DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed on 10/25/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 21-31 and 33-34 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 and 32 have been canceled.
Claims 35-40 have been newly added.
Claims 21-31 and 33-40 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/769,566 filed on April 15, 2022, which is the U.S. national phase of PCT Application No. PCT/AU2020/05 1118 filed on October 16, 2020, which claims priority to Australian Patent Application No. AU 2019903922 filed on October 17, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 not 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:
Determinator is operable/adaptor to in claims 21, 22
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. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
Determinator - Figure 7 - item 112, page 12, line 25
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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 7 and 9, the claim states "...the tipping moment...", however the applicant disclosed in line 7 "a current tipping moment...” The examiner interprets that the applicant is referring to the previously disclosed current tipping moment. Appropriate correction is required (i.e., "the current tipping moment").
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 9 and 11, the claim states "...the tipping moment...", however the applicant disclosed in line 9 "a current tipping moment...” The examiner interprets that the applicant is referring to the previously disclosed current tipping moment. Appropriate correction is required (i.e., "the current tipping moment").
Claim 33 recites “A pick and carry crane” and introduces a new embodiment; therefore, it is an independent claim. However, language such as “according to claim 21” is indicative of dependent-type claims in the new “a pick and carry crane” embodiment. Since claim 21 explicitly recites “A user display system” embodiment, it is considered a separate and distinct embodiment than the “A pick and carry crane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites “A pick and carry crane” and introduces a new embodiment; therefore, it is an independent claim. However, language such as “according to claim 22” is indicative of dependent-type claims in the new “a pick and carry crane” embodiment. Since claim 22 explicitly recites “A system” embodiment, it is considered a separate and distinct embodiment than the “A pick and carry crane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-31 and 33-40 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Atherden, U.S. Patent 12,221,327. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 21-31 and 33-40 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,221,327, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 22-24, 26-28, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhan (CN102259799B). As per claim 22, Zhan discloses a system for controlling an operation of a mobile crane, the system comprising: a user operable control, the user operable control generating a user input comprising a command to actuate an actuator for changing a configuration of the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein operation prompt information is obtained after calculation based on the acquired operating data, which helps the operator accurately grasp the working conditions during the installation working conditions and make correct decisions operation); and a determinator (see at least paragraph 0017; wherein torque control device) adapted to determine a current tipping moment of the mobile crane, the tipping moment comprising a moment about a tipping line of the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein a1.Collect the tipping moment and hoisting weight of the crawler crane during installation conditions); predict an effect of the user input on the tipping moment of the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein the overturning moment is compared with the preset maximum stable moment, and the hoisting weight is compared with the preset maximum hoisting weight with preset data, and different prompt information is output according to the comparison results, including: b1.Calculate the ratio of the overturning moment to the preset maximum stable moment, which is called the first ratio, and calculate the ratio of the hoisting weight to the maximum preset hoisting weight, which is called the second ratio); and when the predicted effect of the user input is to increase the tipping moment of the mobile crane past a predetermined amount, alter a response to the command of the user input (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein determine whether the first ratio or the second ratio is between the preset ratios, and if so, send an alarm signal; b3 determines whether the first ratio or the second ratio is greater than the preset maximum ratio, and if so, Stop actions that increase the tipping moment). As per claim 23, Zhan discloses wherein the predetermined amount is evaluated with respect to one or more of: one or more tipping lines of the mobile crane; a distance between a center of gravity of the mobile crane and the one or more tipping lines; and a load being carried by the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein the overturning moment is compared with the preset maximum stable moment, and the hoisting weight is compared with the preset maximum hoisting weight with preset data, and different prompt information is output according to the comparison results, including: b1.Calculate the ratio of the overturning moment to the preset maximum stable moment, which is called the first ratio, and calculate the ratio of the hoisting weight to the maximum preset hoisting weight, which is called the second ratio). As per claim 24, Zhan discloses wherein the response to the command of the user input is further altered when a rate of change of the configuration of the mobile crane exceeds a predetermined rate (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein determine whether the first ratio or the second ratio is between the preset ratios, and if so, send an alarm signal; b3 determines whether the first ratio or the second ratio is greater than the preset maximum ratio, and if so, Stop actions that increase the tipping moment). As per claim 26, Zhan discloses wherein the actuator actuated by the command of the user input corresponds to a function of the mobile crane, the function having a function speed and wherein the altered response to the command of the user input comprises reducing the function speed (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein determine whether the first ratio or the second ratio is between the preset ratios, and if so, send an alarm signal; b3 determines whether the first ratio or the second ratio is greater than the preset maximum ratio, and if so, Stop actions that increase the tipping moment). As per claim 27, Zhan discloses wherein the function of the command of the user input corresponds to one or more of the following: a speed of the mobile crane; a luff angle of a boom of the mobile crane; an extension of the boom of the mobile crane; an articulation of a front chassis of the mobile crane relative to a back chassis of the mobile crane; an activation of a winch of the mobile crane; a lateral articulation angle of the boom of the mobile crane; a pitch of a chassis of the mobile crane; and a roll of a chassis of the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0040; wherein the sensor transmits the detected angle, wire rope tension, length and other signals to the central controller (CPU). The central controller dynamically calculates the main arm mast angle, hoisting weight, and tipping moment). As per claim 28, Zhan discloses further comprising one or more sensors for determining one or more of: a position, a velocity, and an acceleration of the load or the boom, (see at least paragraph 0049; wherein an angle position sensor 6, which is arranged on the main boom mast 5 of the crawler crane and is used to collect angle data of the main boom mast 5) and wherein the determinator alters a response to the command of the user input based on this determination (see at least paragraph 0050; wherein it can be seen that by collecting the operating data of the crawler crane installation conditions, calculating the real-time tipping moment, and judging the safety status of the crawler crane based on the comparison of the tipping moment and the maximum stable moment, and making correct operations, it can ensure The moment is safe when lifting heavy loads, and the mast can achieve a larger safe working range when the load is light). As per claim 30, Zhan discloses wherein the determinator is adapted to further alter a response to the command of the user input when the predicted effect of the user input is to increase the tipping moment of the mobile crane past a further predetermined amount (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein determine whether the first ratio or the second ratio is between the preset ratios, and if so, send an alarm signal; b3 determines whether the first ratio or the second ratio is greater than the preset maximum ratio, and if so, Stop actions that increase the tipping moment). As per claim 34, Zhan discloses a pick and carry crane incorporating the system for controlling an operation of a mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0009; wherein a torque control method for installing a crawler crane) according to claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (CN102259799B) in view of Bonnet et al. (USPGPub 2019/0033158). As per claim 25, Zhan does not explicitly mention wherein the configuration of the mobile crane comprises a location of a center of gravity of the mobile crane relative to one or more tipping lines of the mobile crane. However Bonnet does disclose: wherein the configuration of the mobile crane comprises a location of a center of gravity of the mobile crane relative to one or more tipping lines of the mobile crane (see at least paragraph 0044; wherein the righting moment is therefore determined using the weight of the pipelayer machine 10 and the horizontal distance between where the center of gravity of the pipelayer machine 10 is acting on the ground surface and the tipping fulcrum of the pipelayer machine 10 minus the weight of the boom 40 and the horizontal distance between the center of gravity of the boom 40 and the tipping fulcrum of the pipelayer machine 10). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Bonnet with the teachings as in Zhan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide stability of a vehicle having a load suspended from the vehicle, see Bonnet paragraph 0006.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (CN102259799B) in view of Cherney et al. (USPGPub 2020/0071908). As per claim 29, Zhan does not explicitly mention further comprising determining an acceleration of the boom and altering a response to the command of the user input based on this determination. However Cherney does disclose: further comprising determining an acceleration of the boom and altering a response to the command of the user input based on this determination (see at least paragraphs 0054-055; wherein acceleration logic 262 can generate control signals to control the acceleration of the movable elements (such as bucket 110 and/or boom 112) to avoid an unstable condition. For instance, if machine 100 would enter an unstable condition if the operator raised the bucket with a relatively high rate of acceleration, then acceleration control logic 262 can generate control signals that limit the rate at which actuators 180 can be controlled to accelerate bucket 110). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherney with the teachings as in Zhan. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform stability control to reduce the likelihood that it enters an unstable condition, or to move it out of an unstable condition, see Cherney paragraph 0023. As per claim 31, Zhan does not explicitly mention wherein the determinator is further configured to predict characteristics of terrain which the mobile crane may traverse, wherein the user input comprises acceleration or deceleration, and wherein altering a response to the command of the user input comprises reducing, increasing, or preventing the acceleration or deceleration. However Cherney does disclose: wherein the determinator is further configured to predict characteristics of terrain which the mobile crane may traverse (see at least paragraph 0023; wherein machine 100 is traveling over sloped terrain. In that case, the center of gravity of machine 100 may be located in a position that renders it unstable, and in danger of tipping. Thus, in one example, the sensor signals output by sensors 124 can be used in controlling machine 100, automatically, to perform stability control to reduce the likelihood that it enters an unstable condition, or to move it out of an unstable condition), wherein the user input comprises acceleration or deceleration, and wherein altering a response to the command of the user input comprises reducing, increasing, or preventing the acceleration or deceleration (see at least paragraph 0030; wherein if the center of gravity indicates that machine 100 is in an unstable condition, then stability control system 164 can generate control signals to control propulsion system 170 to reduce the speed of machine 100 to inhibit machine 100 from entering an unstable condition, or to address an unstable condition once it has been detected). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherney with the teachings as in Zhan. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform stability control to reduce the likelihood that it enters an unstable condition, or to move it out of an unstable condition, see Cherney paragraph 0023.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 33, and 35-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is Zhan [CN102259799B], hereinafter referred to as Zhan.
As per claim 21, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:The prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest or render obvious automatically alter a response of the mobile crane to the user input when the predicted effect of the user input is to increase the current tipping moment of the mobile crane past a predetermined amount; designate a first range of the effect of the user input as a safe range and a second range of the effect of the user input as a warning range; and cause the user display to display the first portion and the second portion in dependence on a relation between the first range of the effect relative and the second range of the effect; wherein the one or more mobile crane characteristics correspond to one or more of the following: (a) a pitch of a chassis of the mobile crane, and (b) a roll of a chassis of the mobile crane; wherein the user display comprises a terrain display adapted to display terrain the mobile crane may traverse, wherein the displayed terrain is divided into at least two portions wherein a first portion corresponds to a safe range of the pitch and/or the roll and a second portion corresponds to a warning range of the pitch and/or the roll, and wherein the determinator is adapted to display the first portion in a first colour and the second portion in a second colour. Claims 33 and 35-40 would also be allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2022/0356050 – Provide a mobile crane having an articulated body and an elongate boom attached to the body, the boom being for carrying a load when the crane is stationary and while the crane is mobile. The boom is articulated to provide a movement for lifting and lowering an end of the boom, and the boom is further articulated to provide a movement of the boom laterally. A further embodiment relates to controlling swing of a load carried at the end of a boom of a mobile crane by varying lateral orientation of the boom. USPGPub 2020/0199851 – Provides a shovel includes a traveling body, a turning body turnably mounted on the traveling body, an attachment attached to the turning body and including a boom, an arm, and a bucket, and a hardware processor. The hardware processor is configured to output a warning about the operation of at least one of the traveling body, the turning body, and the attachment when the shovel is on sloping ground or is likely to enter sloping ground.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662