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
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. JP2022-062255, filed on 4 April 2022.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4 August 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending and treated below. Claims 7 and 8 are new.
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4 August 2026, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been overcome.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Nakajima (JP 2007326700 A).
Nakajima teaches an overhead crane and monitoring system (see at least Fig. 1, 105) comprising:
a travelling body that travels along rails (traveling frame 6);
a traverse trolley that travels in a direction perpendicular to a travelling direction of the travelling body along the travelling body (traversing carriage 9);
and a hoisting device mounted on the traverse trolley (combination of hanging member 10 and hanging tool 11),
wherein the overhead crane monitoring system comprises:
an imaging device installed on the travelling body, the imaging device being configured to change a recording direction and configured to zoom (camera 21 is installed on the travelling body via cab 20, the 27th paragraph after “Description” starting with “A cab 20 of the crane device 105…” describes the camera having vertical and horizontal position control and zoom control);
and a control device that controls the imaging device to track and record a hoisting tool raised and lowered by the hoisting device based on an image recorded by the imaging device (Figure 1 shows the camera having a field-of-view over the claws 12 which hoist material).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakajima further teaches a display device that displays the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool (Described in 19th-21st paragraph after “Description” starting with “(5) The steel material management system…”).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakajima further teaches wherein the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool captures a region below the hoisting tool in a storage area (Described in 41st paragraph after “Description” starting with “Subsequently, the control device 25 moves the camera 21…”).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakajima further teaches wherein the control device controls the imaging device to track and record the hoisting tool such that the image recorded by the imaging device captures a region below the hoisting tool in a storage area including a position immediately below the hoisting tool (Described in 41st paragraph after “Description” starting with “Subsequently, the control device 25 moves the camera 21…”).
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.
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2007326700 A) in view of Ryan (US 20210267620 A1).
Nakajima teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein the control device detects a position of the hoisting tool in the image recorded by the imaging device, and controls the imaging device to track and record the hoisting tool (described in 20th paragraph after “Description” starting with “(6) In the steel material management system…”).
Nakajima does not teach the control device detecting size of the hoisting tool.
Ryan teaches a camera device capable of determining the size of objects (described in paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 2, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the size-determining camera taught by Ryan to the crane monitor of Nakajima. The result would enable the crane monitor of Nakajima to utilize a variety of hooks and other attachment devices for carrying loads without causing interference with other existing camera determinations. It would also enable better recognition for differentiating the hook from the load being carried. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the size-determining camera taught by Ryan to the crane monitor of Nakajima without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the size-determining camera of Ryan to the crane monitor of Nakajima would produce the predictable results of monitoring loads being hoisted by a crane.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakajima further teaches a display device that displays the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool (Described in 19th-21st paragraph after “Description” starting with “(5) The steel material management system…”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakajima further teaches wherein the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool captures a region below the hoisting tool in a storage area (Described in 41st paragraph after “Description” starting with “Subsequently, the control device 25 moves the camera 21…”).
Regarding Claim 7, it would have been further obvious when incorporating the size-determining camera of Ryan to the crane monitor of Nakajima to also such that the control device controls the recording direction of the imaging device based on a detected position of the hoisting device in the image and controls zooming of the imaging device based on a detected size of the hoisting device in the image. This would be for the purpose of maintaining the appropriate zoom scale to encapsulate the workspace of the hoisting tool and/or item being hoisted so an operator can view as much as possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights