DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to amendment received Sep. 8, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
2. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recites “operating the input device without requiring depression of another input device without requiring depression of a trigger of the handheld remote control positioned on an opposite side of the remote control”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977).
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.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0148302.
As to claims 1, 13 and 20, Hayashi teaches a handheld remote control, system and method for a crane, comprising: a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with a controller of the crane; a display screen; an input device positioned adjacent the display screen (see para. 32-33 and 43),
the input device configured to receive a user input; and processing circuitry, configured to: obtain the user input via the input device, the input being a command to initiate a movement a stabilizer of the crane (see para. 32-33, 43 and 49);
cause the stabilizer of the crane to deploy or retract to perform the movement while the user input is provided by continually operating the input device without requiring depression of another input device without requiring depression of a trigger of the handheld remote control positioned on an opposite side of the remote control (see para. 35, 49 and 52-53, Hayashi explicitly teaches that each of the switches s1-s4 corresponds to a single outrigger. Hayashi also teaches that one switch can be operated to control the corresponding outrigger wherein the switch is a spring switch and the direction and velocity in which the user operates the switch also corresponds to the velocity and direction is which the outrigger moves in the forward or backward direction); and
cease operation of the stabilizer performing the movement responsive to release of the input device (see para. 32 and 49, the movement of the stabilizers stop if the user releases the trigger is released).
As to claim 2, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use the user input to cause the stabilizer to deploy or retract to perform the movement without requiring operation of a trigger (see para. 32 and 49).
As to claim 14, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claims 1 and 13, wherein the display screen is configured to visually indicate an operation that is performed at the crane in response to the input device being operated by a user (see para. 32).
As to claims 4 and 17, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claims 1 and 13, wherein the input device is a variable functionality input device, the handheld remote control further comprising a fixed functionality input device operable to change a selected user interface for the display screen out of a plurality of different user interfaces (see para. 33, power switch and mode switch, para. 35-39, switches s1-s4 functionality changes based on the selected mode of the controller).
As to claims 5 and 18, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claims 1 and 13, wherein the input device is a first variable functionality input device and the handheld remote control further includes a second variable functionality input device, wherein providing a user input at the second variable functionality input device causes a corresponding function to be performed at the crane, wherein the corresponding function comprises any of a lighting function, a stabilizer deployment or retraction function, an engine function, a power take off (PTO) function, a compressor function, or a crane function (see para. 49 and 57-58).
As to claim 7, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain crane data from the crane through the wireless transceiver and operate the display screen to provide the crane data to a user (see para. 45-48).
As to claim 9, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claim 1, wherein the user input further comprises a command to activate or deactivate a power take off (PTO) of the crane, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use the command to activate or deactivate the PTO of the crane to shut off or turn on the PTO of the crane (see para. 49 and 57-58).
As to claim 10, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claim 1, wherein the user input further comprises a command to adjust a speed of a compressor, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use the command to adjust the speed of the compressor to operate the compressor to increase or decrease in speed according to the command (see para. 32).
As to claim 11, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claim 1, further comprising a first toggle switch and a second toggle switch, wherein the first toggle switch and the second toggle switch have fixed functionality that do not change as a screen displayed by the display screen is changed, and wherein the input device is a third toggle switch, the handheld remote further comprising a fourth toggle switch, a fifth toggle switch, and a sixth toggle switch, wherein the third toggle switch, the fourth toggle switch, the fifth toggle switch, and the sixth toggle switch have functionality that changes as the screen displayed by the display screen is changed (see para. 33, power switch and mode switch, para. 35-39, switches s1-s4 functionality changes based on the selected mode of the controller).
As to claim 12, Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises a toggle switch or a joystick configured to be operated by a user’s finger (see para. 33 and 35-39).
As to claim 15, Hayashi teaches the control system of claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to transmit sensor data of an orientation of the crane to the remote control, wherein the display screen is configured to display the orientation of the crane to a user as the controller operates the plurality of stabilizers in response to operation of the variable functionality input device (see para. 51 and 56-59, fig. 9 and 10A-B).
As to claim 16, Hayashi teaches the control system of claim 13, wherein the user input is a command to automatically operate the plurality of stabilizers to achieve a target orientation of the crane, wherein the controller is configured to operate the plurality of stabilizers to achieve the target orientation and the display screen of the remote control is configured to display an orientation of the crane to a user as the controller operates the plurality of stabilizers (see para. 51 and 56-59, fig. 9 and 10A-B).
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.
3. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Haug, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0211365.
As to claims 6 and 9, Hayashi teaches cause the stabilizer of the crane to deploy or retract to perform the movement while the user input is provided by continually operating the input device (see para. 49 and 57-58); and
cease operation of the stabilizer performing the movement responsive to release of the input device (see para. 32 and 49, the movement of the stabilizers stop if the user releases the trigger is released).
Hayashi does not explicitly teach wirelessly transmit a stop signal to the controller of the crane using the wireless transceiver in response to a stop button of the handheld remote control being pressed. However, Huag teaches a system and method comprising a remote controller of a crane comprising a stop button (see para. 8, 30 and 33). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling date of the application to install the stop button of Huag in Hayashi. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Huag that doing so would allow the crane controller to stop the crane in case of emergency and therefore prevent any injuries to workers on site.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in Huag, in view of Little and further in view of Holmes, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0227663.
As to claim 8, Hayashi in view of Huag, further in view of Little teach the handheld remote of Claim 1, wherein Hayashi teaches the handheld remote control comprises a handle, a panel upon which the input device and the display screen are disposed (see 3-5). Hayashi does not explicitly teaches that at least partially surrounds the panel. However, Holmes teaches a shroud that at least partially surrounds the panel (see fig. 1, para. 71 and 77). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to install a shroud in Hayashi as taught by Holmes. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Holmes that doing so would provide protection to the screen of the device.
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights