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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0053, image evaluation device reference character “10” should read ---4---.
In ¶0055, image evaluation device reference character “9” should read ---4---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 2-3, “load-receiving means can be” should read --load-receiving means is configured to be---.
In claim 8, line 2 and claim 18, line 2, “sterooptical sensor system” should read ---optical sensor system---.
In claim 9, line 3, “connected connected to” should read ---connected to---.
In claim 16, line 2, “two of the detection axes” should read ---two detection axes---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“load-receiving means” in line 2 of claim 1.
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 § 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) 1-4, 8, 11, 13-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beaulieu (US9269255B2).
Regarding claim 1, Beaulieu discloses a crane (100; Figure 1A) comprising: a crane boom (119) from which a load-receiving means (111; Figure 2D) can be raised and lowered by means of a hoist rope (112); and a detection device (110) provided on the load-receiving means (111) for detecting the distance of the load-receiving means (111) from the ground and/or from an object (104, 117) located below the load-receiving means (111; column 8, lines 8-56).
Regarding claim 2, Beaulieu discloses wherein the detection device (110) comprises an optical sensor system (214; Figure 2A) with at least one detection axis directed downwards towards the ground for distance detection.
Regarding claim 3, Beaulieu discloses wherein the optical sensor system (214): is configured to operate stereooptically; and comprises two optical sensors and/or cameras (214A, 214B) spaced apart from one another and each directed downwards towards the ground (Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Beaulieu discloses an image evaluation device (1006) for evaluating the optical signals and/or images of the optical sensor system (214); wherein the image evaluation device (1006) is configured to determine the ground and/or object distance of the load-receiving means (111) from said the optical signals and/or images (column 14, line 23 – column 15, line 29, processors 1006 carry out processes from information of position, ranging, image information, etc. monitored from the sensor system 214).
Regarding claim 8, Beaulieu discloses wherein the two optical sensors and/or cameras (214A, 214B) of the stereooptical sensor system are arranged on opposite sides of the load-receiving means (111).
Regarding claim 11, Beaulieu discloses an energy storage device (217; 325; Figures 2A and 3) provided on the load-receiving means (111) and for supplying the detection device (110) with electric power.
Regarding claim 13, Beaulieu discloses wherein the detection device (110) is further configured to detect contour information in a plan view (column 8, lines 8-56).
Regarding claim 14, Beaulieu discloses wherein: the crane (100) is a rotating tower crane (column 4, lines 16-29); and the load-receiving means is a load hook (hook 111; Figure 2D).
Regarding claim 16, Beaulieu discloses wherein the optical sensor system (214) comprises: two of the detection axes (Figure 2A; two vertical axes that form field of view 218A,218B) that are directed downwards towards the ground for distance detection, each of the two detection axes being approximately parallel detection axes, each detection axes spaced apart from one another by a baseline; and two mutually overlapping detection axes (Figure 2A; field of view 218A,218B overlap across a distance).
Regarding claim 17, Beaulieu discloses wherein the detection device (110) comprises a wireless data transmission device (215; Figure 2A) for transmitting sensor signals of the optical sensor system (214) to a central crane control device (1000; Figure 10); and wherein the data transmission device (215) is arranged on at least one of: the load-receiving means (111).
Regarding claim 18, Beaulieu discloses wherein the two optical sensors and/or cameras (214A, 214B) of the stereooptical sensor system (214) are at substantially the same height levels on opposite sides of the load-receiving means (111).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami (WO2020153325A1).
Regarding claim 1, Minami discloses a crane (1; Figure 1) comprising: a crane boom (9) from which a load-receiving means (10a) can be raised and lowered by means of a hoist rope (14); and a detection device (31) provided on the load-receiving means (10a) for detecting the distance of the load-receiving means (10a) from the ground and/or from an object (W) located below the load-receiving means (10a).
Regarding claim 2, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) comprises an optical sensor system (hook camera 31) with at least one detection axis directed downwards towards the ground for distance detection.
Regarding claim 3, Minami discloses wherein the optical sensor system (hook camera 31): is configured to operate stereooptically; and comprises two optical sensors and/or cameras (cameras 31 both sides of hook block 10) spaced apart from one another and each directed downwards towards the ground (Figure 2; page 9, ¶1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Minami discloses an image evaluation device (35a, 35b, 35d) for evaluating the optical signals and/or images of the optical sensor system (hook camera 31); wherein the image evaluation device (35a, 35b, 35d) is configured to determine the ground and/or object distance of the load-receiving means (10a) from said the optical signals and/or images.
Regarding claim 6, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) is mounted on a lower block (10) to which the hoist rope (14) is reeved and the load-receiving means (10a) is fastened.
Regarding claim 7, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) comprises a sensor carrier (Figure 1; side plates of hook block 10 protrude from the hook 10a) protruding from at least one of: the load-receiving means (10a).
Regarding claim 8, Minami discloses wherein the two optical sensors and/or cameras (cameras 31) of the stereooptical sensor system are arranged on opposite sides of the load-receiving means (10a; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) comprises a wireless data transmission device (page 9, ¶2, images transmitted through wireless communication components on the hook block 10) for transmitting the ground and/or object distance to a central crane control device (35); and wherein the data transmission device is arranged on at least one of: the load-receiving means (10a); or the lower block (10).
Regarding claim 13, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) is further configured to detect contour information in a plan view (page 8, ¶5).
Regarding claim 15, Minami discloses wherein the detection device (31) is further configured to: detect at least one of a width of the object (W; Figures 5B and 10A-11B).
Regarding claim 18, Minami discloses wherein the two optical sensors and/or cameras (cameras 31) of the stereooptical sensor system (hook camera 31) are at substantially the same height levels on opposite sides of the load-receiving means (10a; Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami in view of Enkelmann (DE3624486A1).
Regarding claim 5, Minami discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein the image evaluation device comprises a triangulation module for determining the ground and/or object distance by triangulation on the basis of: the spaced apart spacing of the sensors and/or cameras from one another; and corresponding image points.
Enkelmann teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the image evaluation device (CPU; 35a, 35, 35d of Minami) comprises a triangulation module (comparator; page 7, ¶6) for determining the ground and/or object distance by triangulation on the basis of: the spaced apart spacing (c; Figure 5) of the sensors and/or cameras (2, 2’) from one another; and corresponding image points (merged view points on object 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Minami to include the triangulation module as taught by Enkelmann in order to help accurately calculate the distance measurement between the cameras and object at the angle at which the object appears.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami in view of Persico (US20200361751A1).
Regarding claim 9, Minami discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein the image evaluation device is mounted together with the optical sensor system on the load-receiving means and/or a lower block connected to the load-receiving means.
Persico teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the image evaluation device (12; Figure 2) is mounted together with the optical sensor system (11) on the load-receiving means (9a) and/or a lower block (9b) connected to the load-receiving means (9a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Minami to include the image evaluation device as taught by Persico in order to reduce data and signal transfer failure between the optical sensor system and image evaluation device.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Minami discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein the detection device comprises a wireless data transmission device for transmitting the ground and/or object distance (“sensor signals of the optical sensor system” claim 17) to a central crane control device; and wherein the data transmission device is arranged on at least one of: the load-receiving means; or the lower block.
Persico teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the detection device (10; Figure 2) comprises a wireless data transmission device (13) for transmitting the ground and/or object distance (“sensor signals of the optical sensor system (11b)” claim 17) to a central crane control device (15); and wherein the data transmission device (13) is arranged on at least one of: the load-receiving means (9a); or the lower block (9b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Minami to include the wireless data transmission device as taught by Persico in order to eliminate cable connections between the detection device and crane control device to reduce space and clutter.
Regarding claim 12, Minami discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the load-receiving means or the lower block comprise a generator for generating electric power from at least one of a movement of the hoist rope or a movement of a deflection pulley deflecting the hoist rope.
Persico teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein at least one of the load-receiving means (9a) or the lower block (9b) comprise a generator (14; Figure 2) for generating electric power from at least one of a movement of a deflection pulley deflecting the hoist rope (8; ¶0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Minami to include the generator as taught by Persico in order to provide power without the need of external power sources or batteries to reduce maintenance and eliminate the need of power supply cords.
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
Prosecution Insights