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 Claims
This first non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 12/17/2024.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP 2023128041 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a crane (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1);
a camera that is supported by the boom and that images a region including a suspended load (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation disclosing a monocular camera disposed on a boom and positioned downward to observe a load);
a posture sensor that detects a posture of the camera (see at least ¶ [0023] and [0026-0027] of the machine translation disclosing a posture monitoring system that receives an amplitude from the imaging system);
and an output unit that outputs a determination result of whether or not to perform an anti-swing operation of the suspended load based on video data acquired by the camera and on detection information of the posture sensor (see at least ¶ [0026-0031] of the machine translation disclosing using information from an imaging processing section and a posture monitoring section to an operation control unit that suppressed swing of a suspended load).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses the camera is fixed to the boom (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation disclosing a monocular camera disposed on a boom and positioned downward to observe a load).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses a lower traveling body (see at least ¶ [0009-0010] of the machine translation and Fig. 1 disclosing a crane equipped vehicle);
a rotating platform that turns with respect to the lower traveling body (see at least ¶ [0016] of the machine translation and Fig. 1 disclosing the boom is attached to a rotating column beneath it);
and a boom that is attached to the rotating platform to be capable of being derricked (see at least ¶ [0016] of the machine translation and Fig. 1 disclosing the boom is attached to a rotating column beneath it and able to be raised and lowered),
wherein the camera is configured to turn with respect to the lower traveling body as the rotating platform turns and to be derricked with respect to the rotating platform as the boom is derricked with respect to the rotating platform (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation disclosing a monocular camera disposed on a boom and positioned downward to observe a load respective to the crane equipped vehicle and rotating column).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses a crane (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1);
a camera that is supported by the boom and that images a region including a suspended load (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation disclosing a monocular camera disposed on a boom and positioned downward to observe a load);
a posture sensor that detects a posture of the camera (see at least ¶ [0023] and [0026-0027] of the machine translation disclosing a posture monitoring system that receives an amplitude from the imaging system);
and a control unit that executes an anti-swing operation of the suspended load based on video data acquired by the camera and on detection information of the posture sensor (see at least ¶ [0026-0031] of the machine translation disclosing using information from an imaging processing section and a posture monitoring section to an operation control unit that suppressed swing of a suspended load).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the anti-swing operation is an operation in which an operation amount of the boom is determined based on the video data and on an output of the posture sensor (see at least ¶ [0026-0031] of the machine translation disclosing using information from an imaging processing section and a posture monitoring section to an operation control unit that suppressed swing of a suspended load).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Agostini et al. (US 7367464 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, even in a case where a command to transition to an anti-swing mode in which the anti-swing operation is executed is input from a manipulation unit manipulated by an operator, when the determination result is negative, the transition to the anti-swing mode is canceled.
However, Agostini suggests, even in a case where a command to transition to an anti-swing mode in which the anti-swing operation is executed is input from a manipulation unit manipulated by an operator, when the determination result is negative, the transition to the anti-swing mode is canceled (see at least column 10, lines 59-67; and columns 11-12, lines 1-67 and 1-10 disclosing a crane control algorithm that uses swing dampening and filters operator commands to eliminate pendulation of the payload).
While Agostini does not suggest transitioning to an anti-swing “mode,” it suggests both the features by filtering commands that would initiate anti-swing behaviors by filtering an operator’s instructions if it determines that would cause pendulation. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the operator command filtering of Agostini into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward cranes operating with loads and means of preventing those loads from performing unintended swinging. This would help prevent swinging from operator controls that would unintentionally introduce pendulation.
Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Minami (US 20210253405 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses a crane (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom (see at least ¶ [0005] of the machine translation and Fig. 1);
a camera that is supported by the boom and that images a region including a suspended load (see at least ¶ [0018] of the machine translation disclosing a monocular camera disposed on a boom and positioned downward to observe a load);
and a posture sensor that detects a posture of the camera (see at least ¶ [0023] and [0026-0027] of the machine translation disclosing a posture monitoring system that receives an amplitude from the imaging system).
Takahashi does explicitly disclose a display unit that outputs a video captured by the camera,
wherein the display unit corrects a reference point of the video based on information detected by the posture sensor,
and the reference point is a point associated with a center of a swing of the suspended load.
However, Minami suggests a display unit that outputs a video captured by the camera (see at least ¶ [0062] and [0106] disclosing a manipulation terminal with a terminal-side display apparatus for displaying postural information of the crane and provide view of the load),
wherein the display unit corrects a reference point of the video based on information detected by the posture sensor (see at least ¶ [0014], [0104], and [0119-0121] disclosing using a reference position to calibrate the swivel-base cameras and the boom position),
and the reference point is a point associated with a center of a swing of the suspended load (see at least ¶ [0095] and [0104] disclosing the reference position is the center of the swivel of the boom).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the displaying and modeling of the crane and load dynamics into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using cameras to view a suspended load. This would help the camera maintain a consistent view of the suspended load while in coordination with a fixed reference.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose correcting the reference point includes a correction in two axial directions intersecting each other.
However, Minami suggests correcting the reference point includes a correction in two axial directions intersecting each other (see at least ¶ [0067] and [0075] and Figs. 4, 6, and 8 disclosing the reference position origin is position in space and manipulation is done with reference to spatial dynamics to help control the crane movement).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the displaying and modeling of the crane and load dynamics into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using cameras to view a suspended load. This would help the camera maintain a consistent view of the suspended load while in coordination with a fixed reference.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the support base is attached to the boom via a support frame that pivotably supports the support base.
However, Minami suggests the support base is attached to the boom via a support frame that pivotably supports the support base (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] disclosing a boom camera fixed on a swivel base).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the swivel-based camera into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using cameras to view a suspended load. This would help the camera reposition to maintain view of the suspended load as it swings.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the support frame is pivotable about one rotation axis,
and the rotation axis is parallel to a center axis of a derricking motion of the boom.
However, Minami suggests the support frame is pivotable about one rotation axis (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] disclosing a boom camera fixed on a swivel base),
and the rotation axis is parallel to a center axis of a derricking motion of the boom (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] and Fig. 1 disclosing a boom camera fixed on a swivel base, which rotates parallel to the boom axis).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the swivel-based camera into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using cameras to view a suspended load. This would help the camera reposition to maintain view of the suspended load as it swings.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the support base is configured to pivot actively using an actuator such that a field of view of the camera faces a direction of the suspended load.
However, Minami suggests the support base is configured to pivot actively using an actuator such that a field of view of the camera faces a direction of the suspended load (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] disclosing a boom camera fixed on a swivel base that moves with a hydraulic motor).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the swivel-based camera into the crane of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using cameras to view a suspended load. This would help the camera reposition to maintain view of the suspended load as it swings.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied in claim 1 and 7 above, and in view of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the posture sensor is disposed on a same straight line as an optical axis of the camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the posture sensor on a same straight line as an optical axis of the camera, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi suggests the camera and the posture sensor are mounted on a support base and are unitized (see at least ¶ [0017-0028] of the machine translation disclosing the imaging section, imaging processing section, and posture monitoring section being comprised in a load swing suppressing device),
and the camera and the posture sensor are mounted on one support base in a state of not being displaced relative to each other (see at least ¶ [0017-0028] of the machine translation disclosing the imaging section, imaging processing section, and posture monitoring section being comprised in a load swing suppressing device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights