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 .
Status
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending and claims 1 and 3-21 have been examined. Claim 2 is canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Application No. 18/093,870, filed January 6, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/895,271, filed June 8, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,580,484. 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, 365(c) is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
Applicant requested for the double patenting rejection to be held in abeyance until one or more claims are indicated to be allowable. The double patenting rejection is maintained, however, is held in abeyance as requested by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Based on applicant’s specific arguments and the amended claims, the prior rejection under 101 is withdrawn. Specifically, the claim amendments in the independent claims and the specific limitations of controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform a pre-trip corrective action in the autonomous driving mode provides an integration into a practical application.
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant argues that Anderson relates to controlling the operation of a cargo vehicle based on a state of cargo being transported by the vehicle and/or another vehicle and that Anderson describes in-trip actions that may be taken by a self-driving vehicle (SDV) in response to cargo shifting during a trip. Applicant further submits that Anderson’s preventive (i.e. preemptive) are not corrective actions as claimed. Applicant also argues that the Patrick reference does not teach or suggest vehicles operating in an autonomous driving mode.
Examiner would first like to note that there appears to be a lack of proper support in the written description for part of the amended claim limitations. Referring to claim 21, the written description provides adequate support for the claim limitation “wherein the pre-trip corrective action includes one or more of re-routing the vehicle prior to departure of the vehicle on the trip” based on the description in specification paragraph 0007. The remaining claim limitations “modifying a driving behavior of the vehicle”, “re-rerouting the vehicle to a location at which at least a portion of the cargo can be re-secured”, and “contacting a remote assistance service” appear to refer to the description in paragraphs 0008-0010 where these corrective actions are actions taken “during driving of the vehicle” rather than “pre-trip”. Paragraph 0008 clearly specifies “receiving, by the one or more processors during driving of the vehicle, sensor information regarding at least one of a cargo arrangement or a cargo securement along the cargo section of the vehicle, the received sensor information including imagery of at least one of the cargo or a securement mechanism”. This information is compared to the baseline cargo securement profile, and if it is determined that at least a portion of the cargo has changed position and is no longer secured according to a threshold, corrective actions are taken in accordance with paragraph 0010. In other words, based on these teachings in the specification, the corrective actions are taken during driving of the vehicle rather than “pre-trip” as claimed.
Applicant further cites paragraph 0078 as providing support for the claim amendments, however, paragraphs 0077-0079 again describe these corrective actions taken in response to conditions while the vehicle is in operation rather than “pre-trip” corrective actions as claimed.
Examiner further notes that Anderson teaches taking certain corrective actions “pre-trip” based on cargo shifting experienced on “other vehicles” and to prevent repeating the mistakes of leading vehicles where cargo was damaged (0034) and further teaches issuing warnings to take proactive measures to correct and/or ameliorate the cargo shifts in future shipments (pre-trip) such as recommending actions including warnings of potential hazards, road conditions and re-rerouting information (0036-0037) to protect its cargo. These corrective actions may be issued to a human operator or self driving vehicles operating in an autonomous self driving mode (0054).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Referring to Claim 21, the written description provides adequate support for the claim limitation “wherein the pre-trip corrective action includes one or more of re-routing the vehicle prior to departure of the vehicle on the trip” based on the description in specification paragraph 0007. The remaining claim limitations “modifying a driving behavior of the vehicle”, “re-rerouting the vehicle to a location at which at least a portion of the cargo can be re-secured”, and “contacting a remote assistance service” appear to refer to the description in paragraphs 0008-0010 where these corrective actions are actions taken “during driving of the vehicle” rather than “pre-trip”. Paragraph 0008 clearly specifies “receiving, by the one or more processors during driving of the vehicle, sensor information regarding at least one of a cargo arrangement or a cargo securement along the cargo section of the vehicle, the received sensor information including imagery of at least one of the cargo or a securement mechanism”. This information is compared to the baseline cargo securement profile, and if it is determined that at least a portion of the cargo has changed position and is no longer secured according to a threshold, corrective actions are taken in accordance with paragraph 0010. In other words, based on these teachings in the specification, the corrective actions are taken during driving of the vehicle rather than “pre-trip” as claimed. Paragraphs 0077-0079 again describe these corrective actions taken in response to conditions while the vehicle is in operation rather than “pre-trip” corrective actions as claimed.
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) 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 2027/0351268 A1) in view of Patrick et al (DE 10 2014 226108 A1) (IDS provided 1/30/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson et al discloses a method comprising:
automatically performing, by one or more processors of a vehicle configured to operate in an autonomous driving mode, an inspection of the vehicle cargo (sensors may be cameras, thermometers, moisture detectors, etc. that detect ambient weather conditions and other environmental conditions of a roadway upon which the vehicle is travelling, as well as conditions of cargo being transported by such vehicles (0032); cargo state sensor is a hardware sensor that is able to detect the positioning and/or any movement of the cargo within the cargo container. Examples of cargo state sensors include, but are not limited to, vibration sensors, sound sensors, chemical sensors, light sensors, etc (0041); the state of the cargo can also be evaluated by one or more box sensors that are affixed to the boxes (0048); when evaluating the state of the cargo within the cargo container, the vehicle controller may compare video images of the cargo captured by cargo bay camera over time (0049); the information that is collected about the state of the cargo within the cargo container (e.g. from cargo state sensor and/or cargo bay camera) and the state of the cargo vehicle (e.g. from cargo vehicle state sensor) is collected and evaluated by cargo controller in order to determine the state of the cargo within cargo container and/or the state of the cargo vehicle (0050).
automatically determining, by one or processors based on the inspection whether a securement criterion is satisfied by the cargo arrangement of cargo onboard the vehicle or a cargo securement of the cargo onboard the vehicle (evaluating the state of cargo within a cargo container to determine if the cargo satisfies a securement criterion such as how the cargo is stacked closer together, strapped down tight enough or if enough padding is provided between the cargo (0080), including the state of the vehicle and how its cargo was arranged and secured (0081), and analytics that will evaluate how the cargo is protected or prone to falling over during transit and recommending that the cargo is protected by surroundings, which may be cushioned, rigid, etc (0083));
in response to determining that the securement criterion is satisfied by the cargo arrangement or the cargo securement, automatically generating, by the one or more processors, a baseline cargo profile associated with the cargo for use during the trip by the one or more processors, wherein the baseline cargo profile includes information regarding one or more cargo securement mechanisms of the vehicle (the cargo being loaded onto a cargo container, which will be transported by the vehicle, is performed before the vehicle leaves the loading dock and loaded by an autonomous loader where a computerized controller will receive information from the vehicle controller about the state of the vehicle and how its cargo was arranged and secured (0081); vehicle controller will send instructions to robotic cargo loader controller directing the robotic cargo loader to load boxes in a manner that will provide additional support/protection for road conditions that will be experienced by vehicle (0082); the robotic cargo loader controller will run multiple simulations for loading boxes and in order to develop the optimal load configuration (baseline cargo profile) for minimizing risk (from a box falling over or from a box being struck by another box) to the cargo within the cargo container (0085) and
storing, by the one or more processors, the baseline cargo profile in memory of the vehicle prior to departure on the trip (0081-0082), and
in response to determining that the securement criterion is not satisfied by the pre-trip cargo arrangement or the pre-trip cargo securement, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform a pre-trip (i.e. future shipments) corrective action in the autonomous driving mode (0035-0037 and 0054).
Anderson et al discloses various sensors to monitor and inspect the state of the cargo and further discloses when evaluating the state of the cargo within the cargo container, the vehicle controller may compare video images of the cargo captured by cargo bay camera over time. Thus, by comparing the position of the cargo over different periods of time, the vehicle controller can determine how much movement has occurred. For example, assume that cargo bay camera 216 has captured a first image at time T1, and a second image at time T2 of box 206. Assume further that box 206 has shifted such that the captured image of box 206 has moved 2 degrees between the first image and the second image. Without knowing how far away box 206 is from cargo bay camera 216 and the size of box 206, then the system is unable to determine how far box 206 has actually moved. However, the manifest and or loading plan for the cargo container 212 (available to the vehicle controller) will have this information, in order to trigonometrically calculate the distance that box 206 moved during the shift (0049); the information that is collected about the state of the cargo within the cargo container (e.g. from cargo state sensor and/or cargo bay camera) and the state of the cargo vehicle (e.g. from cargo vehicle state sensor) is collected and evaluated by cargo controller in order to determine the state of the cargo within cargo container and/or the state of the cargo vehicle (0050)
Anderson et al fails to specifically disclose, however, where the inspection is performed “pre-trip”, prior to departure of the vehicle on a trip, where the load may be in an unsecured manner. Patrick et al discloses a system and method for detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle, where it is considered to be unsecured if it can change its position in the vehicle in which the vehicle is moving, and also that motor vehicles are often loaded without sufficient attention being paid to securing the load (Page 1, 0001-0003). Patrick et al further discloses a method or detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle where a first position data record is determined by a monitoring device, for example a control unit, in a first measuring cycle before or during a journey of the motor vehicle using a position detection device (Page2, 0009); the monitoring device has a receiving device that is designed to receive position data sets from a position detection device of the motor vehicle. These are the position data sets described, which correlate with a position of the load in the motor vehicle (Page 6, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Anderson et al to include performing a pre-trip inspection of the state of the cargo as taught by Patrick et al in order to establish the cargo profile before the vehicle departs on the journey. This would enable comparisons to be made at a later time to determine if the cargo has shifted, moved or fallen over during transit. Anderson et al and Patrick et al are both concerned with monitoring the state of cargo during transit to determine if any cargo movement or shifting has occurred and determining if any damage was sustained. Thus, in order to determine if any movement has occurred, it would be obvious that a cargo inspection would need to be conducted “pre-trip”, corresponding to an inspection performed pre-trip at time T1 as suggested by Anderson.
Regarding Claim 3, Anderson further discloses wherein automatically performing the inspection includes causing, by the one or more processors, a sensor suite of a cargo loading facility to capture information regarding at least one of the cargo arrangement of the cargo onboard the vehicle or the cargo securement of the cargo onboard on the vehicle (sensors may be cameras, thermometers, moisture detectors, etc. that detect ambient weather conditions and other environmental conditions of a roadway upon which the vehicle is travelling, as well as conditions of cargo being transported by such vehicles (0032); cargo state sensor is a hardware sensor that is able to detect the positioning and/or any movement of the cargo within the cargo container. Examples of cargo state sensors include, but are not limited to, vibration sensors, sound sensors, chemical sensors, light sensors, etc (0041); the state of the cargo can also be evaluated by one or more box sensors that are affixed to the boxes (0048); when evaluating the state of the cargo within the cargo container, the vehicle controller may compare video images of the cargo captured by cargo bay camera over time. Thus, by comparing the position of the cargo over different periods of time, the vehicle controller can determine how much movement has occurred. For example, assume that cargo bay camera 216 has captured a first image at time T1, and a second image at time T2 of box 206. Assume further that box 206 has shifted such that the captured image of box 206 has moved 2 degrees between the first image and the second image. Without knowing how far away box 206 is from cargo bay camera 216 and the size of box 206, then the system is unable to determine how far box 206 has actually moved. However, the manifest and or loading plan for the cargo container 212 (available to the vehicle controller) will have this information, in order to trigonometrically calculate the distance that box 206 moved during the shift (0049); the information that is collected about the state of the cargo within the cargo container (e.g. from cargo state sensor and/or cargo bay camera) and the state of the cargo vehicle (e.g. from cargo vehicle state sensor) is collected and evaluated by cargo controller in order to determine the state of the cargo within cargo container and/or the state of the cargo vehicle (0050).
Anderson et al discloses various sensors to monitor and inspect the state of the cargo, however, Anderson et al fails to specifically disclose where the inspection is performed “pre-trip”, prior to departure of the vehicle on a trip, where the load may be in an unsecured manner. Patrick et al discloses a system and method for detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle, where it is considered to be unsecured if it can change its position in the vehicle which the vehicle is moving, and also that motor vehicles are often loaded without sufficient attention being paid to securing the load (Page 1, 0001-0003). Patrick et al further discloses a method or detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle where a first position data record is determined by a monitoring device, for example a control unit, in a first measuring cycle before or during a journey of the motor vehicle using a position detection device (Page2, 0009); the monitoring device has a receiving device that is designed to receive position data sets from a position detection device of the motor vehicle. These are the position data sets described, which correlate with a position of the load in the motor vehicle (Page 6, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Anderson et al to include performing a pre-trip inspection of the state of the cargo as taught by Patrick et al in order to establish the cargo profile before the vehicle departs on the journey. This would enable comparisons to be made at a later time to determine if the cargo has shifted, moved or fallen over during transit. Anderson et al and Patrick et al are both concerned with monitoring the state of cargo during transit to determine if any cargo movement or shifting has occurred and determining if any damage was sustained. Thus, in order to determine if any movement has occurred, it would be obvious that a cargo inspection would need to be conducted “pre-trip”, corresponding to an inspection performed pre-trip at time T1 as suggested by Anderson.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Anderson further discloses subsequent to saving the baseline cargo profile, causing by the one or more processors, the vehicle to depart on the trip in the autonomous driving mode (0055-0057, 0081).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Anderson further discloses while the vehicle is on the trip in the autonomous driving mode, obtaining, by the one or more processors using a perception system of the vehicle, information regarding at least one of a trip cargo arrangement of the cargo onboard the vehicle or a cargo securement of the cargo onboard the vehicle; and comparing, by the one or more processors the information regarding at least one of the trip cargo arrangement or the trip cargo securement to the baseline cargo profile (0003, 0034-0035, 0049).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Anderson further discloses determining, by the one or more processors based on the comparing, that at least a portion of the cargo is no longer secured; and in response to determining that at least the portion of the cargo is no longer secured, causing, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform a corrective action in the autonomous driving mode (0003, 0034-0037, 0051, 0054).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Anderson further discloses wherein the corrective action includes one or more of (i) modifying a driving behavior of the vehicle, (ii) re-routing the vehicle to a location at which at least the portion of the cargo can be re-secured, (iii) pulling the vehicle over, or (iv) contacting a remote assistance service (0034-0036, 0051, 0054).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Anderson further discloses while the vehicle is on the trip in the autonomous driving mode, transmitting, by the vehicle, information to a remote computing device, the information corresponding to at least one of the baseline cargo profile, the trip cargo arrangement, or the trip cargo securement (0036, 0070)
Regarding Claim 10, Anderson further discloses wherein the remote computing device is associated with another vehicle (0051).
Regarding Claim 12, Anderson further discloses wherein the baseline cargo profile includes a set of reference images of at least one of the pre-trip cargo arrangement or the pre-trip cargo securement (Figure 2, 0049-0050, 0077, 0081).
Anderson et al discloses various sensors to monitor and inspect the state of the cargo, however, Anderson et al fails to specifically disclose where the inspection is performed “pre-trip”, prior to departure of the vehicle on a trip, where the load may be in an unsecured manner. Patrick et al discloses a system and method for detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle, where it is considered to be unsecured if it can change its position in the vehicle which the vehicle is moving, and also that motor vehicles are often loaded without sufficient attention being paid to securing the load (Page 1, 0001-0003). Patrick et al further discloses a method or detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle where a first position data record is determined by a monitoring device, for example a control unit, in a first measuring cycle before or during a journey of the motor vehicle using a position detection device (Page2, 0009); the monitoring device has a receiving device that is designed to receive position data sets from a position detection device of the motor vehicle. These are the position data sets described, which correlate with a position of the load in the motor vehicle (Page 6, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Anderson et al to include performing a pre-trip inspection of the state of the cargo as taught by Patrick et al in order to establish the cargo profile before the vehicle departs on the journey. This would enable comparisons to be made at a later time to determine if the cargo has shifted, moved or fallen over during transit. Anderson et al and Patrick et al are both concerned with monitoring the state of cargo during transit to determine if any cargo movement or shifting has occurred and determining if any damage was sustained. Thus, in order to determine if any movement has occurred, it would be obvious that a cargo inspection would need to be conducted “pre-trip”, corresponding to an inspection performed pre-trip at time T1 as suggested by Anderson.
Regarding Claim 13, Anderson et al discloses a vehicle configured to operate in an autonomous driving mode (0032) comprising:
A driving system including a steering subsystem, and acceleration subsystem and a deceleration subsystem to control driving of the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode (0055-0057)
A perception system including a set of sensors, one or more of the set of sensors being positioned along the vehicle (Figure 2, 0032, 0041, 0048, 0049, 0069)
One or more cargo securement mechanisms (0051, 0080, 0081, 0083, 0090)
A control system operatively connected to the driving system and the perception system, the control system having memory and one or more processors (0555-0057) configured to automatically perform an inspection of the vehicle cargo (sensors may be cameras, thermometers, moisture detectors, etc. that detect ambient weather conditions and other environmental conditions of a roadway upon which the vehicle is travelling, as well as conditions of cargo being transported by such vehicles (0032); cargo state sensor is a hardware sensor that is able to detect the positioning and/or any movement of the cargo within the cargo container. Examples of cargo state sensors include, but are not limited to, vibration sensors, sound sensors, chemical sensors, light sensors, etc (0041); the state of the cargo can also be evaluated by one or more box sensors that are affixed to the boxes (0048); when evaluating the state of the cargo within the cargo container, the vehicle controller may compare video images of the cargo captured by cargo bay camera over time (0049); the information that is collected about the state of the cargo within the cargo container (e.g. from cargo state sensor and/or cargo bay camera) and the state of the cargo vehicle (e.g. from cargo vehicle state sensor) is collected and evaluated by cargo controller in order to determine the state of the cargo within cargo container and/or the state of the cargo vehicle (0050).
Automatically determine, based on the inspection, whether a securement criterion is satisfied by a cargo arrangement of cargo onboard the vehicle or a cargo securement of the cargo onboard the vehicle (evaluating the state of cargo within a cargo container to determine if the cargo satisfies a securement criterion such as how the cargo is stacked closer together, strapped down tight enough or if enough padding is provided between the cargo (0080), including the state of the vehicle and how its cargo was arranged and secured (0081), and analytics that will evaluate how the cargo is protected or prone to falling over during transit and recommending that the cargo is protected by surroundings, which may be cushioned, rigid, etc (0083));
In response to a determination that the securement criterion is satisfied by the cargo arrangement or the cargo securement, generate, by one or more processors, a baseline cargo profile associated with the cargo for use during the trip, wherein the baseline cargo profile includes information regarding the one or more cargo securement mechanisms (the cargo being loaded onto a cargo container, which will be transported by the vehicle, is performed before the vehicle leaves the loading dock and loaded by an autonomous loader (0081); vehicle controller will send instructions to robotic cargo loader controller directing the robotic cargo loader to load boxes in a manner that will provide additional support/protection for road conditions that will be experienced by vehicle (0082); the robotic cargo loader controller will run multiple simulations for loading boxes and in order to develop the optimal load configuration for minimizing risk (from a box falling over or from a box being struck by another box) to the cargo within the cargo container (0085);
saving the baseline cargo profile in the memory prior to departure of the vehicle on the trip (0081-0082); and
in response to determining that the securement criterion is not satisfied by the pre-trip cargo arrangement or the pre-trip cargo securement, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform a pre-trip (i.e. future shipments) corrective action in the autonomous driving mode (0035-0037 and 0054).
Anderson et al discloses various sensors to monitor and inspect the state of the cargo and further discloses when evaluating the state of the cargo within the cargo container, the vehicle controller may compare video images of the cargo captured by cargo bay camera over time. Thus, by comparing the position of the cargo over different periods of time, the vehicle controller can determine how much movement has occurred. For example, assume that cargo bay camera 216 has captured a first image at time T1, and a second image at time T2 of box 206. Assume further that box 206 has shifted such that the captured image of box 206 has moved 2 degrees between the first image and the second image. Without knowing how far away box 206 is from cargo bay camera 216 and the size of box 206, then the system is unable to determine how far box 206 has actually moved. However, the manifest and or loading plan for the cargo container 212 (available to the vehicle controller) will have this information, in order to trigonometrically calculate the distance that box 206 moved during the shift (0049); the information that is collected about the state of the cargo within the cargo container (e.g. from cargo state sensor and/or cargo bay camera) and the state of the cargo vehicle (e.g. from cargo vehicle state sensor) is collected and evaluated by cargo controller in order to determine the state of the cargo within cargo container and/or the state of the cargo vehicle (0050)
Anderson et al fails to specifically disclose, however, where the inspection is performed “pre-trip”, prior to departure of the vehicle on a trip, where the load may be in an unsecured manner. Patrick et al discloses a system and method for detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle, where it is considered to be unsecured if it can change its position in the vehicle which the vehicle is moving, and also that motor vehicles are often loaded without sufficient attention being paid to securing the load (Page 1, 0001-0003). Patrick et al further discloses a method or detecting an unsecured load in a motor vehicle where a first position data record is determined by a monitoring device, for example a control unit, in a first measuring cycle before or during a journey of the motor vehicle using a position detection device (Page2, 0009); the monitoring device has a receiving device that is designed to receive position data sets from a position detection device of the motor vehicle. These are the position data sets described, which correlate with a position of the load in the motor vehicle (Page 6, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Anderson et al to include performing a pre-trip inspection of the state of the cargo as taught by Patrick et al in order to establish the cargo profile before the vehicle departs on the journey. This would enable comparisons to be made at a later time to determine if the cargo has shifted, moved or fallen over during transit. Anderson et al and Patrick et al are both concerned with monitoring the state of cargo during transit to determine if any cargo movement or shifting has occurred and determining if any damage was sustained. Thus, in order to determine if any movement has occurred, it would be obvious that a cargo inspection would need to be conducted “pre-trip”, corresponding to an inspection performed pre-trip at time T1 as suggested by Anderson.
Claims 4 , 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 2027/0351268 A1) in view of Patrick et al (DE 10 2014 226108 A1) (IDS provided 1/30/2024) as applied to claims 1, 6, 13 and 16 above, and further in view of Bruhn (U.S. 2017/0267159).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 14 and 20, Anderson et al and Patrick et al disclose automatically, by one or more processors, whether at least one of the pre-trip cargo arrangement of the cargo or the pre-trip securement of the cargo satisfies a criterion associated with securement, however, fails to disclose determining satisfying a regulation. Bruhn, however, in an analogous art, discloses determining whether the securement of a load on a vehicle complies with applicable regulations at certain points in time (0019, Abstract, 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Anderson et al and Patrick et al to include determining whether the securement criterion satisfies a regulation in order to compliance with regulations for the safety of transporting loads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Hayes whose telephone number is (571)272-6708. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached on (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights