DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Applicant agrees with Pages 8/9 of the Office Action that concede that Muller fails to explicitly disclose "receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock, and in response to the loading dock status signal indicating readiness of the loading dock for the tractor to couple with the trailer." However, Applicant does not agree that Hoofard teaches this.
Paragraph [0048] of the immediate application teaches "the loading dock status signal corresponds to a red light and a green light that are controlled to visually indicate a status of the loading dock, such as when workers inside the warehouse have authorized physical interaction with trailer 106 at loading dock 632 by tractor 104." The loading dock signal is thus controlled by workers inside the warehouse as a safety measure to indicate when they are ready for a tractor (autonomous or not) to interact with the loading dock. A red light indicates that no interaction is allowed and a green light indicates that it is safe for the tractor to interact with the loading dock (e.g., to hitch or unhitch with the trailer at the loading dock and/or to move a trailer to and from the loading dock.
Hoofard [0067] recites "The dock station 131 can also include a signal light or lights 330 to indicate to a vehicle driver when it is safe to approach and depart the dock station, as well as an instructional placard 331 with related information." Thus, Hoofard is aware of conventional dock lights. However, Hoofard fails to teach "receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock," as required by claim 1. That is, Hoofard fails to teach that a dock signal originating at the loading dock is received by an autonomous tractor to indicate when it is safe. Specifically, Hoofard does not teach of a loading dock status signal that is triggered from a device at the loading dock.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., A dock signal originating at the loading dock is received by an autonomous tractor to indicate when it is safe) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
Teaching away from conventional dock signaling, Hoofard [0219] recites "FIG. 19A illustrates an embodiment of the guide lights 332 designed to work with the systems and methods described above. This embodiment can include a guide light package or housing 1901 having a row of lights 1904a-1904f in which two colors are present on either side of the housing 1901. The left-hand guide lights 1904a-c could display one color 1902 (e.g., green) when a trailer 111 backing in is too far to the right of center, and the right-hand lights 1904d-f can display a different color 1903 (e.g. red) when the trailer 111 is too far to the left. Both colors would be illuminated when the trailer is centered on approach." Accordingly, Hoofard fails to teach of an autonomous vehicle receiving a dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock. For at least these reasons, Muller and Hoofard cannot render claim 1 obvious. Reconsideration and allowance of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hoofard et el. clearly teach receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock, and in response to the loading dock status signal indicating readiness of the loading dock for the tractor to couple with the trailer. See at least ¶¶; “a suitable workflow process may include instructions for a given tractor 112 to pick up a specific trailer 111 at a specified parking location 115, and move the trailer 111 to a specific dock station 131 for unloading/loading. The workflow process could further include instructions to pick up a particular trailer 111 at a specific dock station 131,”; “once at the dock area the tractor controller 220 can be given a set of computer-executable instructions to back into the dock station 131. Once the trailer targets 209 a, b are in view of the dock sensors 320a, b, the dock sensors 320a, b can provide trailer target positional information to the central processing center 132, and the processing center 132 can provide additional guidance information to the tractor 112 to enable more directional precision during the parking process at the dock 131.”; “The navigation system 231 may … act in concert with facility sensors (e.g., the dock sensors 320a, b) and/or other active systems.”.
Hoofard does not teach away from receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock, and in response to the loading dock status signal indicating readiness of the loading dock for the tractor to couple with the trailer. No undesirability of the method steps relied upon in the embodiment cited by the Examiner is indicated by Hoofard. Applicant’s arguments fail to convince Examiner that Hoofard et al. teach away from the limitations cited. A reference may be said to teach away when a person having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. If a reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable then it cannot be said to teach away.
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claim . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (US 2022/0396107), hereinafter “Müller” in view of Hoofard et al. (US 2019/0064835), hereinafter “Hoofard et al.”
Regarding Claim ,
Müller discloses:
A method for positioning and aligning an autonomous tractor in preparation for the tractor to couple with an articulated trailer located in a pick-up spot, the method comprising:
determining a current location and orientation of the tractor (10; Figs 6-7) (¶¶0030, 0043-0057)
determining, based on the current location (S; Figs 6-7) and a location of the pick-up spot 20; Fig 6), a staging path (40ii) defining a path from the current location to the pick-up spot (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0070).
and that terminates at a staging point (SVii; Fig 6) positioned prior to the pick-up spot (¶¶0058, 0067); and
controlling the tractor to follow the staging path (40ii; Fig 6) to the staging point (SVii; Fig 6) (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0068); and
performing a maneuver from the staging point (SVii; Fig 6) to position the tractor on a reference path (43ii; Fig 6), laterally aligned with a front center of the pick-up spot, and facing away from the trailer (22) (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0070).
fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal triggered from a device at the loading dock, and in response to the loading dock status signal indicating readiness of the loading dock for the tractor to couple with the trailer.
However, discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to direct a tractor to a required pickup location of a trailer. See at least ¶¶; “a suitable workflow process may include instructions for a given tractor 112 to pick up a specific trailer 111 at a specified parking location 115, and move the trailer 111 to a specific dock station 131 for unloading/loading. The workflow process could further include instructions to pick up a particular trailer 111 at a specific dock station 131,”; “once at the dock area the tractor controller 220 can be given a set of computer-executable instructions to back into the dock station 131. Once the trailer targets 209 a, b are in view of the dock sensors 320a, b, the dock sensors 320a, b can provide trailer target positional information to the central processing center 132, and the processing center 132 can provide additional guidance information to the tractor 112 to enable more directional precision during the parking process at the dock 131.”; “The navigation system 231 may … act in concert with facility sensors (e.g., the dock sensors 320a, b) and/or other active systems.”.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to direct a tractor to a required pickup location of a trailer. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
further disclose:
further comprising capturing a point cloud of the pick-up spot using LIDAR mounted on the tractor, and processing the point cloud to detect presence of the trailer (Hoofard et al: ¶¶0055-0057, 0065, 0071).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references discloses:
reversing the tractor straight backwards along the reference path (Müller: ¶¶0061, 0067-0068).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references discloses:
performing a hitch function to hitch the tractor to the trailer (Müller: ¶¶0043-0044, 0052, 0055, 0063-0068).
Regarding Claim 23,
The combination of references discloses:
determining a drive-by-path corresponding to the pick-up spot (Müller: ¶¶0062, 0066);
controlling the tractor to follow the drive-by path and reverse back to the staging point (Müller: ¶¶0058, 0067);
capturing data corresponding to the pick-up spot while the tractor follows the drive-by path (Müller: ¶¶0057-0059, 0061, 0067-0068); and
processing the data to detect presence of the trailer within the pick-up spot (Müller: ¶¶0057-0059, 0061, 0066-0068).
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd et al. (US 2019/0039425), hereinafter “Dodd et al.” in view of Naithani et al. (US US2021/0245747), hereinafter “Naithani et al.”
Regarding Claim ,
et al. disclose:
A method for positioning and aligning an autonomous tractor coupled to an articulated trailer in preparation for the tractor to reverse the trailer into a drop-off spot (Abstract) (¶¶0023, 0065), comprising:
determining a current location and a current orientation of the tractor and the trailer (¶¶0022, 0113);
determining, based on the current location, a staging path defining a path from the current location to a staging point at an end of the staging path (¶¶0010, 0022, 0120-0126, 0156-0158); and
controlling the tractor to follow the staging path to the staging p--oint (¶¶0056, 0068, 0103, 0120-0126); and
wherein the staging path is shaped such that, after following the staging path to the staging point, the tractor and trailer are positioned for reversing into the drop-off spot (¶¶0108-0126, 0156-0158)
Dodd et al. fail to explicitly disclose:
in response to the drop-off spot being a loading dock, as the articulated trailer approaches the loading dock: (1) imaging, using a first camera on an extended mast, the drop-off spot or fiducial markers associated therewith, and (2) imaging the drop-off spot, or additional fiducial markers associated therewith, with at least one additional fixed camera of the autonomous tractor
However, Dodd et al. disclose:
in response to the drop-off spot being a loading dock, imaging the drop-off spot or fiducial markers associated therewith with a camera as the articulated trailer approaches the loading dock for proximity detection and obstacle avoidance when the dock is detected by the camera system (¶¶0055, 0065, 0097, 0151; “set-up uses a camera based proximity detection system … the docks are marked with specific color line markers to indicate their location… the camera based proximity detection system can pick up the specific line markers as dock position … The camera based proximity detection system can be utilized for obstacle avoidance. Once the dock is in the view of the camera system, the relative distance to the dock from the camera system can be utilized to dock the truck.”)
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of Namely, the technique of imaging a location utilizing a first camera on an extended mast and imaging the same location utilizing an additional fixed camera (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) in order to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis and prevent route segment misalignment by utilizing data from both cameras to increase safety (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis. (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
determining a backing path from the staging point into the drop-off spot; and controlling the tractor to reverse the trailer along the backing path into the drop-off spot (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0056, 0068, 0103).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising receiving a loading dock status signal associated with the drop-off spot, wherein the loading dock status signal indicates readiness of the loading dock to receive the trailer (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0066).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
capturing, using a LIDAR mounted to the tractor, a point cloud corresponding to the drop-off spot; processing the point cloud to detect any obstacles within the drop-off spot; and stopping the tractor when one or more objects are detected (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0149-0151).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
capturing, using at least one camera attached to the tractor, at least one image of at least one fiducial marking positioned at a known location relative to the drop-off spot (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0151); and
determining an improved current location and/or current orientation of the tractor based on a location of the at least one fiducial marking within the at least one image (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0151).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
capturing, using at least one LIDAR attached to the tractor, a point cloud including at least one fiducial marking positioned at a known location relative to the drop-off spot, wherein the at least one fiducial marking is a LIDAR pole (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0149-0151, 0155-0156); and
determining an improved current location and/or current orientation of the tractor based on a location of the at least one fiducial marking within the point cloud (Dodd et al.: ¶¶0149-0151, 0155-0156).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al. as applied above in view of Christopher et al. (WO 2018/210990), hereinafter “Christopher et al.”.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising capturing at least two images of the pick-up spot using a camera mounted on the tractor, and the processing the at least two images in stereo to detect presence of the trailer
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (Page 11-12 – The camera is a stereo camera) in order to reduce computational power required (Page 12)).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to reduce computational power required (Page 12) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above in view of Rust (US 2017/01924230).
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
requesting assistance when presence of the trailer is not detected
However, disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0013-0017) in order to improve system efficiency.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to improve system efficiency. (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above in view of Trombley et al. (US 2015/0066296).
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
capturing a trailer identifier from the trailer within the pick-up spot using a trailer ID capture device mounted on the tractor; and determining that the trailer identifier indicates the trailer is an expected trailer.
However, disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0025: “the trailer 110 is equipped with a tag, such as an electronic tag 18 that transmits, as by radio frequency, a signal containing information relative to the trailer 110. The signal provided from the electronic tag contains information about trailer parameters that are fixed in nature and specific to the trailer being identified and useful to the trailer backup assist system 12, such as a unique trailer identification code”) in order to improve efficiency of the method.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to improve method efficiency. (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above, and further in view of Naithani et al. as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
in response to the pick-up spot being a loading dock, as the articulated trailer approaches the loading dock, extending a mast having a camera thereon and imaging the pick-up spot, or fiducial markers associated therewith, with the camera.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) in order to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis. (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Müller” and Hoofard et al. as applied above in view of Niewiadomski et al. (US 2021/0276378), hereinafter “Niewiadomski et al.”
Regarding Claim 24,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
detecting that a current location of the trailer relative to the backing path exceeds a predefined tolerance and invoking a retry including: controlling the tractor to pull forward along reference path of the drop-off spot, and controlling the tractor to reverse the trailer along the reference path into the drop-off spot
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0065-0066, 0082-0094) to correct misalignment between a hitch assembly and a coupler that may result from human or machine error (¶¶0065-0066, 0082-0094).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to correct misalignment between a hitch assembly and a coupler that may result from human or machine error (¶¶0065-0066, 0082-0094) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747