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, 2-4, 6-11 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 claim 4, 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.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6-11 and 14 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).
The Banninga et al. reference discloses a load-carrier vehicle comprising a load container 206 and a visual sensor 246 that can be one of a wide variety type sensors such as cameras and optical type sensors (see col. 3, lines 57-61) which determines the amount of material loaded (i.e. which includes an upper load level at the point of loading shown in Figure 1A) and dumped from the vehicle, but fails to explicitly disclose the visual sensor as comprising a light-emitting unit and a sensor unit. Applicant’s attention is directed to Jensen reference which discloses another load-carrier vehicle that utilizes a LIDAR-type sensor 26 (i.e. similar to that of Applicant’s) that inherently utilizes some sort of light-emitting unit and sensor unit for detecting light emitted from the light-emitting unit to monitor the load carried by the load-carrier vehicle. 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. All introductory and functional statements of intended use have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any structure on the claims distinguishable over the load-carrier system defined by the combined teachings of Banninga et al. and Jensen which is further capable of detecting an object protruding above upper load level, as claimed.
In regard to claim 4, see load level (proximate reference numeral 238 in Fig. 1A of Banninga et al.) , 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.
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.
In regard to claim 9, see the full paragraph that bridges col. 9 and 10 of Banninga et al. which clearly describes autonomous operation of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 10, see remote network 300 and remote systems 304 in Figure 2 of Banninga et al.
In regard to claims 11 and 13, see col. 8, line 66 through col. 10, line 13 of Banninga et al., 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 of Banninga et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that neither Banninga et al. or Jensen disclose a light-emitting unit and a sensor unit to detect light emitted by the light-emitting unit, as now claimed. Applicant’s attention is direct to the new grounds of rejection above where the Office has taken the position that the LIDAR sensor taught by Jensen would inherently include disclose a light-emitting unit and a sensor unit to detect light emitted by the light-emitting unit (i.e. this is a well known concept utilized in LIDAR technology, especially since Applicant utilizes the same type LIDAR technology in the instant invention). Applicant goes on to argue that nether Banninga et al. or Jensen teach or disclose monitoring an upper load level such that an object projecting above the upper load level would be detected, again the Office disagrees and directs Applicant’a attention to the new grounds of rejection above where the Office takes the position that the load-carrier system defined by the combined teachings of Banninga et al. and Jensen which is further capable of detecting an object protruding above upper load level, as claimed.
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.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights