DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 19, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of March 21, 2024 has been considered during examination.
The substitute specification has been ENTERED.
The drawings of December 21, 2023 are hereby accepted as FORMAL
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Objection to the Abstract
The abstract is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.72(b) in that the sheet containing the abstract contains “other material,” namely, “(Fig. 1).”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Objection to the Drawings
The text of 37 CFR 1.84(o) is as follows:
“(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.” (Bold added).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) because certain drawing elements lack “suitable descriptive legends” that are necessary for “understanding of the drawing,” which “suitable descriptive legends” are hereby “required by the examiner” for the following listed drawing elements: in Figure 2, elements 40,16, 74, 22, 26, and 58; and, in Figure 5, elements 86, 88, 90, 92, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 80, 82, and 84.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, and, 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On lines 2-3 of dependent claim 3, the phrase, “based on M-sequence technology” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it does not clearly and definitely claim particular hardware.
On line 3 of dependent claim 5, the claim language, “living beings, in particular humans and/or animals” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it claims a range within a range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “living beings,” and the claim also recites “humans and/or animals” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
On lines 3-4 of dependent claim 11, “a communication module, in particular a wireless or wired communication module”
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
On lines 3-4 of dependent claim 11, the claim language, “a communication module, in particular a wireless or wired communication module” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it claims a range within a range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a communication module”, and the claim also recites “a wireless or wired communication module” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
On lines 2-3 of dependent claim 12, the claim language, “the radar and/or lidar sensor unit, in particular of the ultra-wideband radar sensor” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it is not clear if the broader “radar and/or lidar” is claimed, or, only the narrower “ultra-wideband radar sensor.” Substantially the same remarks apply to the same language in dependent claim 16.
On line 3 of dependent claim 13, the claim language “at least two, preferably at least four” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether “two or more” is claimed, or, “four or more” is claimed.
On line 1 of dependent claim 17, the claim language, “A vehicle, in particular a goods wagon or truck” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether the broader “vehicle” is meant, or, the narrower “goods wagon or truck” is meant.
On lines 1-2 of dependent claim 17, “A vehicle, in particular a goods wagon or truck, preferably autonomously driving truck” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether the broader “vehicle” is meant, or, the narrower “goods wagon or truck” or whether the “autonomously driving truck” is meant. It is noted that “autonomously driving truck” is missing a modifying article.
On line 4 of claim 18, the use of “preferably” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
On line 8 of claim 19, the use of “in particular” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
On lines 9-10 of claim 19, the use of “in particular” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
Regarding claim 19, the word "optionally" (line 14) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
On line 2 of claim 21, the use of “in particular” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
On line 4 of claim 22, the use of “in particular” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
On lines 2 and 3 of claim 24, the uses of “in particular” makes the claim language indefinite and unclear.
Each of dependent claims 19-25 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear claim 18.
Prior Art Rejections
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed (‘437).
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, “A loading surface monitoring device” (line 1) is plainly disclosed by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 2, lines 15-18.
The claim 1 claimed features of “with at least one radar and/or lidar sensor unit” (lines 1-2) is met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 23, lines 34-42, and, column 43 at line 4 (“laser radar system”).
The claim 1 claimed features of “configured for installation on a vehicle and/or on a container and configured for monitoring a vehicle loading surface and/or a container loading surface” are met by Breed (‘437) in that the disclosed cargo monitoring can be with sensors attached to a vehicle or a container, noting, for example, Figure 5; Figure 21; Figure 23A; column 6, lines 27-38; column 24 at lines 8-27 (mentions of “vehicle”); and, column 48 at lines 20-22 (“on wall or floor of a vehicle such as a container”).
Since each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Breed (‘437), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Breed (‘437).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 2, these are, also, met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 37 at lines 35-36. So, the further limitations of dependent claim 2 are anticipated by Breed (‘437).
The further limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6 are met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 43, lines 52-62; column 45, lines 52-58; and, column 46, lines 5-10.
As for the further limitations recited in dependent claim 7, these are met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 48, lines 25-35 (“cuts a hole in a wall”).
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 9, these are met by Breed (‘437), for example, please see column 43, lines 52-62; column 44, lines 29-33; column 46, lines 5-16 and 24-32; column 48, lines 15-35; and, column 52, lines 36-50.
The further limitations of dependent claim 10 are met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 46, lines 46-48.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 46, lines 5-32; column 48, lines 52-55; and, column 52, lines 36-63.
Next, looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 12, these are met by Breed (‘437), noting, for example, column 25, lines 3-4 (“attached to the vehicle roof”); items 482 and 483 in Figure 21; column 40, lines 32-48; column 6, lines 27-29 (“located on the roof, ceiling, or top of the shipping container”); and, column 53, lines 4-16 (“interrogator mounted on the ceiling”).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 13-15, 17, 18, 19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (‘437).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of returned-wave sensing systems.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are not disclosed in Breed (‘437), but Breed (‘437) does mention the use of “spread spectrum” (column 37, lines 25-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try direct-sequence, spread spectrum in the disclosed radar in Breed (‘437) from among the wide number of possibilities of types of modulation in an effort to optimize the functioning of the Breed (‘437) device and to reduce interference, with a reasonable likelihood of success. It is noted that direct-sequence, spread spectrum is an “M-sequence technology,” using maximum length sequences.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 4, Breed (‘437) does disclose radar frequencies in the claimed range of 100 MHz through 6GHz (e.g., 925 MHz in column 13 at lines 43-44; 2.4 GHz in column 23 at lines 16-19), but Breed (‘437) does not disclose radar frequencies in the claimed 6 GHz to 8.5 GHz range, nor does Breed (‘437) disclose the claimed bandwidth of, at least, 500 MHz It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try frequencies in the two claimed ranges and to try bandwidths in the claimed range in an effort to optimize the function of the Breed (‘437) system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Next, regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 8, in that Breed (‘437) discloses the monitoring of individual cargo items in a space, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take notice of both occupied spaces and unoccupied spaces, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try various numbers of radar sensors in various arrangements in an effort to optimize the filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable likelihood of success. In Breed (‘437), please note column 40, lines 41-48 (“multiple pairs of transmitter/receivers”).
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 15 are substantially those made above with respect to claims 13 and 14. Additionally, it is noted that any arrangement of four radar sensors that does not exceed any two of such as being colinear would define a “rectangle.” In Breed (‘437), please note column 40, lines 41-48 (“multiple pairs of transmitter/receivers”).
The further limitations of dependent claim 17 are substantially-met by the general disclosure in Breed (‘437) of a vehicle that carries cargo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed “vehicle” in Breed (‘437) could encompass any known type of vehicle, including the claimed “autonomously driving truck,” with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 are substantially those made above with respect to claims 1-15 and 17, in that claims 18 and 19 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus of claims 1-15 and 17.
The further limitations of dependent claim 23 are met by Breed (‘437) as applied above to independent claim 18, noting, for example, column 48, lines 15-35 (especially noting, “person detector,” “motion sensors … on a wall,” “intruder,” “cuts a hole in a wall,” and “alarm”), and, column 43, lines 52-62 (“motion of objects within the container”).
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 25 are substantially those made above with respect to claims 18 and 23. In addition, please note the mention of “photo” (which is an “image”) in the passage at column 48, lines 15-19. In addition, Breed (‘437) discloses the use of a microphone, noting, column 44, lines 34-38. It is noted that there is a sleep mode in Breed (‘437), where functioning of the Breed (‘437) device/method is started under control of the “wakeup sensor 495.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record the “photo” and “microphone” sound in a report to those monitoring for their use and for the use of law enforcement, noting, for example, column 46, lines 17-32.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 20-22, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao et al (‘771) is of general interest for the disclosed sensor arrangement in a cargo container.
Twitchell, JR. (‘443) is of general interest for the disclosed container security system.
Thomas et al (‘693) is of general interest for the disclosed cargo container tracking system.
Stevens et al (‘101) is of general interest for the disclosed shipping container security system arrangement.
Tice (‘152) is of general interest for the disclosed details of shipping container monitoring.
Ghahramani (‘028) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the tracking and monitoring of shipping containers.
Hsiao et al (‘189) is of general interest for the disclosure related to tracking of trailers.
Romero et al (‘443) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of ultrawideband (UWB) in a smart container.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648