DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 4/9/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 4/13/2023.
Specification
The specification has issues that need to be corrected. For example, Paragraph 10 states Jib element 11 and indicator element 12 yet in paragraph 11 it states indicator element 11. Is this a typo or are these items interchangeable? If interchangeable, why distinguish between them? This issue appears to be a typo that must be corrected for proper support. This is not all of the errors, but just an example of what the Office has found. The Office request applicants go over the specification to also look for more such errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figures 1-2) are objected to as they use a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of the labels which actually make the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or the use of the specification to understand. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and metes and bounds of a claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot easily or clearly be derived without a specification or key or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished. Proper action is requested.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I (Claims 1-5 and 8-11) in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 6-7 have been withdrawn from consideration by the “Election of Species” received on 4/6/2026 but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 2 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 11 recites an indicator element, configured for use with a crane device. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “In an embodiment, the indicator element is part of the crane or connected to the crane. Preferably, the indicator element is movable, for example linear or rotatable, connected or arranged at the crane. The indicator element may be a constructive part. The indicator element may be a protruding element, for example a web element or a similar hardware element. The indicator element may also be described as a marker element or a pointer element. The indicator element is preferably identifiable or visible when operating the crane. At standstill, the indicator element is parallel to the jib element. While in motion, the indicator element moves ahead or away from the jib element. The indicator element will immediately come to a stop if the operator stops providing input. Next, the jib element follows the movement of the indicator element. [0032] In an embodiment, the indicator element is a digital and/or virtual indicator element. In other words, the indicator element may be a graphic element, displayed on a monitor, for example of a tablet, or an augmented reality device. For example, a graphical display can show the same as the hardware indicator but as a virtual arrow pointing into the corresponding direction. When the indicator element is provided as a virtual overlay on a graphical display, the position of the real crane may be illustrated with an overlay showing the position of the crane at the predicted stop position. The indicator element may also be provided as a numerical display. This could be for example a simple textual display which may show the predicted extra distance for example in degrees. [0033] In an embodiment, the indicator element is configured to be seen with an augmented reality device. The operator may use augmented reality glasses with an augmented reality overlay or a similar device to move the indicator device into the second position. More precisely, an operator wearing AR glasses, a virtual overlay of the crane at the predicted stopping position may be superimposed to the real-world view of the actual crane” [Specification, ¶ 0031-0033].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Scope of Enablement of a Single Means Claim
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rotem (United States Patent Publication 2021/0206605) in view of Yamamoto (United States Patent Publication 2024/0017970).
With respect to Claim 1: While Rotem discloses “A method for operating a crane” [Rotem, ¶ 0002, 0074, and 0133 with Figure 5 (The subject matter in the present invention discloses a system and a method for controlling movements of a transport system such as a crane to transfer loads or cargos)];
“comprising the following steps: providing a crane with a jib element and an indicator element” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route)];
“wherein the jib element and the indicator element are arranged in a first position” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route];
“moving the indicator element from the first position to a second position” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route];
“moving the jib element from the first position to the second position after the indicator element is arranged in the second position” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route)];
Rotem does not specifically state the displaying of both indicator and moving(jib) elements on the display.
Yamamoto, which is also a crane system with a touch screen controller that moves picked up loads from start to end points teaches “A method for operating a crane” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0172-0186 with Figures 9-10];
“comprising the following steps: providing a crane with a crane element and an indicator element” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0172-0186 with Figures 9-10];
“wherein the crane element and the indicator element are arranged in a first position” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0172-0186 with Figures 9-10];
“moving the indicator element from the first position to a second position” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0172-0186 with Figures 9-10];
“moving the crane element from the first position to the second position after the indicator element is arranged in the second position” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0172-0186 with Figures 9-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the invention of Rotem to not only include using start and stop points for jib on a display for control the crane system as Rotem discloses but to actually display the start and stop locations on the display as the elements are moved as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Yamamoto into Rotem to create a more robust system that “provided at a position easily visible from the seated operator in the cabin 10 and outputs various kinds of visual information” [Rotem, ¶ 0093]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as touch control of crane/jib systems 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the jib element from the first position to the second position is triggered manually or automatically” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (crane 130 may be operated automatically and controls 132 may be implemented as a computer program instead of a physical/human interface control mechanism. Crane 130 may also comprise a communication module 134 configured to exchange signals with another entity, for example user interface 120 and/or crane control system 110)].
With respect to Claim 3: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the indicator element from the first position to the second position is triggered manually or automatically” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route)].
With respect to Claim 5: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the indicator element is part of the crane and/or connected to the crane” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (a user controlling user interface 120 to mark a loading point and a destination point, for example by using a human interface such as a cursor, keyboard, touch screen, mouse and the like. User interface 120 is configured to receive a load movement request having the loading point and the destination point, and transmits the load movement request to crane control system 110) and (the calculated route may be calculated based on load's loading point and destination point, the crane specifications, the load data (dimensions, weight, shape, contents, etc.), and in some embodiments—a 3D model of the area around the crane 130, or along the route)].
With respect to Claim 8: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the jib element is a controlled movement” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (crane 130 may be operated automatically and controls 132 may be implemented as a computer program instead of a physical/human interface control mechanism. Crane 130 may also comprise a communication module 134 configured to exchange signals with another entity, for example user interface 120 and/or crane control system 110)].
With respect to Claim 9: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the jib element comprises an anti-sway control and/or filtering” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126-0127, and 0133 with Figures 5-6 (limit the safe sway of the load)].
With respect to Claim 10: Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the indicator element is a linear or a circular movement” [Rotem, ¶ 0107-0115, 0120, 0126-0127, 0133, and 0188 with Figures 3-6 (he Minkowski sum (MS) method may be used so the problem of the payload's sway takes into account all dimensions of the obstacle by “inflating” the obstacle. If a circular sway is assumed, the MS may be used with the obstacle geometry and a disc. This enables maximum safety in the payload's motion and a real time trajectory calculation)].
With respect to Claim 11: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10. The element taught/disclosed in Claim 11 can clearly perform with the method of Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rotem (United States Patent Publication 2021/0206605) in view of Yamamoto (United States Patent Publication 2024/0017970) and in further view of Wichner (United States Patent Publication 2004/0073358).
With respect to Claim 4: While Rotem discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein a feedback is provided when using the controllers” [Rotem, ¶ 0090 (by warning the operator)];
Rotem does not specifically that the warnings are acoustic or haptic.
Wichner, which is also a crane system with a touch screen controller that moves picked up loads from start to end points teaches “wherein an acoustic or haptic feedback is provided while moving the jib element and/or the indicator element” [Wichner, ¶ 0003, 0010, 0054, and 0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wichner into the invention of Rotem to not only include using start and stop points for jib on a display for control the crane system with warning to the operator as needed as Rotem discloses but to disclose warning messages that are acoustic as taught by Wichner with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wichner into Rotem to create a more robust system that “to optimally observe the actions of the automatic control and, if necessary, to easily and safely intervene” [Wichner, ¶ 0010]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as touch control of crane/jib systems 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights