measurement results about the vehicle …the fastening points can be identified by comparing the received measurement results with predetermined data on one or more fastening point profiles” [0066]. These fastening points are corner castings: “Loads handled by the spreader are typically containers to which the spreader is fastened by means of lock mechanisms corresponding to corner castings of the container” [0036]. See also [0004] and [0045].).
Regarding claim 10, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
wherein the method further comprises detecting an open door based on the obtained data (See “On the basis of the measurement results, the state of the vehicle door and/or whether there is a person getting out of the vehicle is determined 806. The state of the vehicle door may be open or closed” [0088]. The measurement data is from a laser scanner [0086]-[0087]. See also [0047].).
Regarding claim 16, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 13 as addressed above, and Mannari ‘720 additionally discloses
wherein the gantry crane is a rubber tyred gantry crane or an automatic stacking crane (See “the load handling equipment of FIG. 1 may be a gantry crane, such as a rubber-tyred gantry crane RTG” [0035].).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannari ‘720 in view of Stocker, and further in view of Mannari and Paasikivi (US 20200017318 A1; hereafter “Mannari ‘318”).
Regarding claim 3, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 2 as addressed above. However, Mannari ‘720/Stocker does not explicitly teach “wherein the target landing position is determined continuously when the load is being landed.”
Mannari ‘318, in the same field of endeavor (crane monitoring systems), teaches
wherein the target landing position is determined continuously when the load is being landed (As in claim 2, the locations of the fastening points define the target landing position on the vehicle. See “Simultaneously with lowering down of the container 210 it may be monitored… that the transport platform 220 [of a vehicle] does not move longitudinally… Preferably, with the same optical detection devices 130 the position of the lock pins [fastening points] 222 is followed for the docking and the staying immobile of the transport platform 220” [0081]. This “following” is continuous monitoring and determination of the target landing position from data from optical detection devices 130 in optical detection equipment 100. The optical detection devices 130 are lidar sensors [0085]. See also Fig. 8, [0059], and [0080]-[0083].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of monitoring crane operations of Mannari ‘720/Stocker to include continuously determining a load’s target landing position as taught by Mannari ‘318. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for docking a container with a vehicle “with sufficient accuracy,” particularly if the vehicle moves on contact with the container (Mannari ‘318, [0081]-[0082]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannari ‘720 in view of Stocker, and further in view of Avitan et al. (WO 2021229576 A2; hereafter “Avitan”). Avitan, published 11/18/2021, claims priority to US provisional application 63024729, filed 05/14/2020. Citations of Avitan below refer to the page and line number in WO 2021229576 A2 of each quotation and the corresponding paragraph number in US 63024729 where support for that quotation is found.
Regarding claim 7, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above. However, Mannari ‘720/Stocker does not explicitly teach “wherein the method further comprises calculating optimized trajectories in 3D based on the obtained data.”
Avitan, in the same field of endeavor (crane automation), teaches
wherein the method further comprises calculating optimized trajectories in 3D based on the obtained data (See “processing module 242 may… determine one or more routes for delivering the cargo between the origin point and the designation point by the tower crane based on the 3D model. …processing module 242 may select an optimal route of the one or more determined route(s). The optimal route may be, for example, the shortest and/or fastest and/or safest route of the determined one or more routes” [page 17, line 28 to page 18, line 5; paragraph 0095]. The 3D model determined by processing module 242 is based on a received LIDAR dataset [page 16, lines 18-25; paragraph 0089]. In Fig. 3, data from the sensing (LIDAR) units is an input to 3D model 308, which is an input to determined route 312. See also page 19, lines 12-22, [00100] and page 21, lines 9-23, [00112]-[00115].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of crane loading and unloading of Mannari ‘720/Stocker with optimized 3D trajectories as taught by Avitan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “automatically control the… crane based on one of the determined route(s) (e.g., a route selected by the user or optimal route) and the determined real-world geographic location data” (Avitan; page 18, lines 10-22; [0097]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannari ‘720 in view of Stocker, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 111830526 A; hereafter “Feng”). Citations of Feng refer to the paragraph numbers of the English translation.
Regarding claim 11, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Stocker further teaches
wherein a side profile… of the spreader is stored in a memory of a computing apparatus (See “at 210 the computer system constructs a first digital representation of an initial default two-dimensional rectangular protective envelope, discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 5, which equals, in the X axis, the width of spreader 30 plus the width of the load, if any, attached to spreader 30 and, in the Z axis, the height from the top to the bottom of spreader 30 plus the height of the load” [0012] and “at 245, the position of spreader 30 at all times relative both to trolley 20 and to the path profile in the X and Z axes is calculated as a third digital representation and then stored in memory at 250” by a computer based on the first and second representations [0013]. Looking at the X and Z axes in Fig. 1, the first representation is a side profile of a long side of the spreader [0012]. The computer’s storage is “512 MB of RAM and at least 5 GB of memory on a hard drive or other similar device” [0012]. The data comes from laser scanner 45 attached to trolley 20 [0011]. See also claim 1 and [0004].).
However, Mannari ‘720/Stocker does not explicitly teach “wherein a side profile of a short side of the spreader is stored.”
Feng, also solving positioning of a target using lidars on a crane, teaches
a side profile of a short side… (See “Step 103: Obtain the contour of the top surface or side surface of the target container according to the edge points of the top surface or side surface of the target container to determine the center point and heading angle of the target container, thereby determining the position of the target container” [0045]. The side contour is obtained from “point cloud data from at least two multi-line laser radars” [0043]. Looking at the orientation of containers in Fig. 7 and the trolley and sling in Fig. 8, the “top surface” is a long side, and the “side surface” is a short side. See also “By using two groups of short side edge point data simultaneously, the side profile of the target container can be obtained more accurately” when the target container is partially occluded [0061].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of monitoring crane operations of Mannari ‘720/Stocker with obtaining a side profile of a short side as taught by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of achievable “accurate positioning of the target container… even when part or all of the top surface of the target container cannot be obtained” (Feng, [0026]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannari ‘720 in view of Stocker, and further in view of Fiegert et al. (DE 102006044187 A1; hereafter “Fiegert”). Citations of Fiegert refer to the paragraph numbers of the English translation.
Regarding claim 12, Mannari ‘720/Stocker discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above. However, Mannari ‘720/Stocker does not explicitly teach “wherein the method further comprises calibrating values representing the position of the spreader based on at least partly automated cycle.”
Fiegert, in the same field of endeavor (crane monitoring systems), teaches
wherein the method further comprises calibrating values… based on at least partly automated cycle (As opposed to the manual calibration method described in paragraph [0028], “Fig. 2 illustrates an automatic calibration of the sensor units 11 to 14” in which “the optical sensor unit is calibrated by comparing it with at least one mechanical component of the transport device” [0026]. These optical sensor units 11-14 are implied to be laser scanners; see [0016]-[0020].).
Since Stocker determines the position of the spreader from data obtained from a laser scanner (see the rejection of claim 13 above), the combination of Mannari ‘720, Stocker, and Fiegert teaches the measured values of the position of the spreader are calibrated based on an automated cycle. Thus, the combination as a whole teaches the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of monitoring crane operations of Mannari ‘720/Stocker with the automatic calibration method of Fiegert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid the “time-consuming” manual calibration “process that can significantly disrupt the operation of a crane system and result in major production losses” (Fiegert, [0028]).
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 Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658