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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 21, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending.
The pending claims comprise 2 groups:
1) Apparatus: 7-9,
2) Method: 1-6 and 11.
All appear to have similar scope.
As of 10/21/24, independent claim 1 is as follows:
1.(Currently Amended) A method for operating a hoisting appliance spanning a hoisting area, the hoisting appliance comprising N>2 movable parts for the transport of a load from a starting point to a destination point, said N movable parts being configured for a linear movement along any of three X, Y and Z orthogonal axes or for an angular movement,
wherein the method comprises choosing speed parameters for displacement of said N movable parts for transporting the load from said starting point to said destination point, by, in a control device:
(1) determining a set of speed parameters for displacement of said N movable parts belonging to an operating zone for which a predictive maintenance function of said hosting appliance yields results which are above a determined accuracy threshold; and
(2) selecting, among said set, speed parameters which minimize a travel time of said load from said starting point to said destination point.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals (1)-(2) are added to the beginning of each element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-9 and 11:
Claim categories:
1) Apparatus: 7-9 and 11, and
2) Method: 1-6.
Analysis of Step 1:
System: claims 7-9 and 11, comprising apparatus to control movement of hoist. (Step 1:Yes).
Method: claims 1-6 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for a method for controlling movement of a hoist. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-9 and 11 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for method for controlling movement of a hoist using a determining step and selecting step which is a fundamental economic principle or business practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea related to determining and selecting speed parameters of the hoist, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for planning movements for transporting devices, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] determining set of speed parameters. Human activity.
[2] selecting speed parameters Mental step.
Step [1] is human activity for determining a plurality of routes.
Step [2] is selecting among the set speed parameters then for controlling the hoist which is a mental step. This mental step is a well known business activity for analyzing which speeds minimize travel time of the load.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for evaluating / analyzing a hoist and the speed to move its parts to minimize travel time of a load and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[2] above.
Steps [1][2] are for determining a set of speed parameters for a hoist to move a load.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [1][2], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claims are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-6, 8, 9 and 11, which deal with further details of the hoist control, these further limit the abstract idea of the maintenance analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-6, 8, 9 and 11 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 2-6, 8, 9 and 11 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
The examiner suggests that claims 1, 7 and 11 be amended to include a step where the control device actively controls the hoisting appliance in accordance with the selected speed parameters in the last step of the claims to overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
European Patent No. EP4227253 to Ogawa et al. teaches a maintenance schedule for a hoist.
European Patent No. EP4163245 to Minami teaches controlling a hoist with speed.
Japanese Patent No. JPWO2017138311 that teaches a maintenance method for a hoist.
Korean Patent No. KR20110004776 to Klaus et al. teaches a hoist that calculates swing angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 S Scott can be reached at 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights