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 .
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 7-10, 13, 15, and 17-18 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite and vague. How is “the analysis unit is configured to move the analysis region together with the tangential extending cable portion in the recordings when winding and unwinding? Is applicant referring to the camera just recording the analysis region?
In claim 7, the phrase, “and/or at an angle to the axis of rotation of the cable drum,” is indefinite and vague. Examiner cannot determine whether the features stated above are inclusive together or exclusive in alternative form.
In claim 8, the phrase, “and/or only over a part of the axial length of the cable drum,” is indefinite and vague. Examiner cannot determine whether the features stated above are inclusive together or exclusive in alternative form.
In claim 9, the phrase, “and/or a cable stacking,” is indefinite and vague. Examiner cannot determine whether the features stated above are inclusive together or exclusive in alternative form.
In claim 10, the phrase, “a faulty cable winding is detected and/or to issue a control command,” is indefinite and vague. Examiner cannot determine whether the features stated above are inclusive together or exclusive in alternative form.
Claims 13 is indefinite and vague. Which element constitutes “a working machine?” Is applicant referring to any construction equipment?
In claim 13, the phrase, “the at least one sensor unit and/or information relating to a faulty cable winding and/or condition,” is indefinite and vague. Examiner cannot determine whether the features stated above are inclusive together or exclusive in alternative form.
Claim 15 is indefinite and vague. Which element constitutes “a computer program product?”
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 1-2, and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 4279434 A1 (US 2024/0124272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘434 discloses a device (figure 2) for monitoring a winding behaviour of a cable on a cable winch (16A, 16B) comprising a cable winch (16A, 16B for hoisting and a multi-layer winch, see figures 1, 6, and 10, claims 18-19) with a rotatable drum (see figure 4) on which a cable is mounted so that it can be wound and unwound, at least one sensor unit (45A-B, 44) configured to capture a recording of two dimensional images (i.e., cameras capture more than two dimensional images and can see any cable damage, claims 2, 12, 14) of cable coils on the cable drum, and an analysis unit (61-62, which includes MPU, RAM, a computer readable storage device, which executes a computer program as shown in figures 3, 5, and 9, claim 15) which receives the recording form the at least one sensor unit and is configured to define at least two different analysis regions (i.e., AT, A0, P0, LAT, PL, PR, Gf, Gr, HL, HR, RLe, LAR, see figures 6 and 10, which covers a left edge, a right edge, a central region, and a top layer claims 4-6, 8, 16) in the recording, each representing at least one cable coil in whole or in part, and to analyse these independently of one another for the presence of a faulty cable winding; and a cable portion extending (RE) tangentially from the cable drum and extends along the tangentially extending cable, wherein the analysis unit is configured to move the analysis region together (i.e., since the cameras are able to keep recording) with the tangentially extending cable portion in the recording when winding and unwinding the cable (see figures 6 and 10, claim 7); and means of a machine learning algorithm use for determining the disorder degree (see paragraphs [0093]-[0110], claims 9 and 11); and a control system (i.e., using 61-62, see figures 3, 5, and 9) of the cable detecting any problem with the cable by the analysis unit to show issue (i.e. disorder) on a display device (52, 100, see figure 2, claim 10) with a working machine (i.e., crane, claims 13 and 17), see figures 1-10.
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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4279434 A1, in view of Ishida et al., U.S. Patent 11772943 B2.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, as stated above, EP ‘434 discloses the at least one sensor unit but does not explicitly show the location.
Ishida ‘943 discloses at least one sensor unit 630 is a perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the cable drum (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the location of one of the sensors of EP ‘434 to include at an axis of rotation of the cable drum as suggested by Ishida ‘943, to help sense the rotation of the drum. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
6/16/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights