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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In lines 2-3 of claim 50, “enabling wireless communications with one or more base stations”.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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:
“clamping means” in line 3 of claim 31 and line 2 of claim 34.
“first clamping element” in line 2 of claim 34 and line 2 of claim 42.
“second clamping element” in line 3 of claim 34 and line 2 of claim 42.
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.
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 34-40 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 34 recites the limitation "the hoist line" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 35-40 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beaulieu (US9269255B2).
Regarding claim 31, Beaulieu discloses a crane mounted device (110; Figures 1A-2D) for monitoring a construction site, the device (110) comprising a housing (201) for containing monitoring equipment (214-217), the housing (201) configured to be releasably secured via clamping means (column 7, lines 40-55, housing 201 couples about load line 112) to a hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) of the crane (120) above an object (104) to be lifted, the housing (201) locatable about the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) to have line-of-sight along the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) and to the object (104) to be lifted wherein, in use, a weight of the housing (201) is wholly supported by the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) via the clamping means while the weight of the object (104) is transferred via the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) directly to the crane (120), such that the weight of the object (104) bypasses the housing (201).
Regarding claim 32-33, Beaulieu discloses wherein the housing (201) is configured to be releasably secured to a hoist line (112) of the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) of the crane (120);
wherein the housing (201) is configured to allow the hoist line (112) to extend through the housing (201; Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 34-40, Beaulieu discloses wherein the housing (201) comprises a mounting arrangement (202) having clamping means, the clamping means comprising a first clamping element (201A) and a second clamping element (201B), the first clamping element (201A) being configured to engage the second clamping element (201B) to trap and retain a portion of the hoist line (112) therebetween;
wherein the first and second clamping elements (201A, 201B) are configured to be interconnected in engagement with the hoist line (112);
wherein the mounting arrangement (202) provides an aperture (A; see Beaulieu annotated Figure 2A below) for receiving the hoist line (112);
wherein the aperture (A) is a slot (S) configured for receipt of a chain link (column 4, lines 26-29, load line may be a chain) of the hoist line (112) and orientated such that an adjacent chain link of the hoist line (112; the housing is fixed to the hoist chain) is prevented from passing therethrough;
wherein the housing (201) comprises an outer shell (201A, 201B) that is releasably secured to the mounting arrangement (202);
wherein the outer shell (201A, 201B) covers the mounting arrangement (202);
wherein the outer shell (201A, 201B) is made from a polymeric material (column 7, lines 40-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beaulieu, Annotated Figure 2A
Regarding claims 41-43, Beaulieu discloses wherein the housing (201) is configured to be releasably secured to a hook block (111; Figure 2D) on the hoist (hoist line 112; hook 111) of the crane (120);
wherein the housing (201) comprises a mounting arrangement (202) having a first clamping element (201A) and a second clamping element (201B);
wherein the first and second clamping elements (201A, 201B) are configured to engage with discrete mounting points of the hook block (111; central portion of hook block 111).
Regarding claims 44-45, Beaulieu discloses wherein the housing (201) comprises at least one internal platform (MP; see Beaulieu annotated Figure 2A above) for supporting the monitoring equipment (213-217);
wherein the monitoring equipment (214-217) comprises an electronic component selected from at least one of: an environmental sensor (213-214); a battery (217); a controller (216, 320; Figures 1-3); a transmitter and a receiver (215, transceiver).
Regarding claims 46-48, Beaulieu discloses wherein the electronic component includes the environmental sensor (213-214) selected from at least one of: a noise sensor (934; Figure 9); a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor (column 17, line 11 – column 18, line 12); an accelerometer (column 8, line 15); and a camera (214A, 214B);
wherein the environmental sensor (213-214) is a camera (214A, 214B; column 8, lines 10-13);
wherein the camera (214A, 214B; Figure 2A) is downward facing thereby, in use, providing a view of an area directly below the device (110).
Regarding claim 49, Beaulieu discloses wherein the electronic component includes the battery (217), the battery (217) comprising a plurality of discrete units (217A, 218B).
Regarding claim 50, Beaulieu discloses wherein the electronic component includes the transmitter and the receiver (215, transceiver; column 7, lines 25-30), the transmitter and the receiver (215) enabling wireless communications with one or more base stations (113A, 113B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654