DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 15, 2024. Claims 1 – 22 are pending and examined below.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0226369 A1 to Troy et al. (herein after “Troy et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 12 and 19,
the Troy et al. publication discloses a system for avoidance of obstacles by a crane when moving a load (6)(see FIG. 1), the system comprising:
a detector (82) that provides obstacle location information (see ¶65 for “a multiplicity of sensors 82 are provided around the perimeter of the boom base platform 8 to detect obstacles for the purpose of collision avoidance”);
a processor (12) that receives the obstacle location and identification information from the detector and determines obstacle avoidance data in response thereto (see ¶12 for “[a] computer with motion control software . . . embedded on the boom base platform. The motion control function can be integrated with a real-time tracking system . . . [and includes] . . . a collision avoidance mode using sensors distributed around the perimeter of the boom base platform to detect obstacles”; see also FIG. 7 and ¶65, where “[t]he outputs of encoders 16c and sensors 82 are recorded by one of the multiple data acquisition devices incorporated as parts of the controller hardware 12”)(Emphasis added);
a rotational drive mechanism (24) that rotates a boom (20) of the crane relative to a base (8) of the crane on a support surface (FLOOR)(see FIG. 1 and ¶14, where “a rotary mast [24] carried by the boom base platform [8] and rotatable relative to the boom base platform about a pan axis”; see also ¶85, where “the boom arm 20 [is used] as a crane to lift the robotic crawler [or load] 6”);
a hoist drive mechanism (40, 42) that elevates and lowers a load (6) from the boom (20)(see FIG. 1 and ¶43, where “the umbilical cable 18 can be extended or retracted using a pair of cable rollers 40 which pinch the umbilical cable 18 adjacent a proximal end of boom arm 20. The cable rollers 40 are driven to rotate (in opposite directions) by a cable motor 42”);
a rotational drive mechanism controller (12) that receives control signals from the processor based on the obstacle avoidance data to control rotation of the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a redetermined horizontal distance of the load (see FIG. 10 and ¶12 for “a collision avoidance mode”; see also ¶39, where “an electrical subsystem 50 (comprising electronics, controller hardware and an embedded personal computer) is mounted on sub-platform 54. The electrical subsystem 50 provides power to the motors incorporated in boom subsystem 2, robotic crawler 6, and boom base platform 8”); and
a hoist drive mechanism controller (12) that receives control signals from the processor based on the obstacle avoidance data to control elevation of the load when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate the obstacle is within a predetermined vertical distance of the load (see ¶12 and ¶39).
As to claim 2,
the Troy et al. publication discloses a rotational drive mechanism controller (12) that receives control signals from the processor to halt rotation of the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined distance of the load hook. (See FIG. 10, ¶12 and ¶39.)
As to claim 3,
the Troy et al. publication discloses a hoist drive mechanism controller (12) that receives control signals from the processor to halt lowering of the load hook when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined distance of the load hook. (See FIG. 10, ¶12 and ¶39.)
As to claim 4,
the Troy et al. publication discloses a rotational drive mechanism controller that receives rotational drive control signals from the processor to halt rotation of the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined horizontal distance of the load hook; and a hoist drive mechanism controller that receives hoist drive control signals from the processor to halt lowering of the load hook when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate that the obstacle is within a predetermined vertical distance of the load hook. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
As to claims 5 – 8, the Troy et al. publication discloses that the detector comprising an optical camera, a radar, a sonic sensor or a laser. (See ¶90, where “[t]he collision detection sensors may be optical (e.g., IR reflection, thru-beam, laser, etc.), sonic/ultrasonic, and/or contact sensors.”)
As to claim 13,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the processor providing control signals to the hoist drive mechanism controller to stop lowering the load from the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a first predetermined vertical distance of the load. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
As to claims 14 and 15,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the processor provides further control signals to the hoist drive mechanism controller to elevate the load when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a second predetermined vertical distance of the load, wherein the first and second predetermined vertical distances are equivalent. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
As to claim 16,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the processor provides control signals to the rotational drive mechanism controller to stop rotation of the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined horizontal distance of the load. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
As to claim 17,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the detector further comprising a plurality of sensors effective for gathering data related to obstacle shape and location within a potential path of the load. (See ¶65, where “a multiplicity of sensors 82 are provided around the perimeter of the boom base platform 8 to detect obstacles for the purpose of collision avoidance”; see also ¶84)
As to claim 18,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the detector comprising at least one sensor effective for gathering data related to a shape and position of the load. (See ¶90, where “collision detection sensors may be optical (e.g., IR reflection, thru-beam, laser, etc.), sonic/ultrasonic, and/or contact sensors [for gathering data related to a position of the load]. Depth cameras may also be used [for gathering data related to a shape of the load].”)
As to claim 19,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the first and second predetermined vertical distances are equivalent. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73, where the “collision avoidance mode” is used or effective for when the first and second predetermined vertical distances are equivalent.)
As to claim 21,
the Troy et al. publication discloses providing control signals from the processor to the rotational drive mechanism controller to stop rotation of the boom when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate the obstacle is within the first predetermined distance of the load. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
As to claim 22,
the Troy et al. publication discloses providing control signals from the processor to reverse lowering the load when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate the obstacle is within the second predetermined distance of the load. (See at least ¶12, ¶65 and ¶73 for “collision avoidance mode”.)
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Troy et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035150 A1 to Sundarraj et al. (herein after “Sundarraj et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 9,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a mapper that provides a base map of an operating area, including known static obstacles, to the processor, and wherein the processor provides obstacle avoidance data in response thereto.
The Sundarraj et al. publication, however, discloses “a system and method . . . for dynamically mapping the position and speed of objects around a vehicle for collision avoidance purposes. The method determines the velocity of the vehicle in at least two orthogonal directions along with the position of the vehicle. From this information, a distance function map of the vehicle is created in a predefined area that includes a distance value at concentric locations from the vehicle. The distance function map is combined with distance function maps from all of the objects, including static objects located in terrain maps of the geographic area in which the vehicle is currently present, in the predefined area to determine whether a potential collision exists between the particular vehicle and any of the other objects.” (See ¶7.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests a mapper that provides a base map of an operating area, including known static obstacles, to the processor, and wherein the processor provides obstacle avoidance data in response thereto.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Troy et al. publication with a mapper that provides a base map of an operating area, including known static obstacles, to the processor, and wherein the processor provides obstacle avoidance data in response thereto, as suggested by the Sundarraj et al. publication, in order to provide a collision detection system in the crane that includes dynamically mapping the motion of objects around the crane in a defined area and determining whether the motion of the objects may cause a collision with the crane.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Troy et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0070179 A1 to Cameron et al. (herein after “Cameron et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 10,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
an alarm that being activated by the processor when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined distance of the load hook.
The Cameron et al. publication discloses “[e]mbodiments . . . to prevent collisions. For example, the autonomous position of a first lifting device can be compared to the autonomous position of another lifting device and/or other jobsite objects and when the objects breach a safety zone, a warning can be generated to warn the operator of a potential collision. In one embodiment, a safety threshold distance is used to help prevent collisions.” (See ¶106.) Such disclosure suggests an alarm that is activated by the processor when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined distance of the load hook.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Troy et al. publication with an alarm that is activated by the processor when the obstacle location and identification information is determined by the processor to indicate an obstacle within a predetermined distance of the load hook, as suggested by the Cameron et al. publication, in order to provide the operator of the crane with a warning of a potential collision.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Troy et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0031680 A1 to Delplace et al. (herein after “Delplace et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 11,
the Troy et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the obstacle location and identification information being utilized by the processor to determine whether a detected obstacle belongs to a class of obstacles over which the load hook may be passed.
The Delplace et al. publication, however, discloses “an ID sensor [182] configured to automatically identify object 118. For example, object 118 may have an RFID chip and sensor 182 is an RFID detector or reader that can receive data from the RFID chip used to identify what type of object or material object 118 is. The data on the RFID chip may have data such as a model number, serial number, product name, characteristics of the product such as weight and dimensional, installation information, technical specifications, date of manufacture, point of origin, manufacturer name, etc. The RFID chip may also contain data that points sensor 182 to a database that comprises more data about object 118.” (See ¶31.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the obstacle location and identification information are utilized by the processor to determine whether a detected obstacle belongs to a class of obstacles over which the load hook may be passed.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Troy et al. publication so that the obstacle location and identification information are utilized by the processor to determine whether a detected obstacle belongs to a class of obstacles over which the load hook may be passed, as suggested by the Delplace et al. publication, in order to transmit or send data directly to a central computer system or to a computer system associated with the crane which then relays the data to the central computer system.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666