DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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 1
“an obstacle position identification unit that identifies …”
“an entry prohibition range determination unit that determines…”
Accompanying structure in specification
[0026]: “An obstacle position identification button serving as an obstacle position identification unit 28, … an entry prohibition range determination unit 32 that forms an entry prohibition range 31 … are installed in the operation unit 27.”
However, it is unclear if the software of the operation unit 27 is housed in the structure of the display unit 25 or the control unit 38 / computer.
Support for control unit link – [0036]: “the control unit 38 is, for example, a computer including a CPU 42, a RAM 43, a ROM 44, and the like. In the present embodiment, the CPU 42 reads out various processing programs stored in the ROM 44 to deploy the processing programs in a work area of the RAM 43 in response to an operation signal input from the operation unit 27”
Support for the display unit link – FIG. 2A, [0026]: “as shown in FIG. 2A, an operation unit 27 is integrally provided on the right side of the display unit 25.”
Claim 4
“a flight operation unit that performs…”
Accompanying structure in Specification – [0072]: “The remote control device 57 includes … a flight operation unit 57b that performs an operation…”
“a communication unit that communicates…”
Accompanying structure in Specification – [0038]: “a control signal from the outside and various data transmitted … are input to the control unit 38 via the communication unit 45”
Claim 5
“an image acquisition unit that images…”
Accompanying structure in Specification – [0022]: “a camera 22 serving as an image acquisition unit”
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, which states, “an obstacle position identification unit that identifies…” and “an entry prohibition range determination unit that determines…”, as mentioned in claim interpretation section above, it is unclear if the accompanying structure tied to the “obstacle position identification unit” and the “entry prohibition range determination unit” is the control unit 38 (see FIG. 3) or the display unit 25 (see FIG. 2A). For the purposes of this examination, examine interprets the accompanying structure to be the control unit, which is a general-purpose processor / computer, as stated in paragraph [0036] of the specification: “the control unit 38 is, for example, a computer”.
Claims 2-13 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-13 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim language below:
A crane site obstacle determination system that determines an obstacle with respect to a suspended load of a crane, the system comprising:
an obstacle position identification unit that identifies a position of the obstacle based on obstacle position designation information transmitted from an obstacle side; and
an entry prohibition range determination unit that determines an entry prohibition range of the crane including the obstacle identified by the obstacle position identification unit.
The Machine in claim 1, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of identifying an obstacle position and determining an entry prohibition range. This is equivalent to looking at an obstacle, mentally identifying where the obstacle is, and mentally determining that a crane should not get within about 30ft from the obstacle to avoid collision.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements, underlined above, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
The “obstacle position identification unit” and the “entry prohibition range determination unit”, which are interpreted as part of the control unit 38 of FIG. 3, which is described as a “computer” in paragraph [0036] of the specification, merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The units are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the identification and determination steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 2-13:
fall within one of the statutory categories (machine)
directed toward an abstract idea (mental process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 2-13 are directed towards non-statutory subject 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-4, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. (US 20190345010 A1) in view of Palberg et al. (US 20190016569 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shan teach A crane site obstacle determination system (see at least [0022]: “a system for controlling operation of a crane”) that determines an obstacle (see at least [0058]: “an obstacle”) with respect to a suspended load (see at least [0014]: “an object to be lifted”) of a crane (see at least [0058]: “a crane”), the system comprising:
an obstacle position identification unit (see at least FIG. 6: coordinate determining module 5121) that identifies a position (see at least [0135]: “The coordinate determining module 5121 is used for… determining 3D spatial relative coordinates of the obstacle”) of the obstacle based on obstacle position designation information (see at least [0055]: “3D imaging device/3D imager: A device able to obtain 3D spatial information of an object by performing spatial recognition with optical measuring elements and fast scanning techniques.”; Merriam-Webster definition of “scan”: “to examine systematically (as by passing a beam of radiation over or through) in order to obtain data…”)
an entry prohibition range determination unit (see at least FIG. 5: control device 502) that determines an entry prohibition range (see at least [0068]-[0069]: region comprising points within preset distance of obstacle) of the crane including the obstacle identified by the obstacle position identification unit.
However, Shan does not explicitly teach transmitted from an obstacle side.
Palberg teach transmitted from an obstacle side (see at least [0011]: “a time of flight sensor in the form of a time of flight detector is/are used as the imaging sensor. With such a time of flight sensor …, the measurement objects are illuminated by light pulses and the time of flight of the signal is measured. The distance between the camera and the object can be calculated on the basis of the time of flight. … reflected light.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Palberg to detect information transmitted from the side of an object. Doing so would provide “[a]n improved visualization of the piece of working equipment relative to its environment”, as recognized by Palberg in paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 1.
Shan further teaches further comprising:
an obstacle identification unit (see at least FIG. 5: 3D imaging device 501; [0059]: “the 3D imaging device can be carried by a movable platform”) different from the crane,
wherein the obstacle position designation information is information emitted from (see at least [0055]: “3D imaging device/3D imager: A device able to obtain 3D spatial information of an object by performing spatial recognition with optical measuring elements and fast scanning techniques.”; Merriam-Webster definition of “scan”: “to examine systematically (as by passing a beam of radiation over or through) in order to obtain data…”) the obstacle identification unit.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 2.
Palberg further teaches further comprising:
a remote control device that remotely controls (see at least [0030]: “The aerial drone 9 is provided with a remote control device 12 that permits the aerial drone 9 to be remote controlled”) the obstacle identification unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Palberg to use a remote control device to control obstacle identification unit. Doing so would provide “[a]n improved visualization of the piece of working equipment relative to its environment”, as recognized by Palberg in paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 3.
Palberg further teaches wherein the remote control device includes
an input unit through which a processing mode (see at least [0031]: “a menu control can also be provided for the aerial drone 9, for example to select a desired relative position from a plurality of predefined relative positions of the aerial drone 9 relative to the crane.”) is selected and an instruction is input by a site worker (see at least [0029]: “the crane operator”; [0031]: “A corresponding remote control module can be provided in the crane operator's cab 6”),
a flight operation unit that performs an operation for flying (see at least [0032]: “A desired position of the aerial drone 9 relative to the lifting hook 8 can be flown to via the autonomous control module of the position control apparatus 13.”) the obstacle identification unit,
a communication unit that communicates with (see at least [0017]: “a plurality of transceivers are attached to the crane or to the machine and communicate with a transceiver at the aerial drone”) the obstacle identification unit, and
a control unit that executes a control process (see at least [0030]: “the flight control units such as rotor blades to be controlled to remote control the flight position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Palberg to use a remote control device to control obstacle identification unit. Doing so would provide “[a]n improved visualization of the piece of working equipment relative to its environment”, as recognized by Palberg in paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 2.
Shan further teaches wherein the obstacle identification unit is an aerial vehicle (see at least [0021]: “the movable platform comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle”) having (see at least [0055]: “3D imaging device/3D imager: A device able to obtain 3D spatial information of an object by performing spatial recognition with optical measuring elements and fast scanning techniques. Here, the 3D spatial information may comprise 3D spatial coordinates (i.e., X, Y, and Z distance information)”).
Palberg further teaches a GPS function (see at least [0019]: “The aerial drone … can be equipped with a GPS unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Palberg to use GPS unit for position identification. Doing so would provide “[a]n improved visualization of the piece of working equipment relative to its environment”, as recognized by Palberg in paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 1.
Shan further teaches wherein the obstacle position designation information includes information indicating a height (see at least [0125]: “the height of the obstacle can also be determined according to the 3D spatial coordinates of the obstacle”) of the obstacle.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 11.
Shan further teaches wherein the information indicating the height is information acquired by a sensor of an aerial vehicle disposed above (see at least [0059]: “the 3D imaging device can be carried by a movable platform (for example, an unmanned aerial vehicle, etc.) to rotate over the crane, so that objects within the crane operating range can be dynamically scanned to obtain 3D spatial information of the scanned objects”; [0125]: “the height of the obstacle can also be determined according to the 3D spatial coordinates of the obstacle”) the obstacle.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 1.
Shan further teaches wherein an operation of the crane is restricted, or a worker is notified (see at least FIG. 2 step 208: “perform an alarm”) in a case where a suspended load (see at least FIG. 2 step 206’; [0083]: “At step 206′, whether the distance from the obstacle to the object to be lifted is less than a preset distance corresponding to the object to be lifted is judged”) of the crane enters the entry prohibition range.
Claim 5 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. (US 20190345010 A1) in view of Palberg et al. (US 20190016569 A1) and Guymon et al. (US 20180244505 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 2.
However, the combination of Shan and Palberg does not explicitly teach wherein the crane includes an image acquisition unit that images a periphery of the suspended load,
the obstacle position designation information is specific light emitted from the obstacle identification unit, and the obstacle position identification unit identifies the obstacle based on detection of the light by the image acquisition unit.
Guymon teach wherein the crane includes an image acquisition unit (see at least FIG. 1B: target tracking device 110) that images (see at least [0038]: “the optical unit 222 of the target tracking device 210 may be replaced with an optical viewer, such as a camera system, which is configured to recognize the optical target 111”) a periphery of the suspended load (see at least FIG. 1B, [0024]: “an optical target 111, which may be positioned on … an object, such as object 103”),
the obstacle position designation information is specific light emitted (see at least [0024]: “the optical target 111 is a spherically mounted retroreflector (SMR)”) from the obstacle identification unit (see at least FIG. 1B: optical target 111), and the obstacle position identification unit identifies (see at least [0034]: “Once the target tracking device 110 recognizes the optical target, the position of the optical target is registered”) the obstacle based on detection of the light by the image acquisition unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Guymon to detect an object using an image acquisition unit. Doing so would help to “accurately measure the position of an optical target”, as recognized by Guymon in paragraph [0024].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shan, Palberg, and Guymon teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 5.
Guymon further teach wherein the obstacle identification unit includes a light-emitting unit (see at least FIG. 1B: optical target 111) that is detachably attached to (see at least FIG. 1B, [0024]: “an optical target 111, which may be positioned on … an object, such as object 103”) the obstacle and that reflects (see at least [0024]: “the optical target 111 is a spherically mounted retroreflector (SMR)”) or emits light, and
the obstacle position designation information is light emitted (see at least [0037]: “The laser 223 is reflected from the optical target 111, such as a spherically mounted retroreflector (SMR), and received by the optical unit 222 to facilitate determination of distance between the target tracking device 210 and the optical target 111.”) from the light-emitting unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Guymon to detect an object using an attached light -emitting unit. Doing so would help to “accurately measure the position of an optical target”, as recognized by Guymon in paragraph [0024].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. (US 20190345010 A1) in view of Palberg et al. (US 20190016569 A1), Guymon et al. (US 20180244505 A1), and Ishikawa et al. (US 20230106308 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shan, Palberg, and Guymon teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 5.
However, the combination of Shan, Palberg, and Guymon does not explicitly teach wherein the image acquisition unit is attached to an upper end side of an upper tower jib so as to image a work site from the sky.
Ishikawa teach wherein the image acquisition unit is attached to an upper end side of an upper tower jib so as to image a work site from the sky (see at least FIG. 1: sensor unit 66; [0050]: “sensor unit 66 composed of … laser scanner 62”; FIG. 3A: laser scanner 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa to place a camera on a tower job. Doing so would enable identification of objects as moving objects, such as workers or vehicle, as recognized by Ishikawa in paragraphs [0006]-[0007], which would increase safety.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. (US 20190345010 A1) in view of Palberg et al. (US 20190016569 A1), Gottwald (US 20230159305 A1), and Tham et al. (US 20190045726 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shan and Palberg teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Shan and Palberg does not explicitly teach further comprising:
an obstacle identification unit different from the crane; and
a first relative position detection sensor for acquiring a relative position between the crane and the obstacle identification unit,
wherein the obstacle position designation information includes information based on the first relative position detection sensor.
Gottwald teach an obstacle identification unit (see at least FIG. 3: hook block 1) different from (see at least FIG. 3: the hook block is a separate device from the crane vehicle that is hanging from the crane vehicle) the crane (see at least FIG. 3: crane vehicle 15); and
a first relative position detection sensor for acquiring a relative position between (see at least [0038]: “The spatial position of the load hook relative to the crane can be ascertained by a spatial position sensor or GPS sensor on the hook block and a corresponding reference sensor on the crane.”) the crane and the obstacle identification unit,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Gottwald to determine a relative position between a crane and an object detector. Doing so would “preclude any possible collisions with the pulley head 11”, as recognized by Gottwald in paragraph [0050].
Tham teach wherein the obstacle position designation information includes (see at least [0061]: “the device making the accurate positioning measurement, e.g. against a GNSS, for providing a data set indicating positions of a plurality of objects.”; “A position relationship between the image acquiring apparatus and respective object is determined”; “From the determined position of the apparatus and the relationship in position between the apparatus and the respective object, position estimates are assigned 508 for at least a subset of the objects.”) information based on the first relative position detection sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Tham to determine object position based on GNSS information of object detector. Doing so would ensure objects’ “positions are accurately determined”, as recognized by Tham in paragraph [0060].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shan, Palberg, Gottwald, and Tham teach The crane site obstacle determination system according to claim 9.
Gottwald teach wherein the obstacle identification unit includes a second relative position detection sensor (see at least [0050]: “the crane hook block 1 comprises a RADAR sensor 6 in its upper region”; [0011]: “The distance between the crane hook block and people or objects and/or obstacles can also be detected by means of suitable optical sensors or other suitable sensors on the crane hook block.”) that allows a relative position between the obstacle and the obstacle identification unit to be measured, and
the obstacle position designation information includes information (see at least [0050]: “for detecting distances”) based on the second relative position detection sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shan to incorporate the teachings of Gottwald to identify object position based on RADAR information. Doing so would “preclude an possible collisions with the pulley head 11”, as recognized by Gottwald in paragraph [0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukai et al. (JP 2021081970 A) teaches system that uses a separate UAV to assist the navigation of a ground vehicle to avoid obstacles (see FIG. 1, [Abstract]).
Sun et al. (US 20190227555 A1) teaches a system that flies a drone ahead of a vehicle traveling on a roadway to identify objects on the road (see FIG. 5, paragraph [0067]).
Wang et al. (US 20210131821 A1) teaches a system that identifies an aerial vehicle position using GPS and LiDAR sensors relative to an external object and a road vehicle (see FIG. 2A, paragraph [0049]).
Hartman et al. (US 9223008 B1) teaches an air crane system that determines position of a load carried by a helicopter using an attached beacon (see FIG. 1, (19)-(20) column 3 line 52 – column 4 line 25).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights