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 .
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,732. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: a comparison of the independent claim 2 is made to the patented claim 1 below:
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being an obvious variation of Claim 1 of the patented claims of the patented reference. Claim 2 recites a system for use on a lifting machine including a first sensor node positioned on a boom, a second sensor node providing positional and angular measurements, a sensor hub receiving data from the sensor nodes, fusion of distance measurements from multiple sensors, storage of geometric information, and reporting of distance and upright angle to a load moment computer for calculating a moment experienced by a base. These limitations correspond directly to those recited in Claim 1 of the patented reference. The only difference is that Claim 2 specifies the second sensor node as being positioned on an outrigger affixed to the base rather than directly on the base. This difference constitutes an obvious modification, as an outrigger is a structural component of the base used to support and stabilize the lifting machine, and placing a sensor on the outrigger would have been an obvious alternative to placing the sensor on the base itself. Therefore, Claim 2 is not patentably distinct from the patented claim and a terminal disclaimer is required to overcome this rejection.
Remaining independent claims discloses subject matter that are already covered by the patented claims as well.
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) 3-15, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borroni et al. (US 2016/0121481 A1).
Claim 3 recites a system for use on a lifting machine including a first sensor node on a boom, a second sensor node on an outrigger, measurement of distance between the nodes, and measurement of an angle between the boom and the base.
Borroni teaches a lifting machine with a boom (articulated arm) mounted to a base, including detection of geometric configuration and angular relationships. For example, Borroni discloses that “the movement apparatus comprises at least one position detector configured to detect at least the actual and instantaneous position of the second free end” and that multiple position detectors may be used to determine the “geometric configuration of the articulated arm” (paras [0074]–[0076]). Borroni further teaches detecting reciprocal angular positions between segments (paras [0080], [0087]).
However, Borroni does not expressly teach:a sensor node positioned on an outrigger, nor direct measurement of a distance between two spatially separated sensor nodes; Borroni’s position detectors are associated with arm segments, actuators, or the support tower, not outriggers (paras [0076]–[0086]). Placement of a sensor on an outrigger would therefore not be expressly disclosed and would constitute a structural difference. Measuring distance between nodes would be obvious in view of Borroni’s continuous geometric determination using detected positions.
Claim 4 recites a sensor hub receiving data from the first and second sensor nodes and reporting distance and angle; Borroni teaches a control and command unit that collects data from position detectors and determines geometric configuration (paras [0088]–[0089]). The control and command unit calculates distances and angular relationships, such as “calculate the distance of the second free end with respect to the point of rotation” (para [0091]); However, Borroni does not explicitly teach a separate “sensor hub” receiving data from spatially separated sensor nodes; the control and command unit functions similarly and would render a hub obvious as a functional equivalent.
Claim 5 recites that the hub contains geometric information and reports a radial distance from the first sensor node to a center of the lifting machine; Borroni teaches storing geometric parameters of the machine, including lengths and pivot locations, in the control and command unit: “the geometric parameters of each of the segments … are memorized in the control and command unit” (para [0109]); Borroni further teaches calculating distances relative to a reference point such as the center of rotation (paras [0091], [0113]); Thus, the concept of stored geometry and reporting radial distance is taught. The only difference is that Borroni calculates from arm ends rather than from a sensor node per se, which would be an obvious variation.
Claim 6 recites sensor nodes each comprising at least two distance measurement sensors and reporting distance based on sensor fusion; Borroni teaches use of multiple position detectors and collecting their information to determine geometry (paras [0076], [0088]); However, Borroni does not expressly teach: sensor nodes having multiple distance sensors, nor sensor fusion of distance measurements at the node level; while fusion is implied at the system level (“collect information from them and determine the geometric configuration,” para [0088]), explicit multi-sensor fusion at a node would be obvious but not expressly disclosed.
Claim 7 recites a multi-segment boom with at least one sensor node per segment; Borroni expressly teaches this limitation: “the movement apparatus comprises a plurality of position detectors, each of which associated with one of the segments” (para [0076]) and “respective position detectors are interposed to define the reciprocal angular position of the segments” (para [0087]).
Claim 8 recites first and second sensor nodes placed at fixed locations on a load moving machine to report current geometric data, with at least one location on an outrigger; Borroni teaches fixed placement of position detectors on segments, actuators, and the support tower to report geometric data (paras [0074]–[0086]). However, Borroni does not teach placement on an outrigger; thus, the geometric data reporting is taught, but outrigger placement is not taught and would be an obvious mounting alternative not expressly disclosed.
Claim 9 recites each sensor node having a plurality of sensors; Borroni teaches a plurality of position detectors overall (paras [0076], [0088]) , use of multiple sensors per node would be obvious in view of Borroni’s reliance on multiple detectors to improve geometric determination.
Claim 10 recites microprocessors at the sensor nodes performing sensor fusion, Borroni is not explicit on microprocessors located at sensor nodes or node-level sensor fusion; all processing is performed by the central control and command unit (paras [0088]–[0091]); thus, would represent an architectural choice though distributing processing would be obvious.
Claim 11 recites that current geometric data includes boom length; Borroni teaches that segment lengths are known and stored: “geometric parameters of each of the segments … such as the length” (para [0109]).
Claim 12 recites that current geometric data includes boom angle; Borroni expressly teaches detecting angular positions between segments and between the arm and support tower (paras [0080], [0087], [0091]).
Claim 13 recites that current geometric data includes radial extension of a boom from a fixed point; Borroni teaches calculating distance of the arm end relative to a reference point such as the support tower or rotary actuator center (paras [0091], [0113]).
Claim 14 recites a sensor hub receiving current geometric data from the nodes; Borroni teaches a control and command unit receiving data from detectors (paras [0088]–[0089]); a hub is not expressly taught, but the control unit is a functional equivalent, rendering this limitation obvious.
Claim 15 recites the hub performing sensor fusion; Borroni teaches combining detector data to determine geometric configuration (para [0088]); thus, system-level fusion is taught, though not explicitly labeled as “sensor fusion.”
Claim 18 recites first and second fixed locations on first and second outriggers; Borroni is not explicit on any sensor placement on outriggers; however, this limitation is a structural design choice and within the knowledge ordinary skilled artisan.
Claim 19 recites a third sensor node on the boom; Borroni expressly teaches multiple sensors on boom segments (paras [0076], [0087]).
Claim 20 recites a sensor hub receiving data from first, second, and third sensors; Borroni teaches a control unit receiving data from multiple detectors (paras [0088]–[0089]).
Claim 21 recites reporting geometric data to a load moment computer to calculate moment; Borroni et al. teach calculating distances, angular speeds, and geometric relationships to manage movement limits and safety (paras [0015]–[0016], [0091], [0118]–[0119]). While moment calculation is implicit rather than explicit, use of such data for load moment computation would be obvious.
Claim 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Borroni et al. (US 2016/0121481 A1), in view of Wada (US 5,711,440).
Claim 16 “…wherein the sensor hub provides the current geometric data to a load moment indicator system associated with the load moving machine.”
Borroni et al. disclose a system for a load moving machine including multiple sensors positioned on the machine that generate current geometric data, and a central control unit (sensor hub) that receives such data and determines the geometric configuration of the machine for operational control purposes (see Borroni paras [0088]–[0091]). However, Borroni does not expressly disclose that the sensor hub provides the geometric data to a load moment indicator system; Wada discloses a mobile crane having a controller that receives sensor data corresponding to boom length, boom angle, axle load, and geometric configuration, and uses that data to calculate suspension load and tipping moment, which are then used as reference values in an excessive load prevention system (see Wada, col. 5, lines 10–45; col. 7, lines 20–55; col. 9, lines 1–35); Wada further teaches providing calculated geometric and load data to a load moment determination function to assess whether crane operation exceeds safe limits and to generate control or stop signals (see col. 9, lines 20–45; col. 10, lines 1–25); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Borroni such that the sensor hub provides the collected geometric data to a load moment indicator system as taught by Wada, because both references address safe operation of lifting machinery based on sensed geometry and load conditions, and providing geometric data from a sensor hub to a load moment indicator system represents a predictable and routine data flow between known system components. Such a modification merely applies Wada’s known load moment processing to Borroni’s known sensor hub architecture and would have involved no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 17 “…wherein the sensor hub comprises a load moment indicator system associated with the load moving machine.”
Borroni et al. disclose a system for a lifting machine including multiple sensors detecting geometric and positional data of the machine and a central control unit receiving such data and determining the geometric configuration of the machine (see Borroni paras [0088]–[0091]); however, Borroni does not expressly teach that the central unit or sensor hub itself comprises a load moment indicator system; Wada teaches a mobile crane having a controller that receives sensor data, including boom length, boom angle, and axle load, and calculates suspension load and tipping moment, compares the calculated load to a reference load, and outputs control and warning signals to prevent excessive load operation (see Wada, col. 5, lines 10–45; col. 7, lines 20–55; col. 9, lines 1–35); Wada further teaches that this controller inherently functions as a load moment indicator system, as it calculates tipping moment and determines whether crane operation should be stopped based on that calculation (see col. 9, lines 20–45; col. 10, lines 1–25); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sensor hub of Borroni to incorporate the load moment indicator functionality taught by Wada, because both references address the same technical problem of monitoring crane geometry and load to ensure safe operation, and integrating load-moment calculation into the central sensor hub would merely involve combining known functions into a single controller for improved efficiency and reduced system complexity. Such integration represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657