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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 have been considered with regards to subject matter eligibility. Claim 1 recites the judicial exceptions of mathematical calculations, i.e. a predicted braking trajectory is calculated. Claim 1, however, is applied specifically to a work machine, e.g. a crane, having a load fastened to a cable of the work machine, which is a particular machine. The determined predicted braking trajectory of a defined point and the calculated predicted braking trajectory of the load are performed specifically by the work machine and only applicable to the work machine, and are therefore more than mere field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the determined predicted braking trajectory of a defined point and the calculated predicted braking trajectory of the load are based on received sensor data, which is a transformation of gathered data into other data usable by the work machine. Therefore, claims 1-20 are eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is drawn to a “computer program product”, which fails to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a computer program product itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinel et al. (U.S. 2020/0307965 A1) in view of Singhose et al. (U.S. 9,132,997 B2).
Claim 1, Pinel teaches:
A method for collision monitoring (Pinel, Paragraph [0014]) of a load (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 104) which is fastened to a cable (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 112, The load 104 is fastened to a hoist 112, which is attached to a cable, as can be seen in Fig. 1A.) of a work machine (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 102), a jib (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 106) which is connected to the cabin (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 108) and over which the cable is guided (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 106, As seen in Fig. 1A, the cable extends from hoist 112 through the end of jib 106 and to the rear of the crane 102.), and at least one sensor (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 110A, 110B, Paragraphs [0014] and [0018-0019]) for detecting a current position and/or movement of at least one movable component of the work machine (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 110A, 110B, Paragraphs [0014] and [0018-0019], The cameras 110A and 110B are functionally equivalent to sensors for monitoring the positions and movement of load 104, which effectively monitors the movement of the crane 102, the jib 106, and the hoist 112 which holds the load 104.),
wherein
a movement of a defined point of the work machine is determined based on sensor data, and a predicted braking trajectory of the load is calculated based on the determined braking trajectory of the defined point (Pinel, Paragraphs [0046-0047], The controller 114 determines a safety zone 120, which defines an area that is unsafe for objects to occupy (see Pinel, Paragraph [0024]). The controller 114 uses sensors attached to the crane to determine the direction of movement of the load 104 and a trajectory or amplitude of oscillations of load 104 such that the safety zone 120 factors in the trajectory or momentum or oscillations of the load 104. It is within the scope of the teachings of Pinel for the trajectory or momentum or oscillations of the load 104 to be measurable whether the crane 102 is moving or not moving, because the load 104 movement is measured independently of crane 102 movement. Thus, trajectory or oscillations of the load 104 is equivalent to a predicted braking trajectory of the load at a defined point.) and a computational model (Pinel, Paragraphs [0046-0047], The controller 114 uses classical mechanics equations for determining the trajectory or amplitude of oscillations of load 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a model (see Pinel, Paragraph [0044 for example) for performing the computations using the classic mechanics equations. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results.).
Pinel does not specifically teach:
Wherein the work machine has a turntable that is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation and the jib is connected to the turntable; and
a predicted braking trajectory of a defined point of the work machine is determined based on sensor data.
As per the work machine has a turntable that is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation and the jib is connected to the turntable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the crane 102 of Pinel to be movable, i.e. to rotate relative to its center axis, as a matter of engineering choice. As seen in Fig. 1A, the crane 102 has a center line extending from the top of cabin 108 toward the bottom of the crane 102, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cabin 108 to rotate about the center line. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purposes and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Singhose teaches:
A predicted braking trajectory of a defined point of the work machine is determined (Singhose, Figs. 12 and 13, Col. 13, Lines 1-14, The system determines the rate of deceleration of the crane in order to minimize the oscillations of the payload. As indicated in Fig. 12, when the change in position of the crane is flat, i.e. the velocity is 0, the position of the payload moves minimally in response to the change in velocity. As seen in Fig. 7, an abrupt change in velocity causes the respective payloads to exhibit greater oscillations.) based on sensor data (Singhose, Col. 9, Lines 18-45, The locations of the crane and the respective payloads are determined by sensors 125.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Pinel by integrating the teaching of a crane control system of Singhose.
The motivation would be to reduce the oscillatory response of payloads to reduce the potential collisions between the payload and the surroundings (see Singhose, Col. 1, Lines 24-58).
Claim 2, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the defined point is a cable starting point on the jib (Pinel, Paragraphs [0046-0047], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the oscillations of the load 104 to occur about the point where the cable of the crane 102 meets the jib 106, because the load 104 is suspended via hoist 112 underneath the connection point of the cable to the jib 106 (see Pinel, Fig. 1A).).
Claim 3, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predicted braking trajectory of the defined point is determined based on at least one predicted braking trajectory of a movable component of the work machine (Singhose, Col. 10, Lines 2-8, The cut-off threshold 150 is used to determine when to implement specific velocities in order to allow the trolley 105 to stop. At least one of the plurality of components of the trolley 150 is thus a movable component.).
Claim 6, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one dimension of the load (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 118) is combined computationally with the determined predicted braking trajectory of the load (Pinel, Paragraph [0026], The controller 114 takes into account the movement direction 122 and the outer perimeters 118 of the load 104 to determine the size and shape of the safety zone 120.), in order to determine therefrom a predicted collision region (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 120) which the load occupies when travelling through the determined predicted braking trajectory (Pinel, Paragraph [0026]).
Claim 7, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a determined predicted collision region is compared with environment data of the work machine, wherein the environment data relate to objects located in an environment of the work machine (Pinel, Paragraph [0028], The safety zone 120 represents in area with which if any object 128 is present, the object 128 poses a safety risk to itself, the load 104, and/or the crane 102.) wherein in a case of a determined predicted collision a warning is output and/or there is automatic intervention in a control of the work machine (Pinel, Paragraph [0052], A remedial action includes an alert generated within cabin 108 and/or stopping the load 104 from moving.).
Claim 8, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predicted braking trajectory of the load takes place assuming a reaction time between a stop signal and introduction of braking of the work machine (Singhose, Col. 2, Lines 8-13).
Claim 9, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a calculation of the predicted braking trajectory of the load is carried out at regular intervals during operation of the work machine (Singhose, Fig. 12, In the example of Fig. 12, the crane and payload movement is tracked over 15-20 seconds, wherein data is presented throughout the span of the time period on the x-axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the position data to be determined at regular intervals in order to present the data of Fig. 12. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 10, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
A work machine comprising a turntable that is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation (Pinel, Fig. 1A, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the crane 102 of Pinel to be movable, i.e. to rotate relative to its center axis, as a matter of engineering choice. As seen in Fig. 1A, the crane 102 has a center line extending from the top of cabin 108 toward the bottom of the crane 102, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cabin 108 to rotate about the center line. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purposes and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.), a jib (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 106) which is connected to the turntable (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 106, In the modification of crane 102, the jib 106 would be connected to the turntable portion of crane 102 via cabin 108.) and over which a cable is guided (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 106, As seen in Fig. 1A, the cable extends from hoist 112 through the end of jib 106 and to the rear of the crane 102.), and a control unit (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 114) which receives data relating to a current position and/or movement of a load suspended on the cable (Pinel, Paragraph [0022], The controller 114 receives images of the load 104 from cameras 110. Additionally, the controller 114 may utilize one or more additional sensors to provide location or movement or momentum readings (see Pinel, Paragraph [0027]).), from at least one sensor of the work machine (Pinel, Paragraphs [0014], [0022], and [0027]),
wherein
the control unit is configured to carry out the method according to claim 7 (Pinel, Fig. 1A).
Claim 11, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The work machine according to claim 10, comprising an input unit which is connected to the control unit and via which at least one dimension, of the suspended load and/or a load type (Pinel, Paragraph [0026], The controller 114 receives images from cameras 110 to determine the perimeters, e.g. dimensions, of the suspended load 104.) can be input manually (Pinel, Paragraph [0036], The controller 114 includes an interface 210 for sending and receiving information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the information to include a dimension or a load type of load 104 that is input manually and transmitted to the interface 210. The Examiner notes that the claim only requires that the dimension or load type “can be” input manually, i.e. is not required to be input manually.).
Claim 12, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The work machine according to claim 10, comprising an output unit wherein the control unit is configured to display a determined predicted braking trajectory of the defined point and/or a calculated predicted braking trajectory of the load and/or a predicted collision region occupied by the load when travelling through the determined predicted braking trajectory (Pinel, Paragraph [0051], The displaying of the safety zone 120 and the object 128 and load 104 is displaying a predicted collision region occupied by the load when travelling through the determined predicted braking trajectory.).
Claim 13, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The work machine according to claim 10, comprising a memory unit (Pinel, Fig. 2: 230) on which environment data, relating to objects located in an environment of the work machine, are stored (Pinel, Paragraph [0030], The memory 230 stores a predetermined set of objects 128, which is environment data relating to objects located in an environment of the work machine.), wherein the control unit has access to the memory unit or comprises it (Pinel, Paragraph [0030]).
Claim 14, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
A computer program product (Pinel, Paragraph [0054]) comprising commands which, when the program is executed, cause the method according to claim 1 to be carried out by a control unit of the work machine (Pinel, Fig. 1A).
Claim 15, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the work machine is a crane (Pinel, Fig. 1A: 102).
Claim 16, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the cable starting point is located on a jib head (Pinel, Fig. 1A, Paragraphs [0046-0047], The point where the cable meets the jib 106 (as seen by the circle in Fig. 1A) is functionally equivalent to a jib head.).
Claim 17, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the predicted braking trajectory of the defined point is determined based on a combination of at least two predicted braking trajectories of different movable components of the work machine (Singhose, Col. 10, Lines 2-8, The crane trolley 105 includes at least a motor, a hook, and a connection point to the crane trolley 105 for the cable extending or retracting the hook. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the predicted braking trajectories of the motor and the connection point to be the same, because both are components of the crane trolley 105.).
Claim 18, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the at least one dimension of the load includes a height, a surface area and/or a volume of the load (Pinel, Paragraphs [0023-0025], The outer perimeters 118 define the shape and volume of the load 104.).
Claim 19, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the comparison includes a check of whether the determined predicted collision region overlaps with an object in the environment (Pinel, Paragraph [0052], The controller 114 determines whether object 128 is in safety zone 120.).
Claim 20, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein at least two different predicted braking trajectories of the load are determined based on different assumed reaction times (Singhose, Fig. 7, In the example of Fig. 7, the oscillations of the payload are different based on different velocities of the crane, wherein the reaction times are different because they are applied to different velocities.), and wherein a predicted collision region is determined for each of the at least two different predicted braking trajectories and compared with environment data (Pinel, Paragraph [0047], The size and shape of the safety zone 120 is adjusted according to the direction of the load 104, as well as other data from sensors. In the combination of Pinel in view of Singhose, one of the sensed factors includes the velocity of the crane (see Singhose, Fig. 7).).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinel et al. (U.S. 2020/0307965 A1) in view of Singhose et al. (U.S. 9,132,997 B2) in view of Larmonier (U.S. 2019/0092606 A1).
Claim 4, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1.
Pinel in view of Singhose does not specifically teach:
Wherein the predicted braking trajectory of the defined point is determined based on a kinematic model of the work machine.
Larmonier teaches:
A kinematic model for operating a crane (Larmonier, Paragraphs [0066-0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Pinel in view of Singhose by integrating the teaching of a kinematic model, as taught by Larmonier.
The motivation would be to prevent collisions and/or damage (see Larmonier, Paragraphs [0004-0006]) that may be applicable to a plurality of cranes of different sizes and mechanisms (see Larmonier, Paragraph [0032]).
Claim 5, Pinel in view of Singhose further teaches:
The method according to claim 1.
Pinel in view of Singhose does not specifically teach:
Wherein the predicted braking trajectory of the load is determined based on a physical model, wherein the physical model takes into account behaviour of the cable during a movement of the work machine and/or a weight of the load and/or a geometry of the load and/or a cable length and/or a wind speed.
Larmonier teaches:
A kinematic model for operating a crane (Larmonier, Paragraphs [0066-0074], A kinematic model MOD is functionally equivalent to a physical model because it takes into account the movement of the jib 34 of the crane 1.) wherein the physical model takes into account behaviour of the cable during a movement of the work machine and/or a weight of the load and/or a geometry of the load and/or a cable length and/or a wind speed (Larmonier, Paragraphs [0066-0072], The kinematic model takes into account the movement of the work machine.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Pinel in view of Singhose by integrating the teaching of a kinematic model, as taught by Larmonier.
The motivation would be to prevent collisions and/or damage (see Larmonier, Paragraphs [0004-0006]) that may be applicable to a plurality of cranes of different sizes and mechanisms (see Larmonier, Paragraph [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
