Spruson & Ferguson Pty Ltd v Versatile Natures Ltd - [2023] APO 57

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Spruson & Ferguson Pty Ltd v Versatile Natures Ltd. [2023] APO 57

Patent Application: 2020353686
Title:Method for monitoring lifting events at a construction site

Patent Applicant:                   Versatile Natures Ltd.
Opponent:   Spruson & Ferguson Pty Ltd
Delegate:  Dr N. R. Madsen – Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Decision Date:  10 November 2023
Hearing Date:  27 June 2023, matter referred to hearing officer.

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 59 – tracking lifting events at construction sites using weight sensing and geospatial location – grounds of novelty and inventive step – no ground made out – opposition unsuccessful – costs awarded against opponent

Representation: Patent attorney for the opponent: Spruson & Ferguson Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2020353686
Title:Method for monitoring lifting events at a construction site

Patent Applicant: Versatile Natures Ltd.
Date of Decision: 10 November 2023
DECISION
The opposition is unsuccessful. None of the grounds are made out.
I award costs according to Schedule 8 of the Patent Regulations (1991) against the opponent.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

This matter relates to patent application 2020353686 in the name of Versatile Natures Ltd. (the applicant), having an earliest claimed priority date of 26 September 2019 through a priority claim to US application 62/906703. The application was examined and accepted after one examination report, with a Notice of Opposition being filed on 29 April 2022 by Spruson & Ferguson Pty Ltd (the opponent). The opponent filed evidence in support in the form of a declaration by Jonathan Gunnel (Gunnel) dated 31 October 2022 accompanied by exhibits JG-1 – JG-3, and a declaration by Kim Norton (Norton) dated 31 October 2022 with exhibit KN-1. The applicant did not file evidence in answer, and the hearing was set by way of written submissions. Submissions were filed by the opponent on 10 May 2023, with the applicant not filing any submissions. A delegate of the Commissioner set the matter for hearing by a delegate on 27 June 2023. The grounds relevant to the present matter are novelty and inventive step.
The request for examination was filed on 4 November 2021 and consequently, substantive amendments to the Patents Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 that came into effect on 15 April 2013 apply to the present patent application. Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities. Under subsection 60(3A) of the Act, if I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a ground of opposition to the grant of a patent exists, I may refuse the application.
SPECIFICATION
The specification dives straight into a discussion of the embodiments of the present invention as being a new and useful method for monitoring lifting events at a construction site in the field of construction management. On the first page of the specification refence is made to FIG. 1 which I reproduce below.
While somewhat of a mélange of imagery, the figure provides a complete overview of the present invention. The specification notes from its first page[1]:
As shown in FIGURE 1, a method S100 for tracking lifting events at a construction site includes: accessing a first timeseries of load values output by a weight sensor, coupled to a crane hook, during a first time period in Block S110; accessing a first timeseries of motion values output by a motion sensor coupled to the crane hook in Block S112; accessing a first geospatial location of the crane hook during the first time period in Block S114; deriving a lifting profile from the first timeseries of load values in Block S120; deriving a first oscillation characteristic from the first timeseries of motion values in Block S124; identifying a type of an object, carried by the crane hook during the first time period, based on the lifting profile and the oscillation characteristic in Block S130; accessing a second geospatial location of the crane hook during unloading of the object from the crane hook in Block S140; and storing the type of the object, a pickup location of the object at the first geospatial location, and a drop-off location of the object at the second geospatial location in a lift event record for the object in Block S150.
One variation of the method S100 shown in FIGURES 1 and 2 includes: accessing a first timeseries of load values output by a weight sensor, coupled to a crane hook, during a first time period in Block S110; accessing a first geospatial location of the crane hook during loading of an object onto the crane hook during the first time period in Block S114; deriving a lifting profile at the first geospatial location from the first timeseries of load values in Block S120; deriving a first weight of the object from the first timeseries of load values in Block S122; identifying a type of the object carried by the crane hook during the first time period based on the lifting profile in Block S130; accessing a second geospatial location of the crane hook during unloading of the object from the crane hook in Block S140; and generating a lift event record defining the type of the object, the first weight of the object, a pickup location of the object at the first geospatial location, and a drop-off location of the object at the second geospatial location in Block S150.
[1] Specification at paragraphs [0010] and [0011]
The operation of a smart hook is also discussed in the specification[2].
Generally, Blocks of the method S100 can be executed by or in conjunction with a "smart hook" carried by a crane at a construction site in order to access non-visual data from sensors integrated into the smart hook, to automatically identify objects (e.g., materials, tools, equipment) moved throughout the job site by the crane, and to generate records of lift events at the construction site. In particular, while the smart hook is carried by a crane and manipulated by the crane and construction staff to move tools and materials within a construction site, a remote computer system or a controller integrated into the smart hook can execute Blocks of the method S100 to: access load, motion, optical, and/ or geospatial location data from the smart hook; interpret types of these loads carried by the crane; and generate lift event records representing types, magnitudes, locations, and trajectories of these loads moving throughout the construction site over time.
For example, the smart hook (or the remote computer system) can implement template matching, deep learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques to distinguish different types of objects lifted by the separation membrane, such as including: a long steel beam based on a linear increase in load measured by the weight sensor in the smart hook as the beam is lifted and low-amplitude natural vibrations between 100Hz and 1000Hz measured by a motion sensor (e.g., an inertial measurement unit, an accelerometer) in the smart hook once the beam is fully lifted; a bundle of loose rebar based on a continuous but non-linear increase in load measured by the weight sensor as the bundle is lifted and moderate-amplitude natural vibrations between 0.1Hz and 5Hz measured by the motion sensor once the bundle is fully lifted; and a loaded concrete hopper based on high-amplitude oscillations between 0.1Hz and 2Hz (i.e., from wet concrete "sloshing" inside a drum in the concrete hopper) and lower-amplitude, higher frequency machine vibrations (i.e., from a motor rotating the drum) measured by the motion sensor once the concrete hopper is fully lifted. In these examples, the smart hook (or the remote computer system) can generate a lift event for each of these loads. For each of these lift events, the smart hook can also store: a maximum (or "peak") weight measured by the weight sensor during the lift event; geospatial locations output by the geospatial position module when the load was first detected and then unloaded; and altitudes output by an altimeter in the smart hook when the load was first detected and then unloaded. Furthermore, when the concrete hopper is then unloaded, lifted away from the drop-off location, and returned to the pickup location, the smart hook (or the remote computer system) can record a change in weight of the concrete hopper as an amount of concrete delivered to this drop-off location and write this amount of concrete to the corresponding lift event record.
Therefore, the smart hook (and/or the remote computer system) can execute Blocks of the method S100 to automatically detect types and other characteristics of object moved throughout a construction site by a crane and to generate a sequence of lift event records - representative of critical activities at the construction site - based on these data.
[2] Specification at paragraphs [0012] – [0014]
For what it is worth, the early parts of the specification provide a useful overview and given there are no issues raised by the opponent regarding the specification or its construction, I will leave any further discussion of the specification to points if and where required in this decision.
The claimed invention
Claim 1 as accepted is as follows with features as denoted by the opponent in their submissions. There are 16 dependent claims which I will reproduce where necessary in this decision.
(i)A method for tracking lift events at a construction site comprising:
(ii)accessing a first timeseries of load values output by a weight sensor, coupled to a crane hook, during a first time period;
(iii)accessing a first geospatial location of the crane hook during loading of an object onto the crane hook during the first time period;
(iv)deriving a lifting profile at the first geospatial location from the first timeseries of load values;
(v)deriving a first weight of the object from the first timeseries of load values;
(vi)identifying a type of the object carried by the crane hook during the first time period based on the lifting profile;
(vii)accessing a second geospatial location of the crane hook during unloading of the object from the crane hook; and
(viii)generating a lift event record defining the type of the object, the first weight of the object, a pickup location of the object at the first geospatial location, and a drop-off location of the object at the second geospatial location.
Claim 1 does not present any significant challenges in understanding its scope. Present is the tracking of a lifting event using a crane hook wherein a weight sensor couples to the crane hook. A first time series of load values from the weight sensor is created and accessed as is a first geospatial location during the loading of an object onto the hook. At this geospatial location, a lifting profile is derived from the timeseries of load values and in as much, a lifting profile appears to constitute a depiction of load as a function of time (see item S120 in FIG. 1). From this lifting profile a type of object lifted/carried by the crane hook, is identified. A first weight is derived as is a second geospatial location during unloading, with a record then being created which identifies the type of object, its first weight, along with its pickup and drop off locations. It is the lifting profile and derivation of an object type on the basis of the lifting profile that appears to be a key aspect of the present invention.
THE PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART AND THE EXPERTS
The specification is to be construed through the eyes of the person skilled in the art being a notionally non-inventive skilled worker aware of the common general knowledge in the relevant field. In Root Quality v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd[3], Finklestein J held that the skilled addressee would have the following characteristics:
“In Catnic Lord Diplock said (at 242) that skilled addressees are “those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of [the] invention”. A variety of people may have that interest. There are those who might wish to make or construct the invention, those who may wish to compound the invention and those who may wish to use the invention.”
[3] [2000] FCA 980
It is clear that a skilled addressee will have a practical interest in measuring and tracking lifting events at a construction site. The opponent submits that the person skilled in the art is a person who is one or more of: a crane operator; a civil/structural engineer skilled in the art of calculating quantities relevant to suspended loads; a mechanical engineer with understanding of lifting devices; an electrical engineer with knowledge of relevant sensor technology; a systems engineer; a project manager skilled in the field of construction; a construction surveyor skilled in monitoring and tracking lifting events; or a construction site worker/site supervisor responsible for monitoring machinery and recording information relating to the worksite, project and/or suspended loads. While this is somewhat of a laundry list it at least points to a person with knowledge or interest of measuring and tracking lifting events at a construction site.
The two experts of the opponent have relevant experience.
Mr Jonathan Gunnel has 35 years of experience in the construction industry with expertise in construction management, overseeing crane and other lift-type operations as a construction leader and project manager[4]. In his declaration, Mr Gunnel interprets the disclosure of document D1. In his declaration Mr Gunnel suggests that the accepted claims of the application seem to define a routine method for tracking lifting event using known techniques[5]:
“…such as smart hooks, to measure and record parameters associated with suspended loads that are commonly recorded in the construction industry and would have been known to myself and other skilled professionals (e.g. crane operators, project engineers, project managers, construction managers etc.) before the priority date. It seems to me that the defined method identifies industry standards for monitoring the movement of suspended loads based on data relating to work activities that was already being recorded in the industry at the priority date. I therefore see no ingenuity, creativity or technical hurdle overcome by the claimed invention. In this regard, I couldn't see any discussion in the specification of the Opposed Application about any problems to be solved by the invention or what the issues are with current systems.
[4] Gunnel at [1]
[5] Gunnel at [9]
I accept that Mr Gunnel represents a relevant person skilled in the art.
Mr Kim Norton has over 40 years of experience in marine, mining, power, energy and oil and gas construction industries. He has particular expertise as a construction manager so I accept he will also have a relevant interest in the invention of the application[6]. He makes similar general comments about the invention.
[6] Norton at [1]
I note neither expert makes any particularly detailed assertions as to the composition of the common general knowledge in the art.
THE COMMON GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
In Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited[7], Aickin J. stated:
"The notion of common general knowledge itself involves the use of that which is known or used by those in the relevant trade. It forms the background knowledge and experience which is available to all in the trade in considering the making of new products, or the making of improvements in old, and it must be treated as being used by an individual as a general body of knowledge."
[7] (1980) 144 CLR 253 at page 292
The opponent submits the following:
“The CGK of persons skilled in the relevant art at the priority date of each claim included:
·Books, journals, online readings, websites industry standards, industry codes and the like relating to obtaining values of weight, location and movement/motion of suspended loads at different times during loading and unloading using one or more sensors;
·Industry standards, industry codes and the like relating to recording and storing data relating to lifting events on construction sites in real-time;
·Industry standards, industry codes and the like relating to object identification from one or more sensors;
·Books, journals, online readings, industry standards, industry codes and the likes relating to software, hardware and firmware systems to monitor, manage and control construction site events, mitigate hazards and comply with safety systems; and
·Design, manufacturing and use considerations pertaining to the way in which lifting devices, such as cranes, etc., and their associated communication networks, their software, hardware and firmware, can be utilised to provide data relating to their lifting events.”
This is a particularly unhelpful submission. Industry standards, industry codes and text books may well form common general knowledge for example, but without evidence of particular material from the experts there is little for me to stand on.
As possible examples of common general knowledge, the opponent points to a number of documents in their Statement of Grounds and Particulars (D12 to D17). Document D12[8] which is said to have been published in 2016 is information about the evo2 Automatic Crane Hook, which is a smart hook for lifting devices. They argue that:
“As a result, publications of D12 would have been publicly available to skilled persons before the priority date and could have been easily disseminated through various channels such as industry conferences, trade journals, or through word of mouth among professionals in the field. Given the relevance of real-time information for monitoring and tracking lift events at construction sites, it is likely that this information would have been widely known and used by skilled persons in the field before the priority date of the Application.”
[8] >
Without evidence from an expert, I cannot be satisfied that this document is common general knowledge.
Document D13[9] is a brochure about various monitoring systems available for real-time tracking of load and travel information that is said to have been published in 2018. While it may have been publicly available, there is nothing to suggest that this information is common general knowledge.
[9] >
Document D14[10] is a report that provides a compilation of findings and recommendations from a New York City Department of Buildings High Risk Construction Oversight (HRCO) study that was conducted from July 2008 through January 2009. Again, there is nothing to suggest that this document is common general knowledge.
[10] >
Document D15[11] is an academic paper published in 2017 providing information on a smart crane system that uses sensors to track the location of objects in real time. I see no reason to consider this paper is common general knowledge.
[11] >
Document D16[12] is a journal article published in 2012 providing information on a crane navigation system that uses sensors and building information modelling in real time. It is similarly not demonstrated to be common general knowledge.
[12] >
Document D17[13] is a journal article published in 2013 discussing integration of real-time location tracking and three-dimensional immersive data visualization technologies in the education and training of construction workers. It has not been demonstrated to be common general knowledge.
[13] type="1">
In conclusion I do not consider any of the documents above, themselves, represents common general knowledge. While the documents may suggest that smart crane systems using sensors and object tracking in real-time may be common general knowledge, such a broad fact does not appear useful in furthering the opponent’s case. I do not see the opponent as putting forward any particular case for the common general knowledge that is useful in the present matter.
NOVELTY
For the purposes of subsection 7(1) of the Patents Act (1990), an invention is to be taken to be novel when compared with the prior art base unless it is not novel in the light of any one of the prior art information. Subsection 7(1) also states that two or more documents can be read as a single piece of prior art information if the relationship between those documents is such that a person skilled in the art would treat them as a single source. Furthermore, prior art information includes a “prior use” constituting information made publicly available before the priority date through the doing of an act.
It is well established that the general test for anticipation is the reverse infringement test. The classic formulation of this test is that given by Aickin J in Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd[14]:
“The basic test for anticipation or want of novelty is the same as that for infringement and generally one can properly ask oneself whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement.”
[14] [1977] HCA 19 at [20]
This test is satisfied if the alleged anticipation discloses all of the essential features of the invention as claimed[15]. To meet this requirement, the prior art must contain “clear and unmistakable directions to do what the patentee claims to have invented” (The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited[16]). As per the General Tire case:
“A signpost, however clear, upon the road to the patentee’s invention will not suffice. The prior inventor must be clearly shown to have planted his flag at the precise destination before the patentee”.
[15] Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co [1990] FCA 40 at [19]
[16] [1972] RPC 457 at [486]
The opponent cites documents D1 to D4 as being novelty destroying. These documents are as follows, and are all published before the earliest priority date:
D1: WO 2017/059493 A1
D2: US 20150161872 A1
D3: US 20130103271 A1
D4: US 20110187548 A1
Document D1 is pressed with some detail in the submissions and is referred to, albeit briefly, by the experts. Documents D2 to D4 are pressed with reference to citation references of D2 as they derive an earliest priority date from the same US provisional application.
Document D1
Document D1 is directed towards load management systems and methods involving the suspension of loads using gyroscopic devices to measure and generate data about loads and their movement on construction sites, ports and in other environments (paragraph [0001] of D1). It discusses the use of cranes to suspend loads ([0003]). It is clear that document D1 discloses feature (i) of claim 1 being a method for tracking lift events at a construction site.
Feature (ii): Accessing a first timeseries of load values output by a weight sensor, coupled to a crane hook, during a first time period.
This feature is straight forward to construe. It requires a set of weight values (more than 1) measured by a sensor coupled to a crane hook across different times. Mathematically, I interpret a time series to relate to a series of data points listed against discrete-time data. A timeseries is interpreted by the opponent in their submissions as “collecting load data about a relevant load at multiple points in time”. These interpretations are materially consistent with each other and reflected in the Macquarie Dictionary[17] as follows:
noun Mathematics a sequence of numbers representing the values of a variable taking part in a continuing process, usually at equally spaced points in time.
[17] The Macquarie Dictionary, 8^th ed.2022, >
The opponent notes that D1 discloses the use of sensors such as load cells attached to a hook that measures and senses data about the load and its movements. The opponent points to paragraphs [0062] and [0199] for disclosure of feature (ii). These paragraphs are as follows:
[0062] In yet another form, although not necessarily the broadest form, the invention resides in a load management system comprising a processor in communication with one or more sensors of one or more gyroscopic units that are coupled directly or indirectly to a suspended load, wherein the processor automatically updates one or more planned work schedules based on data from the one or more sensors.
[0199] … For example, the weight of the load is determined based on load identification above and project data project data for the load stored in the database, or via sensors, such as load cells, attached to a hook, lifting beam or rigging that support the load. In some embodiments, a weight determined via the processor 1810 based on one or more of the sensors 1820 is compared to a weight in the database to assist in determining the identity of the load and/or to determine whether there are changes in the load. This can enable tampering with the load, such as, parts of the load falling off or people removing or stealing parts of the load, to be detected.
With these paragraphs in mind, the opponent argues that captured load data in D1 must be in a timeseries. They state that:
“… D1 specifies the nature and usage of the data. It is not possible that such data would be of any use without such a ‘timeseries’. Whilst the Opposed Application sets out more detail in relation to a “time series”, the objectives of the two patents are identical and the system of D1 could not operate without such a ‘timeseries’ or simply a timestamp on each data point.
The opponent appears to suggest that a timeseries is implicit in the above disclosure. I acknowledge that the data gathered is at least an initial weight and a weight at a later time measured by weight sensors coupled to the crane hook. The initial weight may be stored in a database and then compared to a later weight to determine whether there are changes to the load. With the definition of a timeseries in mind being a sequence of numbers representing the values of a variable taking part in a continuing process, I accept that these two weights discussed in document D1 represent an accessed first time series of weight/load values from a sensor coupled to a crane hook, accessed in a “first” time period.
I agree with the opponent that feature (ii) is disclosed.
Feature (iii): Accessing a first geospatial location of the crane hook during loading of an object onto the crane hook during the first time period.
Regarding this feature the opponent points to document D1 at paragraphs [0151] and [0197] suggesting that these paragraphs clearly intend a variety of sensors (including a GPS sensor) to be used to access a first geospatial location of the load. These paragraphs read as follows:
[0151] The gyroscopic unit 1100 comprises one or more sensors 1130 in communication with the controller 1120 to provide a state of the gyroscopic module 110. The one or more sensors 1130 can include, for example, a camera, a location sensor such as a global positioning system (GPS) client and/or an altitude sensor, and/or a rotation sensor such as an accelerometer. The controller 1120 can, for example, automatically orient the suspended load 410, for example, to a predetermined orientation, using data received from the one or more sensors 1130 and/or use the data received from the one or more sensors 1130 to generate a record of a movement of the suspended load 410. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors 1130 include an orientation sensor to measure an orientation of the rotor 310 and/or an angular velocity sensor to measure an angular velocity of the rotor 310 of each gyroscopic module 110. For example, the orientation sensor and/or the angular velocity sensor can form part of the first motor 314 and/or the second motor 324.
[0197] At step 2130, the method 2100 comprises displaying via one or more monitoring systems the location and/or the movement of the load. In some embodiments, once the load is identified, the processor 1810 outputs, via one or more of the monitoring systems 1840, a location and a movement of the load based on data from one or more of the position sensors and/or motion sensors 1820. This enables the load to be tracked around the worksite, port etc.
I agree with the opponent that a variety of sensors are disclosed. D1 generally discloses accessing geospatial location of the load/crane hook. Importantly, I do not see these paragraphs as disclosing the feature whereby geospatial location is accessed during loading of an object onto the crane hook. There is discussion in paragraph [0197] that location of the load is tracked around the worksite, but no clear and unmistakable disclosure as to when geospatial locations are accessed, and more specifically, that they are accessed during loading.
Feature (iv): Deriving a lifting profile at the first geospatial location from the first timeseries of load values.
The opponent argues that document D1 discloses the feature (iv) as it discloses that a complete record of what was lifted, i.e., its weight and original and final location, are intended to be stored, simply referring to paragraphs [0198], [0199] and [0206] of D1. These paragraphs are respectively as follows:
[0198] In some embodiments, the processor 1810 determines and outputs, via one or more of the monitoring systems 1840, information relating to the load and the lift, including, for example, a pick up time and pickup location of the lift, a path of the load during the lift, a put down time and location of the lift, an orientation of the load at pickup, orientations of the load throughout the lift, an orientation of the load at put down, a time from lift off to release, a distance travelled by the load from pick up to put down in three dimensions, a duration of the lift where the load is travelling, a duration of the lift where the load is stationary, an amount of rotation used/allowed, and/or an amount of manual input received during the lift.
[0199] In some embodiments, the processor 1810 receives information from the scheduler 1830 including a type of the load, such as, permanent works, temporary works, rubbish, construction equipment, man cage; a weight of the load; or a direction of movement of the load, such as from the ground or transport onto the job or from the job onto the ground or transport. The processor 1810 can output this information, via one or more of the monitoring systems 1840, with the other information to enable improved monitoring of aspects of the worksite and the lifting of loads. For example, the weight of the load is determined based on load identification above and project data for the load stored in the database, or via sensors, such as load cells, attached to a hook, lifting beam or rigging that supports the load. In some embodiments, a weight determined via the processor 1810 based on one or more of the sensors 1820 is compared to a weight in the database to assist in determining the identity of the load and/or to determine whether there are changes in the load. This can enable tampering with the load, such as, parts of the load falling off or people removing or stealing parts of the load, to be detected.
[0206] In some embodiments, the data from the situational awareness sensors 1820 is used by the processor 1810 for safety management, for example, to avoid hazards and provide information to enable the setting up of safe systems of work and/or controls to mitigate hazards. In some embodiments, the safe systems of work and controls are accessed by the processor 1810 and the processor outputs information, via the one or more monitoring systems, regarding the compliance with the safe systems and controls on the worksite. Such detailed tracking of execution of work via the sensors enables real time auditable monitoring of performance of work and compliance with and effectiveness of safe systems and mitigations.
Feature (iv) requires that a lifting profile, being some data representative of the act of lifting the load at the location where the load is coupled to the crane hook, is derived from the first time series of load values, these load values being values output by a weight sensor. In the specification the lifting profile is discussed to be a representation of the transition of the weight of the object onto the smart hook over a loading duration[18] being a data capable of expression “graphically” as a function of time based on the timeseries of load values[19]. I don’t see any issues with these interpretations, and they fit with my discussion earlier at paragraph [8].
[18] Specification at [0057]
[19] Specification at [0060]
Turning to the disclosure in document D1 I simply do not see any disclosure of a feature that could be considered a lifting profile derived at the loading location from weight sensor time series data. Paragraph [0198] generally discusses various collections of useful information including a path, orientation, time, rotation, and manual input of a lift during lifting. There is no discussion of weight sensor data. Paragraph [0199] discusses scheduling data and also discusses comparing a measured weight to an earlier measured weight to identify the load or determine whether there are changes to the load. This does not appear to amount to a disclosure of a lifting profile derived at the loading location from a first time series of values. Similarly, paragraph [0206] also provides no such disclosure.
Given the discussion above, it is clear that document D1 does not destroy claim 1 of novelty. While document D1 appears to teach feature (v) being the derivation of a weight of the object being lifted from the first time series of load values, for reasons already provided, there is also no disclosure of the identification of a type of object carried by the crane hook during the first time period based on the lifting profile as required by feature (vi).
I find the claims novel in view of document D1.
Documents D2 – D4
Regarding these documents the opponent notes:
“D2 to D4 claim an earliest priority date from the same provisional application No. US 61/300,360, filed on 1 February 2020. D4 contains additional subject matter to that in D3, and D2 (sic) contains additional subject matter to that in D2. Nevertheless, D2 to D4 disclose the same technical features relevant to the Opposed Application.”
The opponent’s submissions are couched entirely in respect of certain paragraphs of D2. I interpret this to indicate that the documents are equivalent in their disclosure with respect to the claimed invention and I need only focus on the identified paragraphs of D2 so as to determine whether claims lack novelty in view of D2 to D4.
The abstract of document D2 suggests that the described invention is generally directed towards management of safety at worksite whereby safety envelopes are defined, and an alarm is issued when safety envelopes come into contact. Clearly however, sensors are described in document D2 as coupled to the load line of a lifting device, and GPS systems are also used to monitor the position of a load. In particular paragraph [0050] discusses a lifting device sensor system as follows, and in as much, provides for a general system and method for tracking lifting events at a construction site:
FIG. 1A is a diagram of an example lifting device sensor system 100 in place on a lifting device 120, in accordance with an embodiment. Lifting device sensor system 100 can be used to assist in or accomplish one or more of efficient load delivery, load monitoring, collision avoidance, and load hazard avoidance. It is appreciated that two or more of these functions may often overlap. In one embodiment, lifting device sensor system 100 comprises sensor unit 110 and one or more display units 113. Dashed lines 115 and 115B indicate wireless communication that occurs or can occur between sensor unit 110 and display unit(s) 113.
Feature (ii): Accessing a first timeseries of load values output by a weight sensor, coupled to a crane hook, during a first time period.
Regarding this integer, the opponent points to paragraphs [0053] to [0055] of document D2 identifying a sensor unit attached to a hook for measuring the weight of a load. The paragraphs of D2 are as follows:
[0053] With continued reference to FIG. 1A, lifting device 120 includes an operator cab 121 from which an operator manipulates controls to lift a load 104 with lifting arm 119. In some embodiments, a lifting device that is configured differently than lifting device 120 may not include a cab, but may instead be operated with a handheld control box or in some other manner. Lifting device 120, in some embodiments, also includes one or more of an angle sensor/inclinometer 116 for measuring an angle of lifting arm 119; and a load cell 122 for monitoring the presence, absence, and or weight of a load 104 on load line 112. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, rigging 105 is used to couple load 104 with a hook 111 located at a distal end of load line 112.
[0054] In FIG. 1A, point 133 represents a three dimensional position of sensor unit 110 that has been determined by a GNSS receiver (e.g., GNSS receiver 213A of FIG. 2A) disposed in. Point 134 represents a three dimensional position of or on load 104 that has been determined by sensor unit 110. In some embodiments, a GNSS receiver (e.g., GNSS receiver 213A or 213B of FIG. 2A) of sensor unit 110 also determines an angular orientation 135 of point 133 or some other point on sensor unit 110. Such an angular orientation identifies a swinging component of sensor unit 110 that can occur as a result of sensor unit 110 being coupled with load line 112.
[0055] FIG.1B shows an alternative coupling of sensor unit 110 of the sensor system 100 with a lifting device load line 112, in accordance with an embodiment. It is appreciated that FIG. 1B also illustrates only one of one of several other techniques for coupling a hook 111 or attachment point with a load line 112. In FIG. 1B, an end of load line 112 is fixedly coupled to lifting arm 119 at attachment point 171. Hook 111 is coupled with a pulley 170 that moveably rides upon load line 112 and is located at a gravity determined distal position (with respect to lifting arm 119) on load line 112.
In the above paragraphs I find a hook with a lifting device and weight measurement for the load. There is simply nothing in these paragraphs about accessing a first timeseries of load values. All that the paragraphs disclose is the capability to measure load values by a weight sensor. Feature (ii) is not disclosed. As there is no timeseries disclosed, there is similarly no derivation of a lifting profile as required by feature (iv) nor identification of object type from this lifting profile as required by feature and (vi).
Feature (iii): Accessing a first geospatial location of the crane hook during loading of an object onto the crane hook during the first time period.
The opponent points to paragraphs [0070], [0122] and [0143] for disclosure suggesting that the sensor unit allows for real-time monitoring of the load by taking measurements from different locations. Importantly I note that feature (iii) requires the accessing of a geospatial location of a crane hook during loading of an object onto the crane. In other words, the geospatial location of the crane hook at the time of loading should be determined by the sensors of document D2. I agree with the opponent that these paragraphs point to a system that allows real-time position monitoring of a load/crane hook via a sensor on a load line of a lifting device (paragraph [0122]). Paragraph [0070] is most relevant.
Movement of sensor unit 110 along load line 112 allows load monitor(s) 114 to monitor load 104 and take measurements from different locations. This can assist in photogrammetry and in other techniques used for determining range and/or position of objects in field of view(s) 218. Moreover, in performance of some lifts, it may be advantageous to move the sensor unit 110 in order for it to maintain reception of GNSS signals that would otherwise be shielded or blocked by objects in the lift area. Additionally, loads of large size may require the sensor unit 110 to be moved upward so that larger field(s) of view 218 around load 104 can be achieved than would be possible with sensor unit 110 in closer proximity to load 104. For example, it may be easy to get a field of view on sides of an I-beam with the sensor unit 110 located near the I-beam, but difficult to get a field on sides of a large panel, pallet, or container that block portions of the field of view from the same position of sensor unit 110. Additional movement of sensor unit 110 may occur in situations where the lifting device 120 uses a pulley type arrangement for securing hook 111 to load line 112 (as illustrated in FIG. 1B).

I simply see no clear and unmistakable direction in this paragraph to accessing a first geospatial location during loading. Feature (iii) is not disclosed.
I find the claimed invention novel in view of documents D2 to D4.
INVENTIVE STEP
A test for obviousness was provided by Justice Aicken in Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd[20] as follows:
“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.”
[20] [1981] HCA 12 at [45]
The High Court in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd[21] approved this approach, in addition to that taken in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd[22] in which Graham J had posed the question:
“Would the notional research group at the relevant date in all the circumstances directly be led as a matter of course to try [the claimed invention] in the expectation that it might well produce a useful [desired result]?”
[21] [2002] HCA 59 at [51]- [53]
[22] [1970] RPC 157 at 187
The usual approach to determining inventive step is the problem-solution approach. Once the problem has been formulated and the common general knowledge and the prior art base has been determined, the question of whether the claimed solution is obvious must be addressed.
The Problem
The specification does not propose a specific problem that it seeks to solve. At most, it appears to be seeking to identify a new and useful method for monitoring lift events at a construction site. The opponent submits the problem appears to be in the provision of accurate and efficient tracking of objects carried by a crane at a construction site. I am not sure that the claimed invention is directed to addressing accuracy or efficiency so I will broadly approach the problem from the point of view of it relating to the identification of useful methods for monitoring lift events at a construction site.
Prior Art Base and Arguments
The opponent’s case under inventive step is rather speculatively presented, to say the least. The case presented is merely a copy of the Statement of Grounds and Particulars presenting a mélange of possible combinations of disclosures, accompanied by no logical arguments or discussion, and no clear establishment of common general knowledge. The case put forward by the opponent is as follows:
“It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with the common general knowledge in the art, as exemplified by any one or more of D12 - D17, and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 and any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D5 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step in light of this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 and any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D6 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 and any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D7 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D6 and D8 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D8 and D9 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D6 and D10 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D6 and D11 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D7 and D10 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D7 and D11 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D9 and D10 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of D1 with D9 and D11 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D9 and D10 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
It would have been obvious to the person skilled in the relevant art at the priority date to combine the teachings of any one or more of D2, D3 and D4 with D9 and D11 and arrive at the solution of at least the independent claims. The claimed invention therefore does not involve an inventive step over this combination.
The person skilled in the relevant art could, before the priority date, be reasonably expected to have combined the aforementioned pieces of prior art information as a matter of routine and without difficulty such that the claimed invention cannot involve an inventive step.”
There would be quite a task in processing the combinatorics of the above statements to work out precisely how many propositions as to the claimed invention lacking an inventive step are put forward by the opponent. I need not address each combination but will address each submission, albeit at times briefly.
Was the invention obvious?
The opponent first suggests the combination of D1 with any one or more of D2, D3 and D4. I have already discussed the disclosure of these documents. None of these documents disclose the features whereby a first timeseries of load values from a weight sensor is accessed, a geospatial location of a hook is accessed during loading of an object onto the hook, and a lifting profile is derived at the first geospatial location from the first timeseries of load values, this lifting profile being used to identify the type of object carried. Combining the documents above cannot rectify this deficiency. The claimed invention is inventive in view of D1 with any of D2 to D4.
The next suggestion put forward by the opponent is that D1 combines with the common general knowledge in the art, as exemplified by any one or more of D12 - D17. As noted earlier in this decision I do not consider that any of these documents are themselves common general knowledge. At most they may demonstrate that smart crane systems using sensors and object tracking in real-time may be common general knowledge, but this alone cannot serve to address the deficiencies of the disclosure of document D1.
The next set of suggestions adds to the first suggestion above at [59] by suggesting that the addition of D5, D6, D7, D6 + D8, or D8 + D9 to a combination from D1 to D4 renders the claims obvious. The opponent has provided a brief discussion of each of these additional documents in their submissions but none of those discussions suggest features lacking in documents D1 to D4. The missing features do not appear present in these additional documents. The opponent has not discharged their onus.
Another set of suggestions points to combinations of: D1 with D6 and D10; D1 with D6 and D11; D1 with D7 and D10; D1 with D7 and D11; D1 with D9 and D10; and D1 with D9 and D11. Documents D10 and D11 have the same issues as documents D5 to D9. The opponent has again not discharged their onus.
The final set of combinations suggested are the combinations of any one or more D2, D3 and D4 with D9 and D10 or D11. It is readily apparent that my above comments apply to these combinations.
The opponent has not established the claims as lacking inventive step. Documents D1 to D4 discussed under inventive step fail to disclose key features and this lack of disclosure is not supplemented in any way by disclosures of the other documents or the evidence from the experts. This position is arrived at without considering whether the documents are relevant to the question of inventive step or whether there would be a motivation to combine them. There is simply no substantive case posed by the opponent in the present matter regarding inventive step. The opponent has not discharged their onus.
CONCLUSION
I conclude that the opposition is unsuccessful. The opponent has not established the claims as obvious or lacking in novelty.
COSTS
It is normal in such matters before the Commissioner for costs to follow the event. I see no reason to depart from the normal approach, and I award costs against the opponent.
Dr N. R. Madsen
Deputy Commissioner of Patents