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 § 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 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeakel (US PUB 20040145150 A1) in view of Marshall (US PUB 20180304748 A1).
Regarding claims 1 – 3 and 7 - 25, Yeakel teaches,
A shunt truck-dock safety system, the system comprising:
a shunt truck (16) interlock (28) element configured to selectively prevent and/or allow operation of at least one operable component of a shunt truck (Yeakel – [0026);
A shunt truck controller (150) configured to direct operation of the shunt truck interlock,
wherein the at least one operable component of the shunt truck comprises a king pin lock (32) of a fifth wheel of the shunt truck (Yeakel – [0008] [0009] [0010]);
and wherein the shunt truck interlock element comprises a king pin lock interlock (28) configured to selectively prevent and/or allow operation of the king pin lock (Yeakel – [0008] [0009] [0010]).
wherein the king pin lock interlock is configured to prevent at least one of locking of the king pin lock when an unsafe condition is detected and locking of the king pin lock when a safe condition is not detected (Yeakel - [0014] [0045] – unable to lock/unlock outside of safe area condition).
wherein the king pin interlock comprises a solenoid valve (108) operatively interposing a compressed air source (110) and the king pin lock (Yeakel - [0011])
at least one signal receiver (26) operatively coupled to the shunt truck controller
Yeakel fails to teach,
directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon a dock condition;
wherein the at least one signal receiver is configured to receive a signal associated with a dock condition.
at least one signal transmitter configured to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition;
a dock controller operatively coupled to the signal transmitter;
wherein the dock controller is configured to selectively direct the signal transmitter to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition based at least in part upon the dock condition.
wherein the dock controller is operatively coupled to one or more sensors configured to sense parameters associated with the dock.
The system of claim 20, wherein:
the dock condition comprises a dock not ready condition;
and, the dock not ready condition is associated with one or more of the following:
a dock retention device is in an engaged configuration,
a dock door is in an open configuration,
a dock leveler is in a deployed configuration,
an exterior red visible indicium is displayed,
or an interior green visible indicium is displayed.
The system of claim 20, wherein:
the dock condition comprises a dock ready condition;
and, the dock ready condition is associated with one or more of the following:
a dock retention device is in a disengaged configuration,
a dock door is in a shut configuration,
a dock leveler is in a stored configuration,
an exterior green visible indicium is displayed,
or an interior red visible indicium is displayed.
However, Marshall teaches,
directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element (22) based at least in part upon a dock condition (Marshall – [0007])
wherein the at least one signal receiver (32) is configured to receive a signal (24) associated with a dock condition (Marshall – [0012]).
at least one signal transmitter (60) configured to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition (Marshall - [0007] – Loading ramp signaling device).
a dock controller (20,56) operatively coupled to the signal transmitter (Marshall – [0010]);
wherein the dock controller is configured to selectively direct the signal transmitter to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition based at least in part upon the dock condition (Marshall – [0010], fig. 1 – (24)).
wherein the dock controller is operatively coupled to one or more sensors (57) configured to sense parameters associated with the dock (Marshall - [0037]).
The system of claim 20, wherein:
the dock condition comprises a dock not ready condition; and, the dock not ready condition is associated with one or more of the following: a dock retention device is in an engaged configuration, a dock door is in an open configuration, a dock leveler is in a deployed configuration (fig. 2 – (14)), an exterior red visible indicium is displayed, or an interior green visible indicium is displayed. (Marshall – [0010])
The system of claim 20, wherein:
the dock condition comprises a dock ready condition; and, the dock ready condition is associated with one or more of the following: a dock retention device is in a disengaged configuration, a dock door is in a shut configuration, a dock leveler is in a stored configuration (fig. 3 – (14)), an exterior green visible indicium is displayed, or an interior red visible indicium is displayed. (Marshall – [0010])
Yeakel and Marshall are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of trucking, transport and material handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeakel’s remote kingpin interlock and controller to include the loading ramp safety control system taught by Marshall. Yeakel explicitly states that the remote kingpin interlock can be operated by short range digital communications, and Marshalls loading dock safety system explicitly uses short range digital communications to control a “blocking device” on a truck being loaded/unloaded in regards to a dock condition. The combination of both systems would increase versatility and use for the loading ramp safety device by allowing trucks with fifth wheel connections to use their kingpins as safety interlocks in addition to the other interlocks (brakes, transmission, starter) disclosed by Marshall.
Regarding claim 5, Yeakel does not explicitly teach,
wherein the king pin lock interlock is configured to allow at least one of locking of the king pin lock when an unsafe condition is not detected and locking of the king pin lock when a safe condition is detected
However, Marshall teaches,
wherein the king pin lock interlock (blocking device) is configured to allow at least one of locking of the king pin lock when an unsafe condition is not detected and locking of the king pin lock when a safe condition is detected ([0010] [0011] – blocking device activated when ramp is extended – “safe” condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the king pin lock interlock feature for the abovementioned reasons.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeakel (US PUB 20040145150 A1) in view of Marshall (US PUB 20180304748 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Record (US PUB 2022/0413157 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, neither Yeakel or Marshall explicitly teaches,
That the operation of the shunt truck controller differs when a trailer is coupled to the shunt truck and when a trailer is not coupled to the shunt truck.
a trailer detection element operatively coupled to the shunt truck controller;
wherein the trailer detection element is configured to detect the presence of a trailer coupled to the shunt truck.
However, Record teaches,
That the operation of the shunt truck controller differs when a trailer is coupled to the shunt truck and when a trailer is not coupled to the shunt truck (Record – fig. 4 – (400), different sequences of operation based on coupling/no trailer coupling)
a trailer detection element (220) operatively coupled to the shunt truck controller (206) (Record - [0064] –Lidar to detect trailer);
wherein the trailer detection element is configured to detect the presence of a trailer coupled to the shunt truck (Record - [0064] –Lidar to detect trailer).
Yeakel and Marshall and Record are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of trucking, transport and material handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeakel and Marshalls shunt truck interlock and shunt truck controller to include the operation and trailer detection elements taught by Record. Doing so would increase safety during operation through added redundancy and verification measures for the kingpin lock and trailer detection.
Claims 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeakel (US PUB 20040145150 A1) in view of Marshall (US PUB 20180304748 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rotundo (WO 2023235411 A1).
Regarding claims 28 - 32, Neither Yeakel or Marshall teaches, the system of claim 1,
wherein the shunt truck controller comprises a shunt truck alarm output configured to be coupled to a shunt truck alarm element.
wherein the shunt truck alarm element comprises a shunt truck aural alarm element configured to generate an audible alarm proximate the shunt truck.
wherein the shunt truck alarm element comprises a shunt truck visual alarm element configured to generate a visible alarm proximate the shunt truck.
wherein the shunt truck visible alarm element comprises a light disposed on the shunt truck
However, Rotundo teaches, the system of claim 1,
wherein the shunt truck controller comprises a shunt truck alarm output (314) configured to be coupled to a shunt truck alarm element (Rotundo – [0035] [0036] - Communication device on shunt truck controller may contain alarm/lights).
wherein the shunt truck alarm element comprises a shunt truck aural alarm element configured to generate an audible alarm proximate the shunt truck (Rotundo – [0035] [0036] - Communication device on shunt truck controller can contain alarm elements).
wherein the shunt truck alarm element comprises a shunt truck visual alarm element configured to generate a visible alarm proximate the shunt truck (Rotundo – [0035] [0036] - Communication device on shunt truck controller may contain lights and alarms).
wherein the shunt truck visible alarm element comprises a light disposed on the shunt truck (Rotundo – [0035] [0036]- Communication device on shunt truck controller may contain lights).
Yeakel, Marshall and Rotundo are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of trucking, transport and material handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeakel and Marshall’s shunt truck controller, interlock and dock controller and signaling system to include the aural and visual alarm outputs taught by Rotundo. Doing so would increase safety during the loading and unloading process by adding audio/visual indicators for unsafe conditions at both the truck and loading/unloading sites.
Claims 33 -35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeakel (US PUB 20040145150 A1) in view of Marshall (US PUB 20180304748 A1).
Regarding claim 33 – 35, Yeakel teaches, a method of operating a shunt truck, the method comprising:
wherein the shunt truck interlock element is configured to selectively prevent and/or allow operation of at least one operable component of a shunt truck (Yeakel – [0008] [0009] [0010] – Actuator selectively inhibits movement of the locking mechanism depending on information relayed by control signal).
wherein the at least one operable component of the shunt truck comprises a king pin lock of a fifth wheel of the shunt truck (Yeakel – [0009] [0010] – locking mechanism locks jaws of kingpin);
and wherein the shunt truck interlock element comprises a king pin interlock configured to selectively prevent and/or allow operation of the king pin lock (Yeakel – [0009] [0010]).
Yeakel fails to teach, a method wherein,
directing operation of a shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon a dock condition.
before directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element,
receiving a signal associated with the dock condition
wherein directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon the dock condition comprises directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon the signal associated with the dock condition.
However, Marshall teaches, a method wherein,
directing operation of a shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon a dock
condition (Marshall – [0009] [0010] - – fig. (2-3) – Position of dock leveler (14) dictates interlock mechanism)
before directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element,
receiving a signal associated with the dock condition (Marshall – [0010] [0011] [0012], fig. 1 – shunt truck receiver (32) receives signal (24) from dock);
wherein directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon the dock condition comprises directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon the signal associated with the dock condition (Marshall – [0010] [0011] [0012], fig. 1 – shunt truck receiver (32) receives signal (24) from dock to operate interlock).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the king pin lock interlock feature for the reasons state on the rejection of claims 1-25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Roberts (US PUB 2007/0194555 A1) – describes a fifth wheel hitch assembly with a locking mechanism and detection system
Standen (US PUB 2008/0191449 A1) – Safety aid for fifth wheel and king pin coupling
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JUAN S MOSCOSO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652