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 of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-14 is rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1-14 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 11 and 14 are being interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f)
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-102523, filed on 6/21/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 8/1/25 and 11/16/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The Transport determiner in claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 14.
The Communication device in claims 2-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of
invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without
reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed towards a system and a vehicle.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1 ), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes - concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The control methods in claims 1, 9 include mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed
toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of determining if it is possible to load or unload a vehicle from a transport vehicle. This is a very common problem but does not require any extra ordinary assistance to complete.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 9 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include the addition of communication hardware to both vehicles and the inclusion of an adjustable bridge plate mechanism. This are both considered apply it level technology.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the "apply it level", which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 9 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations include Sensors for detecting the position of different objects in the scene and an operatable bridge plate mechanism. Both of these are considered apply it Level.
Conclusion
Thus, since claims 1, 9: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2: Inclusion of a communication device Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 3: Making a determination about the ability to load/unload a vehicle Is considered part of the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 4: The inclusion of a bridge plate mechanism Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 5: Inclusion of a communication device Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 6: Inclusion of a communication device Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 7: Making a determination about the ability to load/unload a vehicle Is considered part of the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 8: Making a determination about the ability to load/unload a vehicle Is considered part of the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 10: The inclusion of a controller for the vehicle Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 11: The inclusion of a sensor Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 12: The inclusion of a method for controlling the vehicle Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 13: The inclusion of a bridge plate mechanism Is considered apply it Level.
Claim 14: Making a determination about the ability to load/unload a vehicle Is considered part of the abstract idea of claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Ashby (US 20150045992 A1), in further view of Matsunaga (US 20210107511 A1), in further view of Hara (CN 111267703 B).
Regarding claim 1 Ashby teaches A transport system for a working machine, comprising: a sensor to sense surroundings of the working machine configured to perform automatic operation, the sensor being provided in or on the working machine; (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Ashby does not teach and a transport determiner configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working machine onto and/or unload the working machine from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working machine sensed by the sensor.
Hara in analogous art, teaches and a transport determiner (Hara page 3 paragraph 7 reads “In the present embodiment, the vehicle 12 includes the control device 200 , and the traveling robot 40 includes the control device 400 . Furthermore, in the delivery system 10, the control device 200 of the vehicle 12, the control device 400 of the traveling robot 40, the processing server 14, and the smartphone 16 are connected to each other via the network N1. In addition, the control device 200 and the control device 400 are configured to be able to communicate without going through the network N1.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby with that of Hara to include a system that could control the loading and unloading of autonomous vehicles onto a loading vehicle. This would allow the system to better keep track and control each vehicle. (Hara page 2 first paragraph reads “In addition, this document describes that a delivery robot receives a load from a vehicle, travels autonomously, and delivers it to a delivery place. On the other hand, there is room for improvement in order to carry out delivery by a delivery robot after loading more goods in a vehicle storing a plurality of delivery robots.”);
Ashby/Hara does not teach configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working machine onto and/or unload the working machine from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working machine sensed by the sensor.
Matsunaga in analogous art, teaches configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working machine onto and/or unload the working machine from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working machine sensed by the sensor. (Matsunaga [0152] reads “The ECU 90 determines whether or not the space where there is no 3D object is large enough for parking the vehicle 100 (with sufficient margin) in a viewpoint of a scale and a shape of the space. When the space where there is no 3D object is determined to be large enough for parking of the vehicle 100, the ECU 90 determines/recognize/regards that space as the “parking possible space/spot”.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that an autonomous vehicle understanding its surroundings to park in a parking spot would perform the same process regardless of the location of the parking spot. I.e. on a trailer.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara with that of Matsunaga to include sensors and controls on the vehicle that is to be transported. This would allow the vehicle to perform better during autonomous operation. (Matsunaga [0006] reads “The present disclosure has been made in order to cope with the above-described problem. That is, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a parking assist apparatus that can offer an improved function to assist a user of a vehicle to monitor a target parking space at which a vehicle is to be parked through an autonomous parking control. Hereinafter, the parking assist apparatus according to the present disclosure is sometimes referred to as the “present disclosed parking assist apparatus”.”);
Regarding claim 2 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The transport system according to claim 1, further comprising a communication device provided in or on the working machine and configured or programmed to transmit information relating to loading and/or unloading of the working machine onto and/or from the transport vehicle. (Hara page 3 paragraph 9 reads “In the present embodiment, the vehicle 12 includes the control device 200 , and the traveling robot 40 includes the control device 400. Furthermore, in the delivery system 10, the control device 200 of the vehicle 12, the control device 400 of the traveling robot 40, the processing server 14, and the smartphone 16 are connected to each other via the network N1. In addition, the control device 200 and the control device 400 are configured to be able to communicate without going through the network N1. Among them, communication between devices is based on standards such as LTE (Long Term Evolution) and Wi-Fi (registered trademark), for example.”);
Regarding claim 3 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The transport system according to claim 2, wherein the communication device is configured or programmed to, if the transport determiner makes a determination that it is not possible to load the working machine onto the transport vehicle or unload the working machine from the transport vehicle, (Matsunaga [0152] reads “The ECU 90 determines whether or not the space where there is no 3D object is large enough for parking the vehicle 100 (with sufficient margin) in a viewpoint of a scale and a shape of the space. When the space where there is no 3D object is determined to be large enough for parking of the vehicle 100, the ECU 90 determines/recognize/regards that space as the “parking possible space/spot”.”);
transmit the information which is the determination to the transport vehicle. (Hara page 3 paragraph 9 reads “In the present embodiment, the vehicle 12 includes the control device 200 , and the traveling robot 40 includes the control device 400. Furthermore, in the delivery system 10, the control device 200 of the vehicle 12, the control device 400 of the traveling robot 40, the processing server 14, and the smartphone 16 are connected to each other via the network N1. In addition, the control device 200 and the control device 400 are configured to be able to communicate without going through the network N1. Among them, communication between devices is based on standards such as LTE (Long Term Evolution) and Wi-Fi (registered trademark), for example.”);
Regarding claim 9 Ashby teaches A working machine comprising: a working vehicle; a sensor provided in or on the working vehicle to sense surroundings of the working vehicle; (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Ashby does not teach and a transport determiner configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working vehicle onto and/or unload the working vehicle from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working vehicle sensed by the sensor.
Hara in analogous art, teaches and a transport determiner (Hara abstract reads “The present invention relates to a distribution system, and provides a vehicle capable of storing more cargoes in the distribution system for distributing cargoes by a vehicle and a moving object stored in the vehicle. The distribution system (10) is provided with a vehicle (12) for storing goods (P) and a traveling robot (40) which is stored in the vehicle (12) and can move from the vehicle (12) to the outside of the vehicle.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby with that of Hara to include a system that could control the loading and unloading of autonomous vehicles onto a loading vehicle. This would allow the system to better keep track and control each vehicle. (Hara page 2 first paragraph reads “In addition, this document describes that a delivery robot receives a load from a vehicle, travels autonomously, and delivers it to a delivery place. On the other hand, there is room for improvement in order to carry out delivery by a delivery robot after loading more goods in a vehicle storing a plurality of delivery robots.”);
Ashby/Hara does not teach configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working vehicle onto and/or unload the working vehicle from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working vehicle sensed by the sensor.
Matsunaga in analogous art, teaches configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working vehicle onto and/or unload the working vehicle from a transport vehicle based on the surroundings of the working vehicle sensed by the sensor. (Matsunaga [0152] reads “The ECU 90 determines whether or not the space where there is no 3D object is large enough for parking the vehicle 100 (with sufficient margin) in a viewpoint of a scale and a shape of the space. When the space where there is no 3D object is determined to be large enough for parking of the vehicle 100, the ECU 90 determines/recognize/regards that space as the “parking possible space/spot”.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that an autonomous vehicle understanding its surroundings to park in a parking spot would perform the same process regardless of the location of the parking spot. I.e. on a trailer.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara with that of Matsunaga to include sensors and controls on the vehicle that is to be transported. This would allow the vehicle to perform better during autonomous operation. (Matsunaga [0006] reads “The present disclosure has been made in order to cope with the above-described problem. That is, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a parking assist apparatus that can offer an improved function to assist a user of a vehicle to monitor a target parking space at which a vehicle is to be parked through an autonomous parking control. Hereinafter, the parking assist apparatus according to the present disclosure is sometimes referred to as the “present disclosed parking assist apparatus”.”);
Regarding claim 10 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The working machine according to claim 9, further comprising a controller configured or programmed to cause the working vehicle to travel by automatic operation toward a bridge plate of the transport vehicle when it is possible to load the working vehicle onto the transport vehicle. (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Regarding claim 11 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The working machine according to claim 10, wherein the sensor is operable to sense the bridge plate and/or the transport vehicle while the working vehicle travels by the automatic operation toward the transport vehicle. (Matsunaga [0149] reads “The ECU 90 receives the sonar object information from the clearance sonars 313 and the radar sensor object information form the radar sensors 51, every time a predetermined time elapses. The ECU 90 plots positions of the 3D objects based on the sonar object information and the radar sensor object information, on a two dimensional map (i.e., a two dimensional coordinate system).”);
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga, in further view of Brooks (US 20160104364 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The transport system according to claim 2 the communication device is configured or programmed to transmit, to the transport vehicle, the information which is vehicle size information relating to a vehicle size of the working machine; (Hara page 3 paragraph 9 reads “In the present embodiment, the vehicle 12 includes the control device 200 , and the traveling robot 40 includes the control device 400. Furthermore, in the delivery system 10, the control device 200 of the vehicle 12, the control device 400 of the traveling robot 40, the processing server 14, and the smartphone 16 are connected to each other via the network N1. In addition, the control device 200 and the control device 400 are configured to be able to communicate without going through the network N1. Among them, communication between devices is based on standards such as LTE (Long Term Evolution) and Wi-Fi (registered trademark), for example.”);
and the adjustment mechanism is operable to adjust the position of the bridge plate based on the vehicle size information. (MPEP § 2144.III states that In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga does not teach wherein the transport vehicle includes a bridge plate and an adjustment mechanism to adjust a position of the bridge plate;
Brooks in analogous art, teaches wherein the transport vehicle includes a bridge plate and an adjustment mechanism to adjust a position of the bridge plate; (Brooks [0016] reads “In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods determine when the deck is raised to an elevation relative to a vehicle sufficient to allow a lip of the dock leveler system to be extended between a stored position and a deployed position (e.g., to be extended from a front edge of the deck) without interference with a lower rear edge of a vehicle parked at the loading dock. In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods disclosed herein determine whether an incline of the deck is at an angle greater than (e.g., that may be too steep relative to) a minimum angle required for certain material handling equipment to traverse the deck such as, for example, automatic guided vehicles. In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods disclosed herein determine whether a cargo door of a vehicle is in open position or a closed position when the vehicle is parked at the loading dock.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Brooks to include a controllable bridge plate. This would allow the system to have better control over loading conditions of the transporter. (Brooks abstract reads “Methods and apparatus for monitoring a dock leveler are disclosed herein. One example dock leveler system for use at a doorway of a loading dock, where a body is sometimes present at the loading dock, includes a deck movable between a raised position and a lowered position. The example dock leveler system also includes a sensor having a field of view extending over the deck when the deck is in the lowered position. The sensor is in a normal state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is off the deck, the sensor is in a triggered state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is on the deck interrupting the field of view, and the sensor is in the triggered state when the deck is in the raised position with the deck interrupting the field of view regardless of whether the body is on or off the deck.”);
Regarding claim 7 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga/Brooks teaches The transport system according to claim 4, wherein the sensor is operable to sense the position of the bridge plate; (Brooks figure 1 depicts a sensor that can monitor the position of a bridge plate.);
PNG
media_image1.png
471
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brooks Fig 1
the transport determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working machine onto the transport vehicle based on the position of the bridge plate; (Brooks [0032] reads “As a result, an incline or slope of the deck 14 (e.g., an angle relative to horizontal or the ground between a first end of the deck 14 and the lip 18) may be too steep or high for some material handling equipment, particularly automatic guided vehicles, to traverse. As a result, such material handling equipment will have difficulty traveling up the incline of the deck 14. So, in some examples, the sensor 26 and/or the controller 50 senses and/or determines when the deck 14 is at such an extreme inclined position based on the deck's effect on the sensor's field of view 28. In some examples, the controller 50 responds to sensor 26 by emitting a signal that indicates that an incline of the deck 14 is too high for some material handling equipment.”);
and the working machine is operable to travel by the automatic operation toward the bridge plate of the transport vehicle when it is possible to load the working machine onto the transport vehicle. (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Regarding claim 8 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga/Brooks teaches The transport system according to claim 4, wherein the sensor is operable to sense the position of the bridge plate; (Brooks figure 1 depicts a sensor that can monitor the position of a bridge plate.);
PNG
media_image1.png
471
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brooks Fig. 1
the transport determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to unload the working machine from the transport vehicle based on the position of the bridge plate; (Brooks [0032] reads “As a result, an incline or slope of the deck 14 (e.g., an angle relative to horizontal or the ground between a first end of the deck 14 and the lip 18) may be too steep or high for some material handling equipment, particularly automatic guided vehicles, to traverse. As a result, such material handling equipment will have difficulty traveling up the incline of the deck 14. So, in some examples, the sensor 26 and/or the controller 50 senses and/or determines when the deck 14 is at such an extreme inclined position based on the deck's effect on the sensor's field of view 28. In some examples, the controller 50 responds to sensor 26 by emitting a signal that indicates that an incline of the deck 14 is too high for some material handling equipment.”);
and the working machine is operable to travel by the automatic operation toward the bridge plate of the transport vehicle when it is possible to unload the working machine from the transport vehicle. (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Regarding claim 13 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The working machine according to claim 10 and the adjustment mechanism is operable to adjust the position of the bridge plate based on vehicle size information of the working vehicle. (MPEP § 2144.III states that In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Similarly, Claim 8 should be rejected because it is substantially the same and does not further limit the scope of the invention.).
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga does not teach wherein the transport vehicle includes an adjustment mechanism to adjust a position of the bridge plate;
Brooks in analogous art, teaches Wherein the transport vehicle includes an adjustment mechanism to adjust a position of the bridge plate; (Brooks [0016] reads “In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods determine when the deck is raised to an elevation relative to a vehicle sufficient to allow a lip of the dock leveler system to be extended between a stored position and a deployed position (e.g., to be extended from a front edge of the deck) without interference with a lower rear edge of a vehicle parked at the loading dock. In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods disclosed herein determine whether an incline of the deck is at an angle greater than (e.g., that may be too steep relative to) a minimum angle required for certain material handling equipment to traverse the deck such as, for example, automatic guided vehicles. In some examples, the dock leveler systems and methods disclosed herein determine whether a cargo door of a vehicle is in open position or a closed position when the vehicle is parked at the loading dock.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Brooks to include a controllable bridge plate. This would allow the system to have better control over loading conditions of the transporter. (Brooks abstract reads “Methods and apparatus for monitoring a dock leveler are disclosed herein. One example dock leveler system for use at a doorway of a loading dock, where a body is sometimes present at the loading dock, includes a deck movable between a raised position and a lowered position. The example dock leveler system also includes a sensor having a field of view extending over the deck when the deck is in the lowered position. The sensor is in a normal state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is off the deck, the sensor is in a triggered state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is on the deck interrupting the field of view, and the sensor is in the triggered state when the deck is in the raised position with the deck interrupting the field of view regardless of whether the body is on or off the deck.”);
Regarding claim 14 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The working machine according to claim 11 and the working vehicle is operable to travel by the automatic operation toward the bridge plate of the transport vehicle when it is possible to load the working vehicle onto the transport vehicle. (Ashby [0070] reads “Auto loading of vehicle on to a trailer—Using the environment sensors the vehicle 10 autonomously drives up the ramp and positions itself on the trailer.”);
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga does not teach wherein the sensor is operable to sense a position of the bridge plate; the transport determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working vehicle onto the transport vehicle based on the position of the bridge plate;
Brooks in analogous art, teaches wherein the sensor is operable to sense a position of the bridge plate; (Brooks figure 1 depicts a sensor that can monitor the position of a bridge plate.);
PNG
media_image2.png
471
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brooks Fig. 1
the transport determiner is configured or programmed to determine whether it is possible to load the working vehicle onto the transport vehicle based on the position of the bridge plate; (Brooks [0032] reads “As a result, an incline or slope of the deck 14 (e.g., an angle relative to horizontal or the ground between a first end of the deck 14 and the lip 18) may be too steep or high for some material handling equipment, particularly automatic guided vehicles, to traverse. As a result, such material handling equipment will have difficulty traveling up the incline of the deck 14. So, in some examples, the sensor 26 and/or the controller 50 senses and/or determines when the deck 14 is at such an extreme inclined position based on the deck's effect on the sensor's field of view 28. In some examples, the controller 50 responds to sensor 26 by emitting a signal that indicates that an incline of the deck 14 is too high for some material handling equipment.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Brooks to include a controllable bridge plate. This would allow the system to have better control over loading conditions of the transporter. (Brooks abstract reads “Methods and apparatus for monitoring a dock leveler are disclosed herein. One example dock leveler system for use at a doorway of a loading dock, where a body is sometimes present at the loading dock, includes a deck movable between a raised position and a lowered position. The example dock leveler system also includes a sensor having a field of view extending over the deck when the deck is in the lowered position. The sensor is in a normal state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is off the deck, the sensor is in a triggered state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is on the deck interrupting the field of view, and the sensor is in the triggered state when the deck is in the raised position with the deck interrupting the field of view regardless of whether the body is on or off the deck.”);
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga, in further view of Ewert (US 20200239019 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The transport system according to claim 2, wherein the transport vehicle includes a bridge plate; (Hara figure 6 depicts a transport vehicle with a bridge plate);
PNG
media_image3.png
285
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hara Fig. 6
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga does not teach and the communication device is configured or programmed to transmit, to a display, the information which is vehicle size information relating to a vehicle size of the working machine, and the display is operable to display the vehicle size information.
Ewert in analogous art, teaches and the communication device is configured or programmed to transmit, to a display, the information which is vehicle size information relating to a vehicle size of the working machine, and the display is operable to display the vehicle size information. (Ewert [0012] reads “In addition, further data, such as vehicle identification number, vehicle type, the vehicle size, the planned trajectory during the transfer into the safe state, as well as the present manual or autonomous operating mode may be transmitted to the at least one second vehicle.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Ewert to include a method that would allow for more data to be transferred between vehicles. This would allow the system to better adjust and control itself during operation. (Ewert [0003] reads “During a car-to-car communication, data of a vehicle, such as ABS interventions, steering angle, position, direction, and speed, may be collected and transmitted to the other road users via a radio link, such as WLAN or UMTS. A car-to-infrastructure communication is understood to mean the exchange of data between a vehicle and the surrounding infrastructure, such as traffic light installations. At present, a calculation of the other road users surrounding a vehicle takes place via observation of their trajectories. It is not possible, however, to plan ahead and prepare for an evasive maneuver in the event of a foreseeable potential hazardous situation.”);
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga/Ewert, in further view of Brooks (US 20160104364 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga/Ewert teaches The transport system according to claim 5.
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga/Ewert does not teach wherein the communication device is configured or programmed to transmit, to the display, the information which is travel information including a position of the bridge plate and/or an angle of the bridge plate to enable the working machine to pass over the bridge plate, and the display is operable to display the travel information.
Brooks in analogous art, teaches wherein the communication device is configured or programmed to transmit, to the display, the information which is travel information including a position of the bridge plate and/or an angle of the bridge plate to enable the working machine to pass over the bridge plate, (Brooks [0032] reads “ As a result, an incline or slope of the deck 14 (e.g., an angle relative to horizontal or the ground between a first end of the deck 14 and the lip 18) may be too steep or high for some material handling equipment, particularly automatic guided vehicles, to traverse. As a result, such material handling equipment will have difficulty traveling up the incline of the deck 14. So, in some examples, the sensor 26 and/or the controller 50 senses and/or determines when the deck 14 is at such an extreme inclined position based on the deck's effect on the sensor's field of view 28. In some examples, the controller 50 responds to sensor 26 by emitting a signal that indicates that an incline of the deck 14 is too high for some material handling equipment.”);
and the display is operable to display the travel information. (Brooks [0045] reads “In some examples, an alert is generated and/or displayed at the reporter 1114 (block 1310) and the process ends (block 1312).” And [0051] reads “One or more output devices 1424 are also connected to the interface circuit 1420 of the illustrated example. The output devices 1024 can be implemented, for example, by display devices (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a liquid crystal display, a cathode ray tube display (CRT), a touchscreen, a tactile output device, a printer and/or speakers).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Brooks to include a controllable bridge plate. This would allow the system to have better control over loading conditions of the transporter. (Brooks abstract reads “Methods and apparatus for monitoring a dock leveler are disclosed herein. One example dock leveler system for use at a doorway of a loading dock, where a body is sometimes present at the loading dock, includes a deck movable between a raised position and a lowered position. The example dock leveler system also includes a sensor having a field of view extending over the deck when the deck is in the lowered position. The sensor is in a normal state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is off the deck, the sensor is in a triggered state when the deck is in the lowered position while the body is on the deck interrupting the field of view, and the sensor is in the triggered state when the deck is in the raised position with the deck interrupting the field of view regardless of whether the body is on or off the deck.”);
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga, in further view of Zarco (NPL | Trailer Reverse Assist. Optical Follow Me | 2017).
Regarding claim 12 Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga teaches The working machine according to claim 11.
Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga does not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to stop the automatic operation or cause the working vehicle to travel backward when the sensor senses a change in a position of the bridge plate and/or the transport vehicle.
Zarco in analogous art, teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to stop the automatic operation or cause the working vehicle to travel backward when the sensor senses a change in a position of the bridge plate and/or the transport vehicle. (Zarco page 103 paragraphs 2 and 4 read “The second test-case consisted in moving an object towards the vehicle’s path when it was following a person. Once the vehicle stopped, the obstacle was removed in order to allow the vehicle to continue moving” and “Finally, in Figure 4-21 the results from the test-case can be verified. As soon as the obstacle appeared behind the truck, then, the vehicle stopped. Once the obstacle was removed, the backwards movement was resumed and the system continued to follow the person.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ashby/Hara/Matsunaga with that of Zarco to include a method that allows for the system to respond to sudden changes in its environment. This would allow the system to reduce collisions that would have otherwise happened. (Zarco abstract reads “The objective of this work is to perform a proof of-concept of a system which aids the user in the process of backing up a trailer through the desired trajectory where limited visibility is present. This was accomplished by developing an add-on feature capable of tracking a helping person”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Haid (US 11731833 B2); Armbrust (US 11592815 B2); Holmqvist (US 20040158355 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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 MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658’
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658