DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the RCE filed 20 July 2026. Claims 21-42 are pending. Claims 21, 28 and 35 are independent claims. Claims 21, 28, and 35 are amended.
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 .
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-8) that Stone does not teach a sensor coupled to a main body to detect vertical movement of the main body as the main body moves along the track. Applicant argue that Stone teaches a sensor 22 which generates a relative position feedback signals corresponding to a position of the barrier 21 between the extended and retracted positions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 10 and ¶[0044] explicitly teach that barrier 12 is moveable over a full travel range between the extended position and a retracted position. The infinite plurality of intermediate positions is monitored by sensor 22. Accordingly, Stone teaches sensor 22 which monitors vertical movement of the main body as it moves along a track.
Applicant further argues (pg. 8) that Stone does not teach the limitations of claim 28, i.e. Stone does not teach referencing an external point or a fixed point; and thus, Stone does not teach detecting movement of a main body along a track relative to a fixed reference along a line of sight of a sensor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stone also teaches (¶[0030]) that the sensor 22 can be a video camera with analytics which has a line of sight; and thus, uses a reference point, which may be interpreted as a fixed reference point. A specific fixed reference point is not defined by the claims.
The foregoing applies to all independent claims and their dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 22, 27-29, 34-36, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone (US 2015/0239686 A1) hereinafter known as Stone.
Regarding independent claim 21, Stone teaches:
A vehicle restraint system comprising: a main body moveable along a track; (Stone: Fig. 10 and ¶[0044]; Stones teaches a vehicle restraint system that is moveable along a track.)
a sensor coupled to the main body, the sensor to detect vertical movement of the main body relative to a reference as the main body moves along the track; (Stone: Fig. 10 and ¶[0030] and ¶[0044]; Stone teaches a sensor 22’.)
machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: collect, via the sensor, data representative of at least one of movement or loads of the main body during a loading/unloading operation; and (Stone: Fig. 10 and ¶[0044]-¶[0045]; Stone teaches a sensor 22’, which monitors the infinite plurality of intermediate positions.)
...
An embodiment of Stone does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
generate a profile of the loading/unloading operation based on the collected data. (Stone: Figs. 11-13 and ¶[0046]; Stone teaches storing the plurality of feedback signals 44 as historical data. ¶[0055] teaches the vehicle being coupled to the barrier and sensing the plurality of position when the vehicle shifts back and forth. The foregoing is interpreted as the profile.)
Stone is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to vehicle restraint systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a vehicle restraint system that include a sensor to collect various data to store a profile of the vehicle restraint system. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow controlling the barrier based on historical data, as suggested by Stone: ¶[0054].
Regarding claim 22, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stone further teaches:
wherein the collected data includes data pertaining to at least one of positional height values, velocity values, or acceleration values of the main body during the loading/unloading operation. (Stone: ¶[0027] and ¶[0052]; Stone teaches a sensor on the vehicle restraint which receives feedback signals 44. The sensor senses a position of the sensor of the barrier, speed, and direction of movement.)
Regarding claim 27, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stone further teaches:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to analyze the generated profile to determine whether a rate of change of the vehicle restraint system exceeds a rate of change threshold, and initiate a warning in response to determining that the rate of change exceeds the rate of change threshold. (Stone: ¶[0052]; Stone teaches determining if the performance of the barrier fails to meet one or more threshold. The values used are rate of acceleration. ¶[0053] further teaches generating a fault signal.)
Regarding claims 28, 29, 34-36, and 41, these claims recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a method that performs the function of the system of claims 21, 22, and 27; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 42, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stone further teaches:
including a hook rotatably coupled to the main body. (Stone: Fig. 1 and ¶[0025]; Stone further teaches a barrier that is rotatably coupled to the main body that includes a track.)
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view of McNeill (US 2013/0327914 A1) hereinafter known as McNeill.
Regarding claim 23, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stone does not explicitly teach but McNeill teaches:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to analyze the generated profile to detect whether a landing gear collapse event occurred, and initiate a warning in response to determining that the landing gear collapse event occurred. (McNeill: ¶[0034]; McNeill teaches a trailer stand sensor configured to sense whether the trailer is properly engaged and supporting the trailer. The foregoing is interpreted as a landing gear collapse event, since the trailer not being properly engaged may cause a collapse.)
McNeill is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to loading and unloading trucks. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a vehicle restraint system that include a sensor to collect various data to store a profile of the vehicle restraint system as taught by Stone with further determining landing gear collapse event as taught in McNeill. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Stone to include teachings of McNeill, because the combination would allow determination of whether the trailer is properly supported, as suggested by McNeill: ¶[0034].
Regarding claims 30 and 37, these claims recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a method that performs the function of the system of claim 23; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Brooks (US 2016/0009177 A1) hereinafter known as Brooks.
Regarding claim 24, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stone does not explicitly teach but Van Mill teaches:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to analyze the generated profile to detect whether a load at a rear end of a vehicle exceeds a weight load threshold. (Brooks: Fig. 51 and ¶[0121] and ¶[0054]; Brooks teaches sensing misalignment by monitoring an overload condition, wherein the sensor is mounted to a vertically moveable portion of a vehicle restraint.)
Brooks is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to loading and unloading. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a vehicle restraint system that include a sensor to collect various data to store a profile of the vehicle restraint system as taught by Stone with further determining an overload event based on a weight threshold on one end of the vehicle as taught in Brooks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Stone to include teachings of Brooks, because the combination would allow prevention of misalignment, as suggested by Brooks: ¶[0121].
Regarding claim 25, Stone in view of Brooks further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 24.
Brooks further teaches:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to, in response to detecting that the load at the rear end of the vehicle exceeds the weight load threshold, analyze the generated profile to detect whether a tilt state of a trailer occurred in response to detecting that the load at the rear end of the vehicle exceeds the weight load threshold. (Brooks: Fig. 51 and ¶[0121] and ¶[0054]; Brooks teaches sensing misalignment by monitoring an overload condition, wherein the sensor is mounted to a vertically moveable portion of a vehicle restraint.)
Regarding claims 31, 32, 38, and 39, these claims recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a method that performs the function of the system of claim 23 and 24; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 26, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Gleason (US 2006/0182559 A1) hereinafter known as Gleason.
Regarding claim 26, Stone further teaches the vehicle restraint system of claim 21.
Stones does not explicitly teach but Gleason teaches:
wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to analyze the generated profile to detect whether at least one of the main body failed to return to an initial position after the loading/unloading operation or whether one or more springs of the main body require maintenance or repair. (Gleason: ¶[0020]; Gleason teaches a sensor that informs the operator if the barrier has returned to its stored position.)
Gleason is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to loading and unloading. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a vehicle restraint system that include a sensor to collect various data to store a profile of the vehicle restraint system as taught by Stone with further determining whether the barrier has not returned to the initial position as taught in Gleason. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Stone to include teachings of Gleason, because the combination would allow the operator to make the necessary adjustments, as suggested by Gleason: ¶[0020].
Regarding claims 33 and 40, these claims recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium a method that performs the function of the system of claim 26; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights