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 .
Examiner’s note
Note that this action is from a new Examiner that inherited that case.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 in parent Application No. PCT/SE2022/051012, filed on 11/04/2022.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues specific features in the Independent claim are not taught by the ART of record in very specific language and appears to only be looking at the individual paragraph indicated. The argument does not mention in any detail the supportive reference Mahrenhoz in the context of these limitations. Examiner agrees that Palmroth does not specifically teach all the limitations, but the 35 U.S.C. § 103 below does indicated how Mahrenhoz and additional art covers the limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 14 have been considered and clarified above, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments to the independent claim..
Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
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 1-14 are rejected under35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over PALMROTH et al. [US20150353328, now Palmroth], and in further view Mahrenholz et al.[US 20180110190, now Mahrenhotz], further in view of Olofsson et al. [WO2014133435, now Olofsson],.
Claim 1
PALMROTH discloses a method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine by a of Tool Center Point {TCP) control according to which method, [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0006; (The reference discloses method, control system, work machine, a method for controlling the crane of the working machine by boom tip control in such a way that the movement of the crane, the tip control is equivalent to TCP control.];
the parallel crane has a crane arm system with crane parts, comprising at least a lifting arm section with two mutually parallel arms, a rocker arm with a telescoping push arm, [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0020; 0031; (The reference discloses a stick boom connected at its first end in an articulated manner to the second end of the hoisting boom, and an extension boom connected to the stick boom at its second end and movable linearly outwards and inwards in the longitudinal direction of the stick boom.] Note that if they need more than one arm to provide the action of the crane they would have to be parallel.
which crane parts are articulately, mutually connected and to the working machine and can be displaced relative to each other and to the working machine by the influence of actuators and activators that are controlled and monitored by a control system of the working machine [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0025; (The reference discloses the actuators used for moving different booms of a crane in a working machine are hydraulic cylinders, but in principle they could also be other actuators with linear movements.];
by applying speeds for the various crane parts of the parallel crane characterized in that the speeds of the various crane parts of the parallel crane are automatically determined by the control system when the Tool Center Point {TCP) is operated in one of the following ways [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0007-0008; 0035; (The reference discloses controlling the movements of the head of the crane of the working machine, is programmed to operate in such a way that it selects the speeds of motion of the different booms of the crane on the basis of predetermined factors in such a way that the desired direction and speed of motion of the head of the crane is implemented by using speeds of motion of the different booms of the crane which are suitable for the situation.];
outward or inward in a horizontal plane (xy) relative to the working machine [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0020; (The reference discloses the stick boom at its second end and movable linearly outwards and inwards in the longitudinal direction of the stick boom];
upwards or downwards in a vertical plane (xz, yz) relative to the working machine; (The reference discloses the driver steers the head of the crane towards the working machine in the horizontal direction. The crane will move upwards in the vertical direction]; [see at least Palmroth, ¶ 0017; 0018; 0037
based on the position of the various crane parts relative to their mutual angle positions {q2, q3) and the telescope length {d) of the rocker arm as well as through parameter adjustment of the speeds of the various crane parts by correction factor curves and based on at least one of the following measures; (The Palmroth reference discloses the boom angles and extension length for speed restrictions and parameter adjustments based on calculations.) (see at least PALMROTH, ¶ 0021-0022; 0035; [0039], [0044-0045])
a) when the Tool Center Point {TCP) is run outwards relative to the working machine, the speed is restricted at which the push arm telescopes out from the rocker arm through parameter adjustment of the speed of the push arm based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm; (The reference discloses According to a first aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited. According to a second aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [010-011])
b) when the Tool Center Point {TCP) is run inwards relative to the working machine, the speed of the rocker arm is restricted through parameter adjustment based on the momentary telescope length {d) of the rocker arm; (The reference discloses According to a ninth aspect of the method according to the disclosure, if the driver steers the head of the crane closer to a minimum distance from the working machine in the vertical direction, the head of the crane will be simultaneously moved away from the working machine during this movement the crane is controlled to move more slowly than usual (that is, than the normal speed of motion corresponding to this speed of motion) It also discloses predetermined factor for control of the system). (PALMROTH, [0007], [0018], [0046])
c) when the Tool Center Point {TCP) is run upwards relative to the working machine, the speed is restricted at which the push arm telescopes into the rocker arm through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm; (The reference discloses According to a first aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited. According to a second aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [010-011])
d) when the Tool-Center-Point {TCP) is driven downward relative to the working machine, the speed is restricted at which the push arm telescopes out from the rocker arm through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm. (The reference discloses According to a tenth aspect of the method according to the disclosure, if the driver steers the head of the crane upwards within an at least predetermined maximum distance) (see at least PALMROTH, [019])
However, PALMROTH does not teach and in which method direction and motion speed are obtained for the parallel crane Tool Center Point {TCP), which is controlled by an operator using joysticks in the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches in which method direction and motion speed are obtained for the parallel crane Tool Center Point {TCP), which is controlled by an operator using joysticks in the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane and parallel to axis.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0030}, [0037], [0039]);
parameter adjustment (see at least Mahrenholtz, (this reference teaches “but monitor parameters that pertaining to the operation of boom assembly “ [0028]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
To further support the rejection Olofsson teaches control of a crane arm that is monitored through a communication link and can be controlled by that link. This includes controlling speed, angular position, etc. (see at least Olofsson, description ¶ 4; 5; 24; 26].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz, further with the control features of a forest harvesting machine of Olofsson.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], further with Olofsson’s features. Thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
8. With regard to claim 2,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the speed of the lifting arm section is restricted through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm. (The reference discloses
According to a first aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited. According to a second aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010-0011])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy) is run outwards relative to the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy) is run outwards relative to the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0037], [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
9. With regard to claim 3,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the speed of the lifting arm section is restricted through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm. (The reference discloses
According to a first aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited. According to a second aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010-0011])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy) is run inwards relative to the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy) is run inwards relative to the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0037], [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
10. With regard to claim 4,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the vertical plane (yz is run outwards relative to the working machine, the speed is restricted at which the TCP moves away from the working machine through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm and in such a manner that the relatively high initial speed restriction of the TCP decreases as the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm increases. (The reference discloses According to a first aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited. According to a second aspect of the method according to the disclosure, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010-0011])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane;
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by the joysticks in a horizontal plane _xy (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [023], [037], [039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
11. With regard to claim 5,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the speed is restricted at which the TCP approaches the working machine through parameter adjustment based on the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm and in such a manner that the initially relatively low or the absence of speed restriction increases as the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm decreases. (The reference discloses According to a twelfth aspect of the method according to the disclosure, the speed of motion of the extension boom is limited when the head of the crane is within the load space. According to a thirteenth aspect of the method according to the disclosure, the speed of motion of the extension boom is limited when the head of the crane is at a predetermined distance from the load space.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0021-0022])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by of the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy, yz) is run inwards relative to the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by of the joysticks in a horizontal plane (xy, yz) is run inwards relative to the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0037], [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
12. With regard to claim 6,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses wherein the speed of the various crane parts is automatically determined depending on the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction from the working machine. (The reference discloses when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited, when the position of at least one boom comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, the speed of motion of at least one other boom is increased.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010-0011])
13. With regard to claim 7,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the speed is restricted at which the TCP is displaced through parameter adjustment depending on the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction in such a manner that the speed restriction increases as the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction increases. (The reference discloses the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by means of the joysticks in a vertical plane (xz, yz) is run upwards relative to the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by means of the joysticks in a vertical plane (xz, yz) is run upwards relative to the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0037], [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
14. With regard to claim 8,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses the speed is restricted at which the TCP is displaced through parameter adjustment depending on the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction in such a manner that the speed restriction increases as the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction increases. (The reference discloses the method according to the disclosure, when the boom of the crane comes closer to the extreme end of its range of motion than a predetermined distance, its speed of motion is limited.) (see at least PALMROTH, [0010])
However, PALMROTH does not teach wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by means of the joysticks in a vertical plane (xz, yz) is run downwards relative to the working machine.
Mahrenholz teaches wherein when the Tool Center Point {TCP) by means of the joysticks in a vertical plane (xz, yz) is run downwards relative to the working machine, (The reference discloses a joystick used to control the complex movements of the crane.) (see at least Mahrenholz, [0023], [0037], [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine disclosed by PALMROTH to an operator using joysticks in the working machine of Mahrenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and operability of the Palmroth crane. The motivation would stem from the common knowledge in the art of heavy machinery control, where joysticks were a well-established and intuitive means for controlling complex, multi-axis movements like those of a crane as suggested by Mahrenholz at [0023], [0037], [0039], thus providing a more effective, efficient and safer control of a crane.
15. With regard to claim 9,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses wherein the parallel crane is pivotably sustained on the working machine and is adjustable in certain angle positions {qi) in a horizontal plane about a vertical joint shaft (z direction), and the turning speed of the parallel crane about said joint shaft is automatically determined based on the total outlying length of the crane parts in x direction from the working machine. (The reference discloses If any movement of a boom of the crane approaches its end limit (which is typically caused by the limitedness of the range of motion of the actuator for moving the same), its speed is started to reduce well in advance (at a given distance from the end limit of said movement). Furthermore, the deceleration may take place gradually in a ramp-like manner. When the speed of one boom is decreased, the speed of motion of the other boom is increased respectively so that the direction and speed of motion of the head of the crane, desired by the driver, are achieved. The increase in the speed of the other booms/one other boom may take place in a ramp-like manner similar to the deceleration of the boom approaching its end limit. This feature is effective for all booms of the crane, that is, the hoisting boom, the stick boom and the extension boom. The aim is to correct this situation by applying the hoisting boom or the stick boom. The resulting path of motion will deviate from the desired one, but the crane will not stop and the "deadlock" situation will be passed.) (PALMROTH, [0039], [0046])
16. With regard to claim 10,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses wherein the turning speed of the parallel crane at certain angle positions {qi) in a horizontal plane about said joint shaft is determined in such a manner that the speed restriction increases when the total outlying length of the crane parts in x direction from the working machine is in a predetermined outlying length. (The reference discloses If any movement of a boom of the crane approaches its end limit (which is typically caused by the limitedness of the range of motion of the actuator for moving the same), its speed is started to reduce well in advance (at a given distance from the end limit of said movement). Furthermore, the deceleration may take place gradually in a ramp-like manner. When the speed of one boom is decreased, the speed of motion of the other boom is increased respectively so that the direction and speed of motion of the head of the crane, desired by the driver, are achieved. The increase in the speed of the other booms/one other boom may take place in a ramp-like manner similar to the deceleration of the boom approaching its end limit. This feature is effective for all booms of the crane, that is, the hoisting boom, the stick boom and the extension boom. The aim is to correct this situation by applying the hoisting boom or the stick boom. The resulting path of motion will deviate from the desired one, but the crane will not stop and the "deadlock" situation will be passed.) (PALMROTH, [0039], [0046])
17. With regard to claim 11,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses wherein the speed restriction increases when the total outlying length of the crane parts in the x direction from the working machine is at an outlying length of between 70-100% of the maximum total outlying length of the crane parts. (The reference discloses If any movement of a boom of the crane 22 approaches its end limit (which is typically caused by the limitedness of the range of motion of the actuator for moving the same), its speed is started to reduce well in advance (at a given distance from the end limit of said movement). This distance will depend on the structure of the crane and the lengths of the booms. Furthermore, the deceleration may take place gradually in a ramp-like manner.) (PALMROTH, [0039])
18. With regard to claim 12,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses wherein the TCP control of the parallel crane is inactive if at least one of the following requirements are met; (The reference discloses method, control system, work machine, a method for controlling the crane of the working machine by boom tip control in such a way that the movement of the crane, the tip control is equivalent to TCP control.) (PALMROTH, [0006])
TCP control mode for the control system is not actively started by the operator; the momentary angle position {q3) of the rocker arm is less than a predetermined value (q-start), which can be, but not necessarily is -150°. (The reference discloses the boom tip control according to the method of the disclosure can also function so that it is switched off automatically, by a separate control device, or by maintaining a control function controlling another function for at least or not longer than a predetermined time when this function is in a given condition and the head of the crane is within a given area or reaches a given area by its movement. For example, in the forwarder of FIG. 1, such a function could be the control function for withdrawing the extension boom into the stick boom when the extension boom is already placed completely inside the stick boom and the loading grapple is e.g. close to (within a predetermined maximum distance from) the screen of the load space. Furthermore, the boom tip control according to the method of the disclosure can be configured to function so that it is automatically switched on again when the head of the crane moves out of a given area.) (PALMROTH, [0055])
19. With regard to claim 13,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses A system for controlling a parallel crane on a working machine, such as a harvester or similar crane-equipped vehicle intended for wood handling by means of the TCP control, wherein the system comprises a controller for controlling the parallel crane. (The reference discloses A system for controlling a crane of a working machine by boom tip control may have a control element for controlling the crane, the control system in a working machine, controlling the movements of the head of the crane of the working machine, is programmed to operate in such a way that it selects the speeds of motion of the different booms of the crane on the basis of predetermined factors in such a way that the desired direction and speed of motion of the head of the crane is implemented by using speeds of motion of the different booms of the crane which are suitable for the situation, or that a direction of motion of the head of the crane which is not possible at a given point or within a given range is automatically replaced with a suitable direction of motion close to said direction of motion, in which case the driver does not need to perform the necessary change in the direction of motion manually because the crane is not capable of moving in said direction of motion or the movement is slower than normal.) (PALMROTH, [0007-0008])
20. With regard to claim 14,
PALMROTH, Mahrenholz and Olofsson discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Additionally, PALMROTH discloses comprising a data processor for controlling the motions of the parallel crane with a programmable software in the data processor, and the controller comprises software and/or data stored in the data processor. (The reference discloses According to a sixteenth aspect of the system according to the disclosure, the control system of the working machine comprises a data processing unit for controlling the movements of the crane by programmable software in the data processing unit, and the control element is software stored in the data processing unit) (PALMROTH, [0025])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Donald Thorby [WO 9312029] (1993)
A portable crane (1) for use on a pickup or utility truck is disclosed. The crane (1) has a mounting base (2) rotatably mountable to a tray of the motor vehicle. The crane (1) includes a post (7) connectable to a base frame (5) which is welded to the mounting base (2). A lifting arm (25) and a brace (32) are telescopically arranged for different use configurations. The post (7), the brace (32) and the lifting arm (25) are able to be folded together to be substantially parallel when the crane (1) is in its folded configuration.[abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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 https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights