CTNF 18/502,653 CTNF 100148 DETAILED ACTION This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 , under the Alice framework Step 1 analysis, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine , manufacture, or composition of matter. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claim recites a mental process. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following: (1) determine a minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on a height of the vehicle; (2) determine a maximum available vertical clearance using the first ranging sensor ; and (3) provide a warning to the occupant of the vehicle using the display in response to determining that the maximum available vertical clearance is less than or equal to the minimum required vertical clearance . The italicized limitations (1) and (2) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind via observation. For example, the claim encompasses a person making an observation of the minimum required vertical clearance and maximum available vertical clearance and making a judgement. The italicized limitation (3) constitutes “certain methods of organizing human activity”. For example, the claim encompasses interactions between people through a person providing a warning to another person. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the additional limitations “a system for determining vertical clearance for a vehicle,” “a first ranging sensor operable to measure a distance relative to an object surrounding the vehicle,” “a display operable to provide information to an occupant of the vehicle,” and “a controller in electrical communication with the first ranging sensor and the display.” The preamble describes a system for determining vertical clearance for a vehicle which generally links the abstract ideas to a field of use of vehicle sensing systems. In addition, the claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. Furthermore, the use of the first ranging sensor to measure a distance is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, while a display to provide information amounts to mere data outputting, both of which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. In addition, the use of a first ranging sensor and display was considered to be an extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Paragraph [0002] of the instant specification describes: “ADAS systems may use various sensors such as cameras, radar, ultrasound, and LiDAR to detect and identify objects around the vehicle, including other vehicles, pedestrians, and traffic signs. When a potential collision or obstacle is detected, the ADAS system may issue an alert to the occupant or take corrective action to prevent or mitigate the collision.” Furthermore, the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05.I. For these reasons claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 2 recites a mental process. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following: (1) receive the height of the vehicle from the occupant of the vehicle using the display ; and (2) determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the height of the vehicle . The italicized limitation (1) constitutes “certain methods of organizing human activity”. For example, the claim encompasses interactions between people through a person teaching a vehicle height to another person. The italicized limitation (2) constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind via observation. For example, the claim encompasses a person making an observation of the height of the vehicle and making a judgement on the minimum required vertical clearance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 2 recites the additional limitations “the display is further configured to receive input from the occupant of the vehicle” and “the controller.” The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. Furthermore, the use of the display to provide information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. In addition, the use of the display was considered to be an extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Here, using a display to enter information merely amounts to electronic recordkeeping, which the courts have recognized as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP2106.06 (d) II example iii). In addition, see Hermann, US 20250111537 A1, which discloses “it is known in the art to obtain a vehicle height using a manual input from the driver or by automatic detection (which may be onboard the vehicle or obtained from roadway infrastructure).” (Paragraph [0005]). Furthermore, the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05.I. For these reasons claim 2 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 3 recites a mental process. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following: perform at least one vertical height measurement using the at least one vertical height sensor , wherein the at least one vertical height measurement is a distance between a roof of the vehicle and a ground surface; and determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the at least one vertical height measurement. These italicized limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind via observation. For example, the claim encompasses a person making an observation of the height of the vehicle and making a judgement on the minimum required vertical clearance based on that height observation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 3 recites the additional limitations “at least one vertical height sensor” and “the controller.” The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. Furthermore, the use of the at least one vertical height sensor is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, claim 3 considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the controller to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. In addition, the use of the at least one vertical height sensor was considered to be an extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See Hermann, US 20250111537 A1, which discloses “it is known in the art to obtain a vehicle height using a manual input from the driver or by automatic detection (which may be onboard the vehicle or obtained from roadway infrastructure).” (Paragraph [0005]). Thus, it is well known that sensors can be used to automatically detect the vehicle height, and it is also well known that controllers are used to control the operation of a sensor (See Hermann, Fig. 7). For these reasons claim 3 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 11-12 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 3 with no further additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 and 3 that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by White, US 20240010191 A1 (“White”) . Regarding claim 1 , White discloses a system for determining vertical clearance for a vehicle (Fig. 1, low clearance warning system 100, Paragraph [0013]), the system comprising: a first ranging sensor operable to measure a distance relative to an object surrounding the vehicle (Fig. 1, first sensor 105, Paragraph [0013]); a display operable to provide information to an occupant of the vehicle (Fig. 4, warning display 430, Paragraph [0019]); and a controller in electrical communication with the first ranging sensor and the display (Fig. 4, controller 410, Paragraph [0019]), wherein the controller is programmed to: determine a minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on a height of the vehicle (Fig. 5, step 525, Paragraph [0024]); determine a maximum available vertical clearance using the first ranging sensor (Fig. 5, step 520, Paragraph [0024]); and provide a warning to the occupant of the vehicle using the display in response to determining that the maximum available vertical clearance is less than or equal to the minimum required vertical clearance (Fig. 5, step 560 - 565, Paragraph [0027]). Regarding claim 3, White discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one vertical height sensor in electrical communication with the controller (Fig. 1, third sensor 150, fourth sensor 165, Paragraph [0014]), and wherein to determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the height of the vehicle, the controller is further programmed to: perform at least one vertical height measurement using the at least one vertical height sensor, wherein the at least one vertical height measurement is a distance between a roof of the vehicle and a ground surface (Fig. 1, third sensor 150, fourth sensor 165, distance to ground 160, distance to ground 175, Paragraph [0014]); and determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the at least one vertical height measurement (Fig. 5, step 525, ground reference sensor data, Paragraph [0024]). Claims 11-12 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 3 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 18 contains the same limitations as claims 1 and 3 and is rejected for the same reasons . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Kole, US 20110181407 A1 (“Kole”) . Regarding claim 2, White discloses the system of claim 1, […], and wherein to determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the height of the vehicle (Fig. 5, step 525, Paragraph [0024]), the controller is further programmed to: […]; and determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the height of the vehicle (Fig. 5, step 525, Paragraph [0024]). White does not teach: wherein the display is further configured to receive input from the occupant of the vehicle and receive the height of the vehicle from the occupant of the vehicle using the display. However, Kole teaches an overhead clearance detection system with a display that contains a user input device and a display (Fig. 1, user input device 24, display 26, Paragraph [0027]). The operator can input the desired clearance height, based on the height of the vehicle and additional cargo, using the user input device (Fig. 1, user input device 24, display 26, Paragraph [0027]; Fig. 12, clearance height 88). The desired clearance height is called when determining if the vehicle has overhead clearance (Fig. 9, block 112, Paragraph [0051]). 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 White’s low clearance warning system by adding a display for the operator to input the vehicle height, which is disclosed by Kole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate the system for determining low clearance with only single range finder, as suggested by Kole (Abstract, Fig. 7) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Decker et al., US 20190018132 A1 (“Decker”) . Regarding claim 4, White discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one vertical height sensor further comprises a first vertical height sensor, a second vertical height sensor (Fig. 1, third sensor 150, fourth sensor 165, distance to ground 160, distance to ground 175, Paragraph [0014]), […], and wherein to determine the minimum required vertical clearance, the controller is further programmed to: perform a first vertical height measurement using the first vertical height sensor, wherein the first vertical height measurement is a distance between a first corner of the roof of the vehicle and the ground surface (Fig. 1, third sensor 150, distance to ground 160, Paragraph [0014]); perform a second vertical height measurement using the second vertical height sensor, wherein the second vertical height measurement is a distance between a second corner of the roof of the vehicle and the ground surface (Fig. 1, fourth sensor 165, distance to ground 175, Paragraph [0014]); […] determine the minimum required vertical clearance based at least in part on the first vertical height measurement, the second vertical height measurement, […] (Fig. 5, step 525, ground reference sensor data, Paragraph [0024]). White does not teach: a third vertical height sensor and a fourth vertical height sensor. However, Decker teaches an ultra-short range radar system of a vehicle that can determine if a vehicle has clearance under an overhead object. The radar system contains four or more radar sensors located at the four corners of the roof (Fig. 2A, radar sensors 204-3, 204-4, 204-7, 204-8, 204-9, 204-10, Paragraph [0057]). 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 White’s low clearance warning system by using two additional sensors at remaining corners of the vehicle, which is disclosed by Decker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide more measurements from different fields of view, as suggested by Decker (Paragraph [0064]). Further, a greater number of sensors may be included, which is taught by Decker. Regarding claim 8, White, as modified in view of Decker, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein to determine the minimum required vertical clearance, the controller is further programmed to: determine the minimum required vertical clearance to be equal to a maximum value of the first vertical height measurement, the second vertical height measurement, the third vertical height measurement, and the fourth vertical height measurement (White, step 615, Paragraph [0029]: controller uses load height sensor data in statistical calculations, such as a maximum). Regarding claim 9, White, as modified in view of Decker, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein to determine the minimum required vertical clearance, the controller is further programmed to: determine a height of a roof-mounted accessory affixed to the roof of the vehicle (White, Fig. 1, second sensor 130, height 140, Paragraph [0014]); and determine the minimum required vertical clearance to be equal to a sum of the height of the roof-mounted accessory and a maximum value of the first vertical height measurement, the second vertical height measurement, the third vertical height measurement, and the fourth vertical height measurement (White, Fig. 5, step 525, Paragraph [0024]: load height calculation uses distance to ground and load height sensor data). Claims 13 and 15-16 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 4 and 8-9 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 19 contains the same claim limitations as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White, as modified in view of Decker, in further view of Sakata et al., US 20210389469 A1 (“Sakata”) . Regarding claim 5, White, as modified in view of Decker, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first ranging sensor further comprises a range sensing element and […], and wherein to determine the maximum available vertical clearance using the first ranging sensor, the controller is further programmed to: measure a Euclidian distance between the first ranging sensor and the object surrounding the vehicle using the range sensing element (White, Fig. 5, step 505, Paragraph [0024]: infrastructure height sensor data includes data indicative of a distance between the detected infrastructure object and the vehicle); determine a vertical clearance based at least in part on the Euclidian distance and a pitch angle of the range sensing element […] (White, Fig. 5, step 520, Paragraph [0024]); […]; determine the maximum available vertical clearance to be a sum of a minimum value of the plurality of vertical clearances and a minimum value of the first vertical height measurement, the second vertical height measurement, the third vertical height measurement, and the fourth vertical height measurement (White, ). White, as modified in view of Decker, does not teach: (1) an electric motor operable to rotate the range sensing element along a pitch axis; (2) measuring the vertical clearance with respect to the roof of the vehicle; (3) rotate the range sensing element using the electric motor to change the pitch angle of the range sensing element; (4) repeatedly measure the Euclidian distance, determine the [height of a coordinate], and rotate the range sensing element to determine a plurality of vertical clearances. However, Decker teaches an ultra-short range radar system of a vehicle that can determine if a vehicle has clearance under an overhead object. The radar system contains four or more radar sensors located at the four corners of the roof and a forward facing camera located at the center-front of the roof (Fig. 2A, radar sensors 204-3, 204-4, 204-7, 204-8, 204-9, 204-10, forward facing camera 205-3, Paragraph [0057]-[0058]). 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 White’s first sensor by placing the sensor on the roof, which is disclosed by Decker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide more measurements from different fields of view, as suggested by Decker (Paragraph [0064]). Further, the sensors may be located differently, which is taught by Decker. White, as modified in view of Decker teaches (2), but the combination fails to teach (1), (3), and (4). However, Sakata teaches an outside environment recognition system that contains a front and rear facing LIDAR sensor that are used to extract a road surface. The LIDAR sensors may be rotated about a pitch axis by a motor and the pitch angle is stored (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0024]). The LIDAR sensor is repeatedly rotated to scan a predetermined number of candidate points, measure the distance, and calculate the coordinates, including the height, of each of the candidate points (Fig. 4, S01 – S05, Paragraph [0033], Paragraph [0038]; Fig. 6, three-dimensional coordinate signal 102, road candidate points 104). 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 the first sensor disclosed by the combination of White and Decker by adding a motor to rotate the first sensor to different pitch angles to repeatedly measure different locations of an object, which is disclosed by Sakata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve estimation accuracy of the surface of a plane, as suggested by Sakata (Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, White, as modified by Decker, as further modified by Sakata, teaches (1), (3), and (4). Regarding claim 6 , White, as modified in view of Decker and Sakata, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the first ranging sensor is further configured to measure a distance relative to an object in front of the vehicle (White, Fig. 1, first sensor 105, Paragraph [0013]), wherein the system further includes a second ranging sensor in electrical communication with the controller, and wherein the second ranging sensor is configured to measure a distance relative to an object behind the vehicle (White, Fig. 1, second sensor 130, Paragraph [0014]). Regarding claim 7 , White, as modified in view of Decker and Sakata, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein to determine the vertical clearance, the controller is further programmed to: determine the vertical clearance using an equation: c v =d e *sin θ p wherein c v is the vertical clearance, d e is the Euclidian distance, and θ- p is the pitch angle (Sakata, Paragraph [0033], Expression (1)). Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 20 contains the same claim limitations as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White, as modified in view of Decker, in further view of Imms, GB 2598540 A (“Imms”) and Viers, US 20210347300 A1 (“Viers”) . Regarding claim 10, White as modified in view of Decker, discloses the system of claim 9. White, as modified in view of Decker does not teach: further comprising a telescopic break-beam sensor system affixed to the roof of the vehicle including a first telescopic break-beam sensor and a second telescopic break-beam sensor in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the telescopic break-beam sensor system is operable to detect an object occluding a line of sight between the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor, and wherein to determine the height of the roof-mounted accessory, the controller is further programmed to: extend the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor until the line of sight between the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor is not occluded; retract the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor until the line of sight between the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor becomes occluded by the roof-mounted accessory; and determine the height of the roof-mounted accessory to be equal to a height of the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor after retracting the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor until the line of sight between the first telescopic break-beam sensor and the second telescopic break-beam sensor becomes occluded by the roof-mounted accessory. However, Imms teaches a vehicle mounted height measurement system that derives the height of a vehicle and cargo. The vehicle height monitor includes a sensor that detects objects on the horizontal field of view. (Fig. 1, sensor 32, page 3 paragraph 7). The sensor is mounted on a platform that can be telescopically extended and retracted (Fig. 2-3, platform 28, page 1 paragraph 10). The platform retracts and extends until the horizontal sensor is not occluded by objects and a vertical sensor measures the distance to the ground to determine the height of the mounted objects (Fig. 1, sensor 32, sensor 30, Page 3 paragraph 9). 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 the low clearance detection system taught by the combination of White and Decker by adding a telescopic sensor to detect the height of vehicle-mounted objects, which is disclosed by Imms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an automatic vehicle and cargo height monitoring that can be used “on-vehicle”, as suggested by Imms (Page 1 paragraph 6). Therefore, White, as modified in view of Decker, in further view of Imms teaches a telescopic sensor system that extends and retracts until the sensor is not occluded to determine the height of the vehicle and cargo. White, as modified in view of Decker, in further view of Imms does not teach a first and second break-beam sensor. However, Viers teaches a laser sensor system that detects a shift in cargo height using a laser sensors positioned on top of a vehicle carrier. The laser sensors may include a light emitting diode positioned on a post and a corresponding photodetector positioned on an opposite post (Fig. 1, laser sensor 30, posts 10a, 10b, Paragraph [0024]). If the carrier shifts and breaks the beam of the laser sensor (i.e., an object occludes the sensor), an alarm signal is sent to the driver indicating a shift in the height of the vehicle carrier (Paragraph [0024]). 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 the low clearance detection system taught by the combination of White and Decker by adding a break-beam sensor to detect the cargo on top of a vehicle, which is disclosed by Viers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor for upward shifts in carrier load, as suggested by Viers (Paragraph [0026]). Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hermann, US 20250111537 A1 discloses a system that detects the overhead clearance height using a time of flight sensor. Ewerhart, US 20050012603 A1 discloses ranging sensors that detect the vehicles height and width and determine overhead clearance. Beckman, US 20200180574 A1 discloses a forward facing and rear-facing sensor system that determine the height of a vehicle and attachments and the overhead clearance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET. 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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. /RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 11 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 12 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 13 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 14 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 15 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 16 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 17 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 18 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/502,653 Page 19 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights