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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to claim amendment filed on 06/30/2026 and wherein claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 33 and 34 being currently amended. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-34 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 and 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 33, the applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation “the at least one operable component of the shunt truck comprises a king pin lock of a fifth wheel of the shunt truck; and the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent locking of the king pin lock based at least in part upon the dock condition”.
The applicant argues that Yeakel fails to teach a shunt trunk interlock element configured to prevent locking of a king pin lock, and instead is directed to a remote-control locking system for the fifth wheel king pin of a truck that specifically prevents disengagement of a fifth wheel locking mechanism and that Marshall’s signaling system is directed towards a loading-ramp safety system that prevents movement of a truck by blocking propulsion systems rather than affecting control of a king pin lock and that once combined still would not teach a safety system that governs whether the shunt truck can secure itself to a trailer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Yeakel discloses a remote-controlled King-pin lock that can either open/close via a signal from a remote control, and if locked would prevent a shunt truck from engaging with the hitch of a trailer, and if unlocked would allow the shunt truck to engage with the hitch of a trailer. The applicant is correct in pointing out that Yeakel does not disclose an interlock element configured to prevent locking of a king pin based on a dock condition, but instead relies on a remote signal to engage/disengage lock. Marshall instead teaches a dock safety device that uses a remote signal based on a dock condition to lock/unlock the propulsion elements of a shunt truck, such as the transmission, brakes and engine. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention fir person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined these two references to have the control signal used in Marshall’s dock safety system be used to control the remote locking fifth wheel taught by Yeakel. This combination would provide a king pin lock which operates based on a dock condition, selectively allowing and preventing engagement of a fifth wheel king pin locking mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 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 1, Yeakel teaches, A shunt truck-dock safety system, the system comprising:
a shunt truck (16) interlock element (28) configured to selectively prevent and/or allow
operation of at least one operable component of a shunt truck ([0026]);
and a shunt truck controller (150) operably coupled to the shunt truck interlock element;
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 ([0008],[0009],[0010]);
and the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent locking of the king pin lock ([0008] [0009] – lock will not lock until signal is received)
Yeakel fails to teach,
The shunt truck controller configured to direct operation of the shunt truck interlock element
based at least in part upon a dock condition,
And the shunt truck interlock element operating based at least in part upon the dock condition
However, Marshall teaches,
The shunt truck controller configured to direct operation of the shunt truck interlock element
based at least in part upon a dock condition ([0007]),
And the shunt truck interlock element (22) operating based at least in part upon the dock condition ([0007])
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 2, Yeakel teaches, the system of claim 1,
wherein the shunt truck interlock (28) element comprises a king pin lock interlock (32) configured to allow locking of the king pin lock.
Yeakel fails to teach,
Wherein the interlock is configured to allow locking based at least in part upon the dock
Condition
However, Marshall teaches,
Wherein the interlock (22) is configured to allow locking based at least in part upon the dock
Condition ([0012])
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yeakel teaches, The system of claim 1,
wherein the shunt truck interlock element 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 ([0014] [0015] – unable to lock/unlock outside of safe area condition).
Regarding claim 5, Yeakel fails to teach, The system of claim 2,
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).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Yeakel teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the shunt truck
interlock element comprises a solenoid valve (108) operatively interposing a compressed air
source (110) and the king pin lock ([0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Yeakel teaches, the system of claim 1,
further comprising at least one signal receiver (26) operatively coupled to the shunt truck controller (150);
Yeakel fails to teach,
wherein the at least one signal receiver is configured to receive a signal associated with the dock condition.
However, Marshall teaches,
wherein the at least one signal receiver (32) is configured to receive a signal (24) associated with the dock condition ([0012]).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Yeakel fails to teach, The system of claim 8,
further comprising at least one signal transmitter configured to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition.
However, Marshall teaches,
further comprising at least one signal transmitter (60) configured to transmit the signal associated with the dock condition ([0007] – loading ramp signaling device).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Yeakel fails to teach, Marshall teaches, the system of claim 15,
further comprising 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.
However, Marshall teaches, the system of claim 15,
further comprising a dock controller (56) operatively coupled to the signal transmitter ([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 ([0010] – fig. 1 – (24)).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Yeakel fails to teach, The system of claim 20,
wherein the dock controller is operatively coupled to one or more sensors configured to sense parameters associated with the dock.
However, Marshall teaches,
wherein the dock controller is operatively coupled to one or more sensors (57) configured to sense parameters associated with the dock ([0037]).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Yeakel fails to teach, 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.
However, Marshall teaches, 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 ([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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Yeakel fails to teach, 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, 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 ([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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, Yeakel teaches, A method of operating a shunt truck, the method comprising:
wherein the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent and/or allow operation of at least one operable component of a shunt truck wherein the at least one operable component of the shunt truck comprises a kingpin lock (32) of a fifth wheel of the shunt truck ([0009] [0010]);
and wherein the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent locking of the king pin lock ([0009] [0010] – interlock element prevents lock from locking/unlocking until signal is received).
Yeakel fails to teach,
and wherein the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent locking of the king pin lock based at least in part upon the dock condition.
However, Marshall teaches,
directing operation of a shunt truck interlock element based at least in part upon a dock condition ([0009] [0010] – position of dock leveler (14) dictated interlock mechanism);
and wherein the shunt truck interlock element is configured to prevent locking of the king pin lock based at least in part upon the dock condition ([0009] [0010] – position of dock leveler (14) dictated interlock mechanism).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, Yeakel teaches, The method of claim 33,
wherein the shunt truck interlock element comprises a king pin interlock configured to allow locking of the king pin lock ([0009] [0010]).
Yeakel fails to teach,
The interlock element configured to be controlled based at least in part upon the dock condition
However, Marshall teaches,
The interlock element configured to be controlled based at least in part upon the dock condition ([0009] [0010] – position of dock leveler dictates operation of interlock mechanism)
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 35, Marshall teaches, the method of claim 33, further comprising,
before directing operation of the shunt truck interlock element,
receiving a signal associated with the dock condition ([0010] [0011] – shunt truck receiver receives signal 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 ([0010] [0011] [0012] – shunt truck receiver (32) receives signal (24) from dock to operate interlock).
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 for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
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 28,29,31 and 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights