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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II and Species A which are claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19-25, and 27, in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. There were no arguments made by applicant. Originally independent claims 7 and 19 were amended to depend from claim 1. Claim 27 was added and also depends from claim 1. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19-25, and 27 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 and 03/06/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed of DE Application No. 10 2021 121 818.7, filed on 08/23/2021.
Claim Interpretation
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, sixth 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, and 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for “control unit” found is “a programmable logic regulator, PLC” [Specification, page 35] or “a control panel or a remote control” [Specification, page 13].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a trolley connected by means of a trolley cable to the trolley for movement thereof along the trolley boom;" in lines 21-22. It is unclear if this is the same trolley as recited in line 7 “a trolley which can travel along the trolley boom and has at least a first and a second deflection pulley for a hoisting cable” or a different one. Additionally, it is unclear how a trolley is connected to itself by means of a trolley cable.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "in particular on the trolley boom or on a frame of the trolley carriage" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rauscher (DE 102018005068).
Regarding claim 1, Rauscher discloses A tower crane [Rauscher ¶ 0088 “Fig. 1
As shown, the crane can be designed as a tower crane.”], comprising:
a tower having a vertical axis [Rauscher ¶ 0088 "Fig. 1 tower 201" and "can be rotated about an upright axis of rotation 205"];
a trolley boom projecting from the tower [Rauscher ¶ 0088 "A trolley 206 can be moved along the boom 202 by means of a trolley drive"];
a rotating mechanism for rotating at least the trolley boom about the vertical axis [Rauscher ¶ 0088 "A trolley 206 can be moved along the boom 202 by means of a trolley drive"];
a sensor device for determining an angle of rotation of the trolley boom about the vertical axis [Rauscher ¶ 0056 "In particular, angle sensors can be provided to determine the differential rotation angle between an upper tower end section and the boom, wherein, for example, an angle sensor can be attached to the upper tower end section and to the boom, the signals of which can indicate the aforementioned differential rotation angle when considered differentially."];
a trolley which can travel along the trolley boom and has at least a first and a second deflection pulley for a hoisting cable [Rauscher ¶ 0099 "rotary encoders can be assigned to the deflection pulleys of the trolley 206 for the lifting rope"];
a load receiving means having at least one deflection pulley for the hoisting cable [Rauscher ¶ 0100 "deflection pulleys for a guy rope of a luffing jib" and ¶ 0088 "a lifting rope 207 running from the trolley 206, to which a load hook 208 is attached"];
a sensor device arranged on the load receiving means for determining at least a first deflection angle of the load receiving means with respect to the perpendicular running through the load receiving means [Rauscher ¶ 0095 "the inclined pull of the lifting rope or the deflection of the load hook relative to the vertical is also achieved using an inertial measuring device (IMU) which is attached to the load hook 208"];
the hoisting cable which, starting from a hoisting mechanism, is guided at least over the first deflection pulley of the trolley, the at least one deflection pulley of the load receiving means and the second deflection pulley of the trolley, and which is fastened to a distal section of the trolley boom [Rauscher ¶ 0090 and Figure 1];
the hoisting mechanism [Rauscher ¶ 0090 “lifting mechanism"];
a sensor device arranged on the trolley for determining at least a second deflection angle of at least a section of the hoisting cable located between the trolley and the load receiving means with respect to the perpendicular passing through the trolley [Rauscher ¶ 0094 "the pendulum sensor 60 can be equipped with a camera 63 or other imaging sensor on the trolley 206, which looks vertically downwards from the trolley 206, so that when the load hook 208 is not deflected, its image reproduction is in the center of the image provided by the camera 63"];
a trolley connected by means of a trolley cable to the trolley for movement thereof along the trolley boom [Rauscher ¶ 0088 "A trolley 206 can be moved along the boom 202 by means of a trolley drive, with a lifting rope 207 running from the trolley 206"];
a sensor device for detecting a rotational angle difference between the rotational angle of the trolley boom about the vertical axis and the rotational angle of the trolley about the vertical axis [Rauscher ¶ 0056 " angle sensors can be provided to determine the differential rotation angle between an upper tower end section and the boom, wherein, for example, an angle sensor can be attached to the upper tower end section and to the boom, the signals of which can indicate the aforementioned differential rotation angle when considered differentially" and ¶ 0099"rotary encoders can be assigned to the deflection pulleys of the trolley 206 for the lifting rope"]; and
a control unit which operates the rotating mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley as a function of at least the angle of rotation, as a function of the at least one first angle of deflection, as a function of the at least one second angle of deflection and as a function of the difference in angle of rotation [Rauscher ¶ 0100 "The aforementioned controller module 341 influences the control signals u (t) for controlling the crane drives, in particular the slewing mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley drive, depending on the fed-back structural dynamics and pendulum sensor signals."].
Regarding claim 4, Rauscher discloses The tower crane according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device for determining the angle of rotation difference starting from the tower is arranged in a first or proximal half, in particular in the first or proximal third, of the length of the trolley boom [Rauscher ¶ 0056 "In particular, angle sensors can be provided to determine the differential rotation angle between an upper tower end section and the boom, wherein, for example, an angle sensor can be attached to the upper tower end section and to the boom, the signals of which can indicate the aforementioned differential rotation angle when considered differentially."].
Regarding claim 7, Rauscher discloses A method of operating a tower crane of claim 1, the method comprising:
determining the first deflection angle, lying in the first plane, of the load receiving means suspended from the trolley by means of the hoisting cable with respect to the perpendicular running through the load receiving means [Rauscher ¶ 0095 "the inclined pull of the lifting rope or the deflection of the load hook relative to the vertical is also achieved using an inertial measuring device (IMU) which is attached to the load hook 208"];
determining at least the second deflection angle of at least the section of the hoisting cable located between the trolley and the load receiving means with respect to the perpendicular passing through the trolley [Rauscher ¶ 0094 "the pendulum sensor 60 can be equipped with a camera 63 or other imaging sensor on the trolley 206, which looks vertically downwards from the trolley 206, so that when the load hook 208 is not deflected, its image reproduction is in the center of the image provided by the camera 63"];
determining at least one angle of rotation of the trolley about the vertical axis of the tower [Rauscher ¶ 0056 "In particular, angle sensors can be provided to determine the differential rotation angle between an upper tower end section and the boom, wherein, for example, an angle sensor can be attached to the upper tower end section and to the boom, the signals of which can indicate the aforementioned differential rotation angle when considered differentially."]; and
determining at least one variable for operating the rotating mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley, as a function of the at least one first deflection angle, as a function of the at least one second deflection angle and as a function of the at least one angle of rotation [Rauscher ¶ 0100 "The aforementioned controller module 341 influences the control signals u (t) for controlling the crane drives, in particular the slewing mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley drive, depending on the fed-back structural dynamics and pendulum sensor signals."].
Regarding claim 15, Rauscher discloses The method according to claim 7, wherein the determination of the at least one variable is activated if at least one of the following conditions occurs:
presence of at least one target value variable other than zero [Rauscher ¶ 0101 "As shown, the controller structure also has a filter device or an observer 345, which observes the feedback sensor signals or the crane reactions that occur at certain control variables of the drive controller and, taking into account predetermined laws of a dynamic model of the crane, which can be fundamentally different and can be obtained through analysis and simulation of the steel structure, influences the control variables of the controller based on the observed crane reactions." and ¶ 0162 "The vector contains the desired states, which are typically all zero in the rest position (except for the rotation angle γ).While following a path, the values can be non-zero, but should not deviate too far from the equilibrium position around which the model was linearized."];
presence of a manual activation of the determination of the at least one variable originating from a control unit [Rauscher ¶ 0096 "the control device 3 can use the pendulum damping device 340 to control the slewing drive and the trolley drive in order to bring the trolley 206 more or less exactly over the load hook 208 again and to compensate for pendulum movements, or to reduce them or prevent them from occurring in the first place."]; and
presence of a request for readjustment [Rauscher ¶ 0101 "As shown, the controller structure also has a filter device or an observer 345, which observes the feedback sensor signals or the crane reactions that occur at certain control variables of the drive controller and, taking into account predetermined laws of a dynamic model of the crane, which can be fundamentally different and can be obtained through analysis and simulation of the steel structure, influences the control variables of the controller based on the observed crane reactions."].
Regarding claim 19, Rauscher discloses The tower crane of claim 1, wherein the trolley further comprises:
a carriage for moving the trolley along the trolley boom [Rauscher ¶ 0088 "A trolley 206 can be moved along the boom 202 by means of a trolley drive, with a lifting rope 207 running from the trolley 206, to which a load hook 208 is attached." and Figure 1];
at least two deflection pulleys, which are arranged fixedly with respect to the carriage, for deflecting the hoisting cable in the direction of the load receiving means [Rauscher ¶ 0100 "deflection pulleys for a guy rope of a luffing jib"]; and
a sensor device arranged fixedly with respect to the carriage for determining at least one deflection angle of a section of the hoisting cable located between the trolley and a load receiving means with respect to the perpendicular running through the trolley [Rauscher ¶ 0094 "For this purpose, the pendulum sensor 60 can be equipped with a camera 63 or other imaging sensor on the trolley 206, which looks vertically downwards from the trolley 206, so that when the load hook 208 is not deflected, its image reproduction is in the center of the image provided by the camera 63."].
Regarding claim 27, Rauscher discloses The tower crane of claim 1, wherein the control unit further comprises:
means for determining at least the first deflection angle, lying in the first plane, of the load receiving means suspended from the trolley by means of the hoisting cable with respect to the perpendicular running through the load receiving means [Rauscher ¶ 0095 "the inclined pull of the lifting rope or the deflection of the load hook relative to the vertical is also achieved using an inertial measuring device (IMU) which is attached to the load hook 208"];
means for determining at least the second deflection angle of at least the section of the hoisting cable located between the trolley and the load receiving means with respect to the perpendicular passing through the trolley [Rauscher ¶ 0094 "the pendulum sensor 60 can be equipped with a camera 63 or other imaging sensor on the trolley 206, which looks vertically downwards from the trolley 206, so that when the load hook 208 is not deflected, its image reproduction is in the center of the image provided by the camera 63"];
means for determining at least one angle of rotation of the trolley about the vertical axis of the tower [Rauscher ¶ 0056 "In particular, angle sensors can be provided to determine the differential rotation angle between an upper tower end section and the boom, wherein, for example, an angle sensor can be attached to the upper tower end section and to the boom, the signals of which can indicate the aforementioned differential rotation angle when considered differentially."]; and
means for determining at least one variable for operating the rotating mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley, as a function of the at least one first deflection angle, as a function of the at least one second deflection angle and as a function of the at least one angle of rotation [Rauscher ¶ 0100 "The aforementioned controller module 341 influences the control signals u (t) for controlling the crane drives, in particular the slewing mechanism, the hoisting mechanism and the trolley drive, depending on the fed-back structural dynamics and pendulum sensor signals."].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauscher in view of Schoonmaker (US PGPub 2020/0140239).
Regarding claim 5, Rauscher teaches claim 1. Rauscher does not teach wherein a sensor signal generated by the sensor device for determining the at least one second deflection angle represents a distance between the sensor device and the at least one section of the hoisting cable; and wherein the at least one second deflection angle is determined by the control unit in dependence on the sensor signal representing the distance.
However, in a related field of invention, Schoonmaker does teach wherein a sensor signal generated by the sensor device for determining the at least one second deflection angle represents a distance between the sensor device and the at least one section of the hoisting cable [Schoonmaker ¶ 0069 " In one embodiment, the system 110 is configured to analyze the captured image and/or the detected object to determine one or more parameters of the detected object within the captured image. Such a parameter may include, for example, a position of the detected object in the captured image, a change in position of the detected object with respect to time in a series of captured images, a relative position of one or more detected objects including a distance between the detected object and a reference point in the captured image"]; and
wherein the at least one second deflection angle is determined by the control unit in dependence on the sensor signal representing the distance [Schoonmaker ¶ 0067 " The flexible member 24 may be, for example, a rope or cable. Depending on the resolution of the captured image, individual components of the flexible member 24 may be detected as well, such as strands and/or wires." and ¶ 0069 " In one embodiment, the system 110 is configured to analyze the captured image and/or the detected object to determine one or more parameters of the detected object within the captured image. Such a parameter may include, for example, a position of the detected object in the captured image, a change in position of the detected object with respect to time in a series of captured images, a relative position of one or more detected objects including a distance between the detected object and a reference point in the captured image" The image from the sensor is used to represent a distance that is then used to detect a crane status which includes a vertical or horizontal boom deflection angle.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the camera pendulum sensor used to determine a second deflection angle as taught by Rauscher with using the captured image to determine a distance as taught by Schoonmaker in order to provide a more accurate system for determining a crane status based on current reference points [Schoonmaker ¶ 0008].
Regarding claim 20, Rauscher teaches claim 19. Rauscher does not teach wherein at least one sensor signal generated by the sensor device represents a distance between the sensor device and at least one section of the hoisting cable.
However, in a related field of invention Schoonmaker does teach wherein at least one sensor signal generated by the sensor device represents a distance between the sensor device and at least one section of the hoisting cable [Schoonmaker ¶ 0067 " The flexible member 24 may be, for example, a rope or cable. Depending on the resolution of the captured image, individual components of the flexible member 24 may be detected as well, such as strands and/or wires." and ¶ 0069 " In one embodiment, the system 110 is configured to analyze the captured image and/or the detected object to determine one or more parameters of the detected object within the captured image. Such a parameter may include, for example, a position of the detected object in the captured image, a change in position of the detected object with respect to time in a series of captured images, a relative position of one or more detected objects including a distance between the detected object and a reference point in the captured image" The image from the sensor is used to represent a distance that is then used to detect a crane status which includes a vertical or horizontal boom deflection.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the camera pendulum sensor used to determine a second deflection angle as taught by Rauscher with using the captured image to determine a distance as taught by Schoonmaker in order to provide a more accurate system for determining a crane status based on current reference points [Schoonmaker ¶ 0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (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 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666