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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,4-6, 16-18, 21-24, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (2017/0259722) (“Jones”).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a loading dock system (Figure 3), comprising: dock wall (305) having a dock door opening (306) therein; a dock door operably positioned in the dock door opening (paragraph [0025]); and one or more sensors (311,318) —wherein the one or more sensors are operably mounted to at least one of the dock door, the dock wall adjacent to the dock door opening, and/or a mounting structure proximate the dock door and/or the dock wall, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more targets (320) positioned within a cargo trailer located in front of the dock door opening, and wherein the one or more sensors (311) are further configured to obtain information related to cargo positioned in the cargo trailer via detection of the one or more targets (paragraph [0025]-[0027], [0034], [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches positioning a sensor at the docking station includes mounting a scanner (paragraph [0027]) and/or reader in a loading dock door, and wherein detecting, by the sensor, a target includes reading machine-readable indicia on the target.
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches each of the one or more sensors (311) is configured to detect a distance between it and the one or more targets (320) (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches at least one of the one or more sensors is a photoelectric sensor (paragraph [0040]) or a time of flight (TOF) sensor configured to detect a distance between the at least one sensor and at least of the one or more targets.
Regarding claim 6, Jones teaches each of the one or more targets (320) includes a reflective target, and wherein each of the one or more sensors is configured to emit light that is reflected off at least one of the one or more targets and back to the sensor (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Jones teaches a method of operating loading dock equipment at a docking station, the method comprising: positioning a sensor (311,318) at the docking station; detecting, by the sensor, a target (320) positioned within a cargo trailer approaching the docking station or at the docking station; determining information related to cargo in the cargo trailer based on the detection of the target; and activating the loading dock equipment based on the determined information (paragraph [0025, 0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Jones teaches positioning a sensor at the docking station includes mounting a scanner (paragraph [0027]) and/or reader in a loading dock door, and wherein detecting, by the sensor, a target includes reading machine-readable indicia on the target.
Regarding claim 18, Jones teaches determining information related to cargo in the cargo trailer includes determining information related to a position of the cargo in the cargo trailer.
Regarding claim 21, Jones teaches a loading dock system (Figure 3), comprising: dock wall (305) having a dock door opening (306) therein; a dock door operably positioned in the dock door opening (paragraph [0025]); and one or more sensors (311,318) —wherein the one or more sensors are operably mounted to at least one of the dock door, the dock wall adjacent to the dock door opening, and/or a mounting structure proximate the dock door and/or the dock wall, and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect the presence of cargo within a cargo trailer located in front of the dock door opening (paragraph [0025]-[0027], [0034], [0035]).
Regarding claim 22, Jones teaches each of the one or more sensors (311) is configured to detect a distance between it and the one or more targets (320) (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, Jones teaches at least one of the one or more sensors is a photoelectric sensor (paragraph [0040]) or a time of flight (TOF) sensor configured to detect a distance between the at least one sensor and at least of the one or more targets.
Regarding claim 24, Jones teaches at least one piece of loading dock equipment; and one or more processors (paragraph [0028])operably connected to the at least one piece of loading dock equipment and the one or more sensors—wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is configured to detect a distance between the at least one sensor and the cargo (paragraph [0025]), wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to transmit information related to the detected distance to the one or more processors, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to activate the at least one piece of loading dock equipment (Step 206) based on the information from the at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 27, Jones teaches the one or more sensors (311, 318) are further configured to obtain at least one of an image and/or mapping of the cargo, and wherein the loading dock system further comprises: one or more processors (paragraph [0028]) operably connected to the one or more sensors and configured to execute instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable media (paragraph [0044]), wherein execution of the instructions cause the one or more processors to compare the at least one image or mapping to multiple stored images (paragraph [0030]) or mappings to determine at least one of cargo location in the trailer, cargo type, and/or cargo density.
Claim(s) 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiegel et al. (WO 2019079276) (Wiegel).
Regarding claim 10, Wiegel teaches a loading dock system, comprising: dock wall (70) having a dock door (138) opening therein; a dock door operably positioned in the dock door opening; one or more sensors (92, 94) operably mounted to at least one of the dock door, the dock wall adjacent to the dock door opening, and/or a mounting structure proximate the dock door and/or the dock wall; at least one piece of loading dock equipment (10); and one or more processors operably connected to the at least one piece of loading dock equipment and the one or more sensors—wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more targets positioned within a cargo trailer located in front of the dock door opening, (paragraph 0032-00033]) wherein the one or more sensors are further configured to transmit information related to the detection of the one or more targets to the one or more processors (paragraph 0032-00033]), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to activate the at least one piece of loading dock equipment based on the information from the one or more sensors (paragraph 0032-0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Wiegel teaches one or more processors are configured to activate an automated dock procedure based on the information provided by the one or more sensors.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegel et al. (WO 2019079276) (Wiegel) in view of Jones et al. (2017/0259722) (“Jones”).
Regarding claim 11, Wiegel teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the information from the one or more sensors is related to a position of cargo in the cargo trailer. Jones teaches a loading dock with sensors wherein the information from the one or more sensors is related to a position of cargo in the cargo trailer (paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the loading dock of Wiegel to include cargo sensors as taught by Jones as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, Wiegel teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the sensors provides information related to a position of cargo. Jones teaches a loading dock with sensors wherein the cargo trailer includes a cargo area having an aft edge, and wherein the information from the one or more sensors is related to a position of cargo relative to the aft edge of the cargo area (paragraph [0025][0032][0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the loading dock of Wiegel to include cargo sensors as taught by Jones as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (2017/0259722) (“Jones”).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the machine-readable indicia includes at least one of a QR code or a barcode. The examiner takes official notice that using q QR code or barcode as machine readable indicia is old and well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine readable indicia of Jones a QR code or barcode as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches the sensor are mounted in the trailer but fails to explicitly teach a support structure. The examiner takes official notice that using a support structure to mount sensors is old ad well known in the art and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a support structure in the invention of Jones as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (2017/0259722) (“Jones”) in view of Bowman (2022/0405695)
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a vehicle presence sensor. Bowman teaches a loading dock with a vehicle presence sensor (112), wherein the vehicle presence sensor is configured to detect a presence of the cargo trailer in front of the dock door opening, and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to activate in response to the vehicle presence sensor detecting the presence of the cargo trailer (paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle presence sensor on the loading dock of Jones as taught by Bowman to allow comprehensive monitoring of the loading dock and further as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegel et al. (WO 2019079276) (Wiegel) in view of Bowman (2022/0405695).
Regarding claim 14, Wiegel teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a vehicle restraint. Bowman teaches a loading dock including a vehicle restraint (110) positioned in front of the dock door opening; and a dock leveler operably positioned at least partially behind the dock door opening, wherein the one or more processors are configured to activate automatic operation of the vehicle restraint and the dock leveler based on the information provided by the one or more sensors (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle restraint on the dock of Wiegel as taught by Bowman to prevent the trailer from leaving the dock too early and further as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 15, 19-20, 25, 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art fails to teach targets mounted on a support structure that is deployable. Further the closest prior art fails to teach an activated dock leveler in response to the cargo being in an end load position. While dock levelers are known in the art the prior art fails to teach that combining a dock leveler with the primary reference would result in the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Stone teaches a loading dock monitoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights