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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-14 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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:
detection device in claim 8, interpreted as detection device 16, described as a camera. (see [0022] of Applicant published disclosure)
control unit in claims 8 and 9, interpreted as control unit 40, described as a computer including a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device that stores a control program, and an interface. (see [0031] of Applicant published disclosure)
and mode switching control unit, manual operation control unit, automatic operation control unit, swing suppression mode operation control unit, and automatic operation setting processing unit in claim 10, interpreted as software components/modules operated by control unit 40. (see [0031] of Applicant published disclosure)
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 3: Applicant claims
3. The crane according to claim 2, wherein the automatic operation includes a derricking operation for changing a movement radius of the suspended load, and an increase in the derricking angle for suppressing the swing has a larger increase rate than an increase in the derricking angle included in the derricking operation, or a decrease in the derricking angle for suppressing the swing has a larger decrease rate than a decrease in the derricking angle included in the derricking operation.
The claimed derricking angle for suppressing the swing is unclear and indefinite.
More specifically, for suppressing the swing has a larger increase rate than an increase in the derricking angle included in the derricking operation is unclear as to what increase rate is claimed. It appears there is no antecedent basis and/or missing a step of the increase rate.
Similarly, decrease in the derricking angle for suppressing the swing has a larger decrease rate than a decrease in the derricking angle is unclear as to what decrease rate is being claimed for the same or similar reasons. Corrective action or clarification is required.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the increase rate and decrease rate is understood as referring back to the rate used during the a derricking operation.
In regards to claims 6: Applicant claims
6. The crane according to claim 1, wherein increasing and decreasing the derricking angle for suppressing the swing are performed during a decelerated turning of the rotating platform, after the rotating platform stops a turning, or both during the decelerated turning of the rotating platform and after the rotating platform stops the turning.
However, this claim uses inconsistent claim language with claim 1 because claim 1 already claims suppress[ing] a swing of a suspended load when the rotating platform turns to move the suspended load. Therefore, the claimed a decelerated turning and stops a turning generate confusion as to if this is the when the rotating platform turns to move or a different (second?) turning that has been further decelerated and stopped in claim 6. Corrective action or clarification is required.
For the sake of compact prosecution, this term is understood to refer to the turning of claim 1.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 20080156761 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Schneider discloses the following:
1. A crane (see at least Abstract “boom crane”) comprising:
a rotating platform; (see at least Fig. 1 and [0050] “boom crane consists of a mobile platform 1, on which a tower 2 is mounted. The tower 2 can be rotated around a vertical axis, its position being described by the angle .phi..sub.D”)
and a boom capable of being derricked with respect to the rotating platform, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0050] “boom 5 is pivotally mounted that can be luffed by the actuator 7”)
wherein the crane automatically (see at least [0007] “second control unit automatically avoids sway in the tangential direction and makes the handling of the load easier for the crane driver.”) increases and decreases a derricking angle of the boom to suppress a swing of a suspended load when the rotating platform turns to move the suspended load. (see at least [0004] “acceleration of the load in the radial direction due to a rotation of the tower is compensated by a luffing movement of the boom in dependence on the rotational velocity {dot over (.phi.)}.sub.D of the tower” and [0024] “the sway of the load is compensated by counter-movements of the first actuator. Therefore, if the load would sway away from its planned trajectory, counter-movements of the actuator will counteract this sway and keep the load on its trajectory. This will lead to a precise control with minimal sway.”)
In regards to Claim 2, Schneider discloses the following:
2. The crane according to claim 1, wherein, during an automatic operation (see at least [0016] “control system uses the inverted model to control the first and second actuators in order to keep the load on a predetermined trajectory”) in which the rotating platform turns to move the suspended load, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0050], as previously cited, see also [0110]) the crane automatically increases and decreases the derricking angle of the boom (see at least Fig. 6 and [0079] “typical maneuver during transshipment processes are maneuvers characterized by two successive movements with opposite directions… in order to reject the load sway during the crane operation, there are compensating movements of the boom especially at the beginning and at the end of a motion”) to suppress the swing of the suspended load. (see at least [0007] and [0079], as previously cited)
In regards to Claim 6, Schneider discloses the following:
6. The crane according to claim 1, wherein increasing and decreasing the derricking angle for suppressing the swing are performed during a decelerated turning of the rotating platform, (see at least [0025] “counter-movements occur mostly at the beginning and the end of a main movement. As the acceleration at the beginning and the end of a main movement will lead to a swaying movement of the load, counter-movements at these points of the movement will be particularly effective.”, see also [0130]) after the rotating platform stops a turning, or both during the decelerated turning of the rotating platform and after the rotating platform stops the turning. (see at least Fig. 6 and 7 and [0079] “typical maneuver during transshipment processes are maneuvers characterized by two successive movements with opposite directions… in order to reject the load sway during the crane operation, there are compensating movements of the boom especially at the beginning and at the end of a motion”)
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20080156761 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Schneider discloses the following:
3. The crane according to claim 2, wherein the automatic operation includes a derricking operation for changing a movement radius of the suspended load, (see at least Fig. 15 and [0113] “next maneuver is a combined maneuver containing a slewing and luffing motion of the crane… FIG. 15 shows a polar plot where the payloads radius gets increased by 10 m while rotating the crane.”)
Schneider suggests the following:
and an increase in the derricking angle for suppressing the swing has a larger increase rate than an increase in the derricking angle included in the derricking operation, or a decrease in the derricking angle for suppressing the swing has a larger decrease rate than a decrease in the derricking angle included in the derricking operation. (see at least Fig. 15 and [0113], as previously cited, and [0114] “Comparing these results with that of the luffing motion it can be seen that the achieved tracking performance remains equal.”)
Schneider discloses increasing a movement radius of the suspended load while turning. Kinematically, this inherently increases the circumference and tangential velocity/centrifugal forces for a given turn speed and load weight. Schneider further discloses luffing motion that achieves tracking performance that remains equal.
While Schneider does not explicitly disclose increasing the derricking angle to suppress this increased swing, one of ordinary skill at the time of filing would clearly understand that this would be kinematically necessary in order to maintain equal tracking performance with the increased radius and associated tangential velocity/centrifugal forces, with a reasonable expectation for success, with the motivation of reducing load sway. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
In regards to Claim 5, Schneider suggests the following:
5. The crane according to claim 1, wherein an increase amount and a decrease amount of the derricking angle for suppressing the swing are equal to each other. (see at least Fig. 14, wherein boom angle [rad] decrease at 8 seconds and 68 seconds are approximately equal to the increase at times 18 seconds and 54 seconds.)
While Schneider does not explicitly disclose increasing and decreasing the derricking angle by an equal amount, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing in view of Schneider Fig. 14 to set this angle increase and decrease equal to each other, with a reasonable expectation for success, with the motivation of reducing load sway. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
In regards to Claim 7, Schneider suggests the following:
7. The crane according to claim 1, wherein the crane has a normal mode in which swing suppression is not performed and a swing suppression mode in which the swing suppression is performed, and the swing of the suspended load is suppressed by increasing and decreasing the derricking angle of the boom, in the swing suppression mode. (see at least [0007] “the second control unit automatically avoids sway in the tangential direction and makes the handling of the load easier for the crane driver. However, the second actuator could also be directly controlled by the crane driver without an additional anti-sway-control.”)
While Schneider does not explicitly disclose a “normal mode” and a “swing suppression mode”, Schneider does clearly disclose disabling and enabling anti-sway control. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing in view of Schneider [0007] to include “modes” that include sway control and no sway control, with a reasonable expectation for success, with the motivation of allowing skilled operators to reduce load sway manually. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
Claims 4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20080156761 A1), in view of Miki (US 20150291399 A1) herein Miki.
In regards to Claim 4, Miki teaches the following:
4. The crane according to claim 1, wherein a time for increasing and decreasing the derricking angle for suppressing the swing is shorter than a swing period that is a time for the suspended load to perform a reciprocating swing. (see at least [0056] “first slow stopper 21 outputs a control signal in order to take a time T1 (=T/2) in a half of the calculated cargo swing cycle T, thereby braking and stopping the actuator 10.” and [0057] “motion of the boom 130 can be suppressed by taking the time T1 in the half of the cargo swing cycle T to brake and stop the actuator 10.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miki with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of slow stopping a working machine while taking into account the flexure of the boom and cargo swing into consideration. (Miki, [0002]-[0003])
In regards to Claim 11, Miki teaches the following:
11. The crane according to claim 10, wherein the mode switching control unit, the manual operation control unit, the automatic operation control unit, the swing suppression mode operation control unit, and the automatic operation setting processing unit are software modules implemented by a CPU executing a control program. (see at least [0046] “[0046] The control unit 20 is an on-vehicle computer configured from a CPU, a memory and the like and is a unit for controlling the driving motion of the actuator 10 in accordance with the instruction given by the operating unit 30.” and [0049] “control unit 20 includes first slow stopper 21, second slow stopper 22, cargo swing predictor 23, and switcher 24 and is configured to stop the actuator 10 which is being driven in their cooperation. The first slow stopper 21, the second slow stopper 22, the cargo swing predictor 23 and the switcher 24 are implemented by execution of a program through the control unit 20.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miki with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of slow stopping a working machine while taking into account the flexure of the boom and cargo swing into consideration. (Miki, [0002]-[0003])
In regards to Claim 14, Schneider discloses the following:
14. The crane according to claim 1, further comprising: a lower structure disposed below the rotating platform, wherein the rotating platform turns with respect to the lower structure, the lower structure includes a movable traveling body, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0050] “mobile platform 1, on which a tower 2 is mounted.”) the crane includes a wire rope hanging from the boom and suspending the suspended load, and the rotating platform turns to turn the suspended load suspended by the wire rope. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0050] “load 3 is suspended on a rope of length I.sub.S from the head of the boom 5 and can sway with the angle .phi..sub.Sr.)
The rope of Schneider is not specifically a wire rope. However, this is known in the art as taught by Miki. (see at least [0079] “wire rope 241”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miki with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of slow stopping a working machine while taking into account the flexure of the boom and cargo swing into consideration. (Miki, [0002]-[0003])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20080156761 A1), in view of Eriksson et al. (US 20140224755 A1) herein Eriksson.
In regards to Claim 8, Schneider discloses the following:
8. The crane according to claim 7, further comprising: a detection device that detects the swing of the suspended load; (see at least [0009] “crane additionally has third means for determining the radial rope angle .phi..sub.Sr and/or velocity {dot over (.phi.)}.sub.St and/or the tangential rope angle .phi..sub.St and/or velocity {dot over (.phi.)}.sub.St by measurement. The rope angles and velocities describe the sway of the load suspended on the rope, such that determining these data by measurement and using them as an input for the control system of the present invention will lead to higher precision.”, see also [0100])
Eriksson teaches the following:
and a control unit that performs a transition to the swing suppression mode or that assists in the transition to the swing suppression mode, based on detection information of the detection device. (see at least [0024] “crane further comprises an angle sensor 150, mounted in the illustrated example of FIG. 1A directly on the anchorage of the rope”, [0049]-[0051] “sway observer 31” and [0173] “[0173] While the motor control with the sway compensation (step 1403) is performed, it is monitored whether or not the operator deactivates the anti-sway control (step 1404), and whether or not the reference speed from the operator has reached zero (step 1405). The reference speed from the operator means with the description of FIG. 14 and when the arrangement of FIG. 2D is used” and [0174] “[0174] “it is checked, in step 1407, whether or not the new control command is received. If the new control command is received, the process continues in step 1403 by controlling the motor with the sway compensation.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Eriksson with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing correct rope angle feedback information that gives the real rope angle in real time with sufficient accuracy even when the speed of the crane changes. (Eriksson, [0007])
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20080156761 A1), in view of Wahrburg et al. (EP 4159660 A1) herein Wahrburg.
In regards to Claim 9, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Wahrburg:
9. The crane according to claim 7, further comprising: a control unit that performs a transition to the swing suppression mode (see at least [0012] “receiving a first trigger signal configured to start providing the motion control data for the drive unit of the crane to a control of the drive unit and controlling the drive unit of the crane according to the provided motion control data.”, see also [0034] “first trigger signal”) or that assists in the transition to the swing suppression mode, based on a stop of a turning of the rotating platform or on deceleration of the turning. (optional)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wahrburg with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing excessive oscillations of goods moved by a crane. (Wahrburg, [0002])
In regards to Claim 10, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Wahrburg:
10. The crane according to claim 9, wherein the control unit includes a mode switching control unit that performs switching control of an operation mode, a manual operation control unit that performs operation control of the crane in a manual operation mode, (see at least [0028] “control modes”, [0034] “crane is speed controlled (i.e. manual operation), the trigger signal is that the speed reference produced by the motion profile generator is close to zero.”) an automatic operation control unit that performs operation control of the crane in an automatic operation mode, (see at least [0028], [0034] “If the crane is position-controlled (i.e. in automatic operation), the trigger signal is that the position reference produced by the motion profile generator is close to the programmed target position.”, [0036] “motion control profile may be used to control a crane in an automatic mode”) a swing suppression mode operation control unit that performs operation control of the crane in the swing suppression mode, (see at least [0028] “anti-sway control model”) and an automatic operation setting processing unit that inputs setting information of an automatic operation via a manipulation panel. (see at least [0034] “trigger signal is that the position reference produced by the motion profile generator is close to the programmed target position”, and [0036] “control profile”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wahrburg with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing excessive oscillations of goods moved by a crane. (Wahrburg, [0002])
In regards to Claim 11, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Wahrburg:
11. The crane according to claim 10, wherein the mode switching control unit, the manual operation control unit, the automatic operation control unit, the swing suppression mode operation control unit, and the automatic operation setting processing unit are software modules implemented by a CPU executing a control program. (see at least [0024] “computer program element”, [0039] “Units and/or devices and/or controls and/or controllers”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wahrburg with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing excessive oscillations of goods moved by a crane. (Wahrburg, [0002])
In regards to Claim 12, Schneider suggests the following:
12. The crane according to claim 11, wherein the mode switching control unit determines whether or not there is a manipulation of the transition to the swing suppression mode, and switches, in a case where there is the manipulation of the transition to the swing suppression mode, the operation mode to the swing suppression mode. (see at least [0007] “the second control unit automatically avoids sway in the tangential direction and makes the handling of the load easier for the crane driver. However, the second actuator could also be directly controlled by the crane driver without an additional anti-sway-control.”)
While Schneider does not explicitly disclose a “normal mode” and a “swing suppression mode”, Schneider does clearly disclose disabling and enabling anti-sway control. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing in view of Schneider [0007] to include “modes” that include sway control and no sway control, with a reasonable expectation for success, with the motivation of allowing skilled operators to reduce load sway manually. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
This is further suggested by Wahrburg. (see previous citations to [0034], [0050], [0052]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wahrburg with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing excessive oscillations of goods moved by a crane. (Wahrburg, [0002])
In regards to Claim 13, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Wahrburg:
13. The crane according to claim 12, wherein the mode switching control unit determines whether or not the swing of the suspended load is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and causes, in a case where the swing is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, the operation mode to transition to the swing suppression mode. (see at least [0037] “As long as both estimated rope angle and angular rate (i.e. angular data) are sufficiently small, the motion control data may be set to zero. This dead-band can also be used to detect if the oscillation has been cancelled out and therefore to trigger switching back to the tracking parameters of the speed PI (and de-activated damping injection).”)
This is further suggested by Wahrburg. (see previous citations to [0034], [0050], [0052]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wahrburg with the invention of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing excessive oscillations of goods moved by a crane. (Wahrburg, [0002])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 25, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights