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 .
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ogawa (US 20230242380 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches an information processing apparatus for cranes comprising:
a travelling body that travels along rails (crane girder 110 shown in Figure 1 to run along rails 101, 102);
a traverse trolley that travels in a direction perpendicular to a travelling direction of the travelling body along the travelling body (hoist 120 assembly is moved by a motor along crane girder 110, see [0157]);
and a hoisting device mounted on the traverse trolley (hoist 120),
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 124);
and a control device (information processing apparatus 200 described in paragraph 0114) that controls the imaging device to track and record a hoisting tool (hook 122) raised and lowered by the hoisting device based on an image recorded by the imaging device (described in paragraph 0390).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa further teaches a display device that displays the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool (described in paragraphs 0026 and 0028).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa 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 paragraph 0179).
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 20230242380 A1) in view of Ryan (US 20210267620 A1).
Ogawa teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above.
Ogawa 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 paragraph 0214-0218, wherein detection of the presence or absence of a suspended load would have to mean the camera can see the hook to know if a load is attached to it).
Ogawa 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 apparatus of Ogawa. The result would enable the crane apparatus of Ogawa 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 apparatus of Ogawa without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the size-determining camera of Ryan to the crane apparatus of Ogawa would produce the predictable results of monitoring loads being hoisted by a crane.
Regarding Claim 5, Ogawa further teaches a display device that displays the image recorded by the imaging device that tracks and records the hoisting tool (described in paragraphs 0026 and 0028).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogawa 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 paragraph 0179).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Walthelm (US 20220002117 A1) for a gantry crane with an image capturing device and Scholz (US 20250153979 A1) for a crane system that captures images of its load.
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