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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banninga et al. (US 11,518,289).
The Banninga et al. reference discloses a load-carrier vehicle comprising a load container 206 and a visual sensor 246 which determines the amount of material loaded and dumped from the vehicle.
In regard to claims 4 and 5, see load level (proximate reference numeral 238 in Fig. 1A) , where and the visual sensor 246 which clearly visualizes the particulate or objects that make up the load regardless whether an upper load level is on a substantially flat plane or not. Furthermore, Applicant’s attention is directed to Figure 1A which depicts a load proximate reference numeral 238 that could be considered as being disposed on a substantially flat plane.
In regard to claim 9, see the full paragraph that bridges col. 9 and 10 which clearly describes autonomous operation of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 10, see remote network 300 and remote systems 304 in Figure 2.
In regard to claims 11 and 13, see col. 8, line 66 through col. 10, line 13, wherein the method as claimed would be inherent during normal use and operation of the load-carrier vehicle, as claimed. Furthermore, since the flowrate into the vehicle is continuously monitored, notification that an upper load level has been reached would be implied during the continuous monitoring of the loading of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 14, see col. 10, lines 24-32.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banninga et al. (US 11,518,289) in view of Jensen (US 9,145,661).
In regard to claims 2,3 and 7, the Banninga et al. reference discloses a load-carrier system with an optical sensor (supra), but fails to disclose the optical sensor as being a LIDAR-type sensor. The Jensen reference discloses another load-carrier system having another optical sensor that takes the form of a LIDAR sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical sensor of the Banninga et al. device to be a LIDAR type sensor as, for example, taught by Jensen, wherein so doing would merely amount to the substitution of one type of optical sensor for another that would work equally as well in the device of Banninga et al.
In regard to claim 6, the Banninga et al. reference discloses a load-carrier system (supra), where the optical sensor 246 is disposed on an upper part of the load container (see Figure 1A), but fails to clearly disclose the whether the sensor is centered or disposed on an upper corner thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the sensor 246 anywhere on the upper part of the load container and more particularly in a corner thereof, wherein it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to Applicant’s argument that since the sensor 246 of Banninga measures flowrate of the material being loaded, it can not determine the amount of the material loaded (see page 6, lines 1-14 of Applicant’s remarks), the Office disagrees. The sensor most definitely measures the amount of material flowing into the dump body, especially since the flowrate is directly related to the change in quantity of material over time. Applicant further argues that the sensor 246 of Banninga fails to monitor an upper load level as claimed (see page 6, last paragraph and page 7, first paragraph of Applicant’s remarks), the Office again disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the portion of the rejection above in italics for further information regard to the Office’s position. Applicant further argues that Banninga fails to disclose notification when an upper load level is reached (see page 7, lines 5-9 of Applicant’s remarks), the Office disagrees especially since the flowrate into the vehicle is continuously monitored and such notification that an upper load level has been reached would be implied during the continuous monitoring of the loading of the vehicle.
Applicant’s arguments that Banninga fails to disclose the limitations of claim 12, in particular the registering of the position of the vehicle when an object is detected as entering or moving the upper load level during motion of the vehicle, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Claims 12 and 13 is 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.
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 STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/STEVEN O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612