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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this Non-Final Office action. P riority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated in the Application Data Sheet that the present application claims the benefit of Provisional Application 61/886447 filed 3 October 2013. Continuation-in-Part This application is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. application no. 1 4 /50 6 ,5 45 filed on 10 / 3 /201 4 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). Continuation This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 14/ 790 , 300 filed on 07/2/201 5 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc. , 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023, 1/10/2024, 5/20/2024, 8/28/2024, 12/23/2024, 3/31/2025, 7/29/2025, 10/17/2025 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1 , 6, 8-9, 11, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1, 13, 16, 23, 26 and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,892. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because t he subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Claims of instant App. 18/236,531 Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,892 1 and 11 1 6 13 and 16 8 1 and 23 9 1 14 26 17 16 20 31 The chart above maps claims containing similar subject matter as between the instant application and the noted copending application. It is clear that all the elements of claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11, 14, 17 and 20 of the instant application are to be found in the claims noted above in U.S. Patent No. 11,775,892 , and although the claims of the two applications are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the above-noted claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,892 and the corresponding claims of the instant application merely relate to non-functional details or obvious variants of substantially similar structural/functional limitations, which would have been deemed obvious by one skilled in the art. . Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1 , 9-10 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed system in claim 1 , 9-10 and method in claim 20 is directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claim s 1 , 9-10 and 20. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claim s 1, 9-10, and 20 , the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements recited in bold ): Claim 1: A system for conducting driver check-in procedures in connection with deliveries to and/or pick-ups from a loading/unloading facility , comprising: a user apparatus configured to interact with a driver such tha t the driver can perform check-in procedures when making a delivery to or making a pickup from a loading/unloading facility, the user apparatus comprising: a user interface configured to communicate with a driver of a freight delivery/pick-up vehicle and to enable the driver to perform check-in procedures; and at least one input device that is configured to receive driver and/or vehicle information ; and an administrator apparatus configured to send messages to drivers of delivery/pick-up vehicles via the user apparatus, wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to : d etermine the availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; cause a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available; and cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available. Claim 20: A processor-implemented method for management of freight pick-up and delivery, comprising: receiving, by a processor circuit of a user apparatus fixed at a location remote from a loading/unloading facility , driver information ; authenticating the identity of the driver based on the received driver information ; determining, by a processor circuit of an administrator apparatus, a n availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks ; causing a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available ; and cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available . The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions )) and mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation , evaluation , judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to evaluating driver information and observing the availability of loading docks to instruct a driver how to check-in which is a mental process of observing and evaluating information to provide rules for a driver to follow . Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., “ a user interface configured to communicate with a driver of a freight delivery/pick-up vehicle and to enable the driver to perform check-in procedures; ” “ at least one input device that is configured to receive driver and/or vehicle information ; ” “ an administrator apparatus configured to send messages to drivers of delivery/pick-up vehicles via the user apparatus, wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to : d etermine the availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; ” “ cause a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available; ” and “ cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available ;” “ receiving, by a processor circuit of a user apparatus fixed at a location remote from a loading/unloading facility , driver information ; ” “ authenticating the identity of the driver based on the received driver information ; ” etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g., “ an administrator apparatus configured to send messages to drivers of delivery/pick-up vehicles via the user apparatus, wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to : d etermine the availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; ” “ receiving, by a processor circuit of a user apparatus fixed at a location remote from a loading/unloading facility , driver information ; ” “ authenticating the identity of the driver based on the received driver information ; ” etc.); storing data; and displaying data (e.g., “ causing a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available ; ” and “ cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available ; ” etc.) and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. Specifically, the above bolded additional elements of the system comprising a user apparatus, a user interface, at least one input device, administrator apparatus are mere computer tools used to implement the steps of the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims. In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for evaluating driver information and observing the availability of loading docks to instruct a driver how to check-in) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, pgs. 10-11, “i n embodiments of the present invention, the user apparatus (10) may be configured to communicate and/or receive this information digitally, visually, audibly, through voice recognition, through scanning devices, or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, the driver simply pushes a single button and is connected to a live administrative representative who instructs the driver what he needs to do and enters information into the system for communication with various components of the system .. . the driver interfaces with an automated administrator apparatus and information may be gathered via voice recognition technologies operable on computer (15) and in communication with the system via a communications network. Computer as used herein, is intended to encompass any suitable processing device. Indeed, the computer may be adapted to execute any operating system including Linux TM , UNIX TM , Windows TM , or any other suitable operating system. In some embodiments, the computer is monolithic with the touch screen, e.g. an HP ENVY Touchsmart TM all-in-one PC. As shown in Figure 3, the computer (15) may be implemented by a processor (201) running software (220) connected to memory (205), storage (210), and sound circuitry (230). Processor (201) executes instructions, thereby communicating data input from a driver, displaying information sent to the driver, and/or manipulating data. Although described as a single processor, multiple processors may be used according to particular needs. References to processor are meant to include multiple processors where applicable. Memory (205) and storage (210) may include any memory or database module and may take the form of volatile or non-volatile memory including, without limitation, magnetic media, optical media, random access memory (RAM), read- only memory (ROM), removable media, or any other suitable local or remote memory component. Sound circuitry (230) can be any circuit configured to link the processor (201) to the microphone and speaker (30). Computer (15) implements user interface (50) via software (220). S oftware (220) may be configured to only have capabilities related to the driver check-in . ” As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends driver information over a network between apparatuses) to be well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions. Dependent claim 9 recites “ the system of claim 1, wherein the user apparatus is installed at a location that is remote from the loading/unloading facility . ” This claim limitation is merely descriptive of where the “ user apparatus ” is located. As described in steps 2A, prong 2 and 2B above , the user apparatus performs generic computing functions to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above, dependent claim 9 fails to practically apply the abstract idea or amount to significantly more. Dependent claim 10 recites “ the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to enable a driver to conduct a videoconference with an administrator as part of conducting check-in procedures. ” Applicant’s Specification, at pgs. 13-14, disclose that “ implementation of administrator apparatus (55) may include a software driven computer (401) with video call functionality displaying an administrator interface (420), as well as a keyboard for data entry (405) and a network connection (415). Administrator apparatus computer (401) may run a variety of software . ” It is clear from Applicant’s Specification that the implementation of video conferencing is performed through instructions on the computer. The video conferencing technology is merely used as a part of check-in procedures . The claim does not specify how the video conferencing technology is implemented to improve the check-in procedures or how to implement them in some other way beyond generally linking. Therefore, for the same reasons explained in steps 2A, prong 2 and 2B above, dependent claims 9 and 10 fail to practically apply the abstract idea or amount to significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim ( s) 1, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuillan et al. (United States Patent Application Publ ication, 2014/0006302, hereinafter referred to as McQuillan ) in view of Randall et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0114718 , hereinafter referred to as Randall ) . A per Claim 1, McQuillan discloses a system for conducting driver check-in procedures in connection with deliveries to and/or pick-ups from a loading/unloading facility, comprising: a user apparatus configured to interact with a driver such that the driver can perform check-in procedures when making a delivery to or making a pickup from a loading/unloading facility, the user apparatus comprising: a user interface configured to communicate with a driver of a freight delivery/pick-up vehicle and to enable the driver to perform check-in procedures (McQuillan: See Figure 1 where the gate kiosk user apparatus is remote from the terminal facility. See ¶0031 where the driver can interact with the kiosk to check-in for a delivery or pick-up.) ; and at least one input device that is configured to receive driver and/or vehicle information (McQuillan: ¶0034: The gate kiosk user apparatus is configured to receive driver and vehicle information.) ; and McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Randall discloses an administrator apparatus configured to send messages to drivers of delivery/pick-up vehicles via the user apparatus, wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to: determine the availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; cause a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶0050-0051: In the assignment of loading docks, the system may detect the availability of a dock for a trailer. A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver to proceed to a respective available dock based on the detection .) ; and cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶0053: A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver that a loading dock is unavailable to be assigned and a user must wait for a manual assignment of a loading dock.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of managing vehicles in a shipping facility and exchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively facilitate the self-check-in and/or check-out of a shipping vehicle (See McQuillan, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 9, McQuillan in view of Randall discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user apparatus is installed at a location that is remote from the loading/unloading facility (McQuillan: See Figure 1 where the gate kiosk user apparatus is remote from the terminal facility.). As per Claim 10, McQuillan in view of Randall discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to enable a driver to conduct a videoconference with an administrator as part of conducting check-in procedures (McQuillan: ¶0061 and 0064: Video capture data may capture driver information in the check-in of a shipping terminal.) . As per Claim 20, McQuillan discloses a processor-implemented method for management of freight pick-up and delivery, comprising: receiving, by a processor circuit of a user apparatus fixed at a location remote from a loading/unloading facility, driver information (McQuillan: ¶0034: The gate kiosk user apparatus is configured to receive driver and vehicle information. See Figure 1 where the gate kiosk user apparatus is remote from the terminal facility.) ; authenticating the identity of the driver based on the received driver information (McQuillan: ¶0065: The driver information obtained is matched to the identification of the driver’s license information for verification.) ; McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Randall discloses determining, by a processor circuit of an administrator apparatus, an availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; causing a message to be presented a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶0050-0051: In the assignment of loading docks, the system may detect the availability of a dock for a trailer. A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver to proceed to a respective available dock based on the detection .) ; and cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user apparatus when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶0053: A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver that a loading dock is unavailable to be assigned and a user must wait for a manual assignment of a loading dock.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of managing vehicles in a shipping facility and exchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively facilitate the self-check-in and/or check-out of a shipping vehicle (See McQuillan, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claim (s) 2-5 are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuillan et al. (United States Patent Application Publ ication, 2014/0006302, hereinafter referred to as McQuillan ) in view of Randall et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0114718 , hereinafter referred to as Randall ) in further view of Larschan et al. (United States Patent Application Publ ication, 2007/0038353, hereinafter referred to as Larschan ) . As per Claim 2 , McQuillan in view of Randall discloses t he system of claim 1 . McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses wherein the at least one input device comprises a card reader that is configured to obtain information from a driver identification card, and wherein the user apparatus is configured to verify a driver's identity using information obtained from a driver identification card by the card reader ( Larschan : ¶0099 and 0104: A smart card reader obtains information about the driver including the identity of the driver determined by the unique driver ID card.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 3, McQuillan in view of Randall in further view of Larschan discloses the system of claim 2 . McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses wherein the card reader is configured to obtain driver identity related information from an RFID chip of a driver identification card ( Larschan : ¶0134: Recorder is configured to read a driver’s identification card stored in RFID technology.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 4 , McQuillan in view of Randall in further view of Larschan discloses t he system of claim 2 . McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses wherein the at least one input device further comprises a biometric scanner configured to read biometric information from a driver; wherein the card reader is configured to obtain driver biometric information from a driver's identification card; and wherein the user apparatus is configured to compare driver biometric information read from a driver by the biometric scanner to driver biometric information obtained from the driver's identification card by the card reader to help verify the driver's identity ( Larschan : ¶0128: The recorder can include a biometric reader for verifying the identity of a driver using received facial, retinal or thumbprint information. The identity is verified by matching the driver biometric data to the unique driver identification card. See ¶0134 where the recorder is configured to read a driver’s identification card.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 5 , McQuillan in view of Randall in further view of Larschan discloses t he system of claim 2, wherein the user apparatus further comprises a printer (McQuillan: See Fig. 1, embodiment 136) … the user apparatus is configured to print an authorization document that a driver can use to gain access to the loading/unloading facility ( McQuillan: ¶0032: The authorization receipt for checking-in a shipping vehicles into the facility is printed by the printer. See Fig. 1, embodiment 136. ) . McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses and wherein when the user apparatus is able to verify a driver's identity based on information obtained from a driver identification card by the card reader ( Larschan : ¶0099 and 0104: A smart card reader obtains information about the driver including the identity of the driver determined by the unique driver ID card.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claim (s) 11-16 and 19 are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuillan et al. (United States Patent Application Publ ication, 2014/0006302, hereinafter referred to as McQuillan ) in view of Larschan et al. (United States Patent Application Publ ication, 2007/0038353, hereinafter referred to as Larschan ) in further view of Randall et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0114718, hereinafter referred to as Randall ) . As per Claim 11, McQuillan discloses a system for conducting driver check-in procedures in connection with deliveries to and/or pick-ups from a loading/unloading facility (McQuillan: Fig. 1 and ¶0032 ) , comprising: a driver kiosk installed at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility, the driver kiosk comprising at least one processor and being configured to interact with a driver such that the driver can perform check-in procedures when making a delivery to or making a pickup from the loading/unloading facility (McQuillan: See Figure 1 where the gate kiosk user apparatus is remote from the terminal facility. See ¶0031 where the driver can interact with the kiosk to check-in for a delivery or pick-up. ) , the driver kiosk comprising: a user interface including a display screen and a user input device, wherein the user interface is configured to enable a driver to conduct driver check-in procedures when the driver needs to make a delivery to or a pickup from the loading/unloading facility (McQuillan: ¶003 1 , 0034 and 0040: The gate kiosk user apparatus presents a welcome screen on the interface to administer the check-in procedure to the terminal facility for a trailer or container to conduct a delivery or pickup.) ; and d) user interface of the driver kiosk (McQuillan: ¶0031: A gate kiosk user apparatus has a user interface for drive interaction.); McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses: a card reader that is configured to obtain information from a driver identification card; wherein the driver kiosk is configured to verify a driver's identity using information obtained from a driver identification card by the card reader ( Larschan : ¶0128: Recorder can be configured to identify driver information for including the unique driver ID, such as a Transportation Worker Identification Card.) ; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Randall discloses: an administrator apparatus configured to send messages to a drivers … wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to: determine the availability of loading docks at the loading/unloading facility based on signals received from sensors monitoring activity at the loading docks; cause a message to be presented a driver via the user interface when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility when a loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶005 0-005 1 : In the assignment of loading docks, the system may detect the availability of a dock for a trailer. A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver to proceed to a respective available dock based on the detection . ) ; and cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user interface when the driver is performing check-in procedures instructing the driver to wait at a location remote from the loading/unloading facility when no loading dock at the loading/unloading facility is available (Randall: ¶0053: A communication device is configured to send a message to the device of the driver that a loading dock is unavailable to be assigned and a user must wait for a manual assignment of a loading dock. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of managing vehicles in a shipping facility and exchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Randall's automatic assignment of vehicles through a communication exchange between the facility and vehicles in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively facilitate the self-check-in and/or check-out of a shipping vehicle (See McQuillan, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 12 , McQuillan in view of Larschan in further view of Randall discloses t he system of claim 11, wherein the administrator apparatus is configured to cause a message to be presented to a driver via the user interface after the driver has already conducted check in procedures instructing the driver to proceed to a loading dock of the loading/unloading facility at a specific time (McQuillan: ¶0032: Once the check-in process is validated at the gate kiosk user apparatus, the kiosk provides instructions to the driver on where to park and unload the container or trailer. ) As per Claim 13, McQuillan in view of Larschan in further view of Randall discloses the system of claim 11 . McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses wherein the card reader is configured to obtain driver identity related information from an RFID chip of a driver identification card ( Larschan : ¶0134: Recorder is configured to read a driver’s identification card stored in RFID technology.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 14 , McQuillan in view of Larschan in further view of Randall discloses t he system of claim 11, … driver kiosk (McQuillan: ¶0031: A gate kiosk user apparatus has a user interface for drive interaction.). McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses wherein the card reader is configured to obtain information from a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) card, and wherein the … is configured to verify an identity of a driver based on the information obtained from the TWIC card ( Larschan : ¶0128: Recorder can be configured to identify driver information for including the unique driver ID, such as a Transportation Worker Identification Card.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 15 , McQuillan in view of Larschan in further view of Randall discloses t he system of claim 11, wherein the driver kiosk (McQuillan: ¶0031: A gate kiosk user apparatus has a user interface for drive interaction.). McQuillan does not explicitly disclose; however, Larschan discloses further comprises a biometric scanner configured to read biometric information from a driver; wherein the … is configured to obtain driver biometric information based on information obtained from a driver's identification card by the card reader; and wherein the … is configured to compare driver biometric information read from a driver by the biometric scanner to driver biometric information that is obtained based on information obtained from a driver's identification card by the card reader to help verify the driver's identity ( Larschan : ¶0128: The recorder can include a biometric reader for verifying the identity of a driver using received facial, retinal or thumbprint information. The identity is verified by matching the driver biometric data to the unique driver identification card. See ¶0134 where the recorder is configured to read a driver’s identification card.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features of e xchanging driver and vehicle information, and because incorporating Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver in McQuillan would have served McQuillan's pursuit of effectively obtaining driver identification and matching driver identification information and transmit vehicle information (See McQuillan, 037-0038, 0063-0065); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 16 , McQuillan in view of Larschan in further view of Randall discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the user apparatus further comprises a printer (McQuillan: Fig. 1, embodiment 136) , an d wherein when the driver kiosk (McQuillan: ¶0031: A gate kiosk user apparatus has a user interface for drive interaction .) … the driver kiosk is configured to cause the printer to print an authorization document that a driver can use to gain access to the loading/unloading facility (McQuillan: ¶0032: The authorization receipt for checking-in a shipping vehicles into the facility is printed by the printer.) . McQuillan does not disclose; however, Larschan discloses… is able to verify a driver's identity based on information obtained from a driver identification card by the card reader ( Larschan : ¶0128: Recorder can be configured to identify driver information for including the unique driver ID, such as a Transportation Worker Identification Ca rd.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine McQuillan with Larschan's unique driver identification of a driver because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed tow