DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
ART REJECTION:
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al(USPGPUB 2006/0202809 A1) in view of Jain et al(USPat 9,354,617 B2).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Lane et al(Lane) includes:
1) a plurality of sensors is met by the sensor(208), which can include any type sensor that senses shape, size, position or other characteristics of the inside of the trailer(see: Lane, sec[0024]);
2) a cargo loss detection system comprising a processor and memory device is met by the cargo sensing logic(302), which comprises a processor, CPU, and software which allows the logic to function and receive sensor input(316) from sensor(208)(see: sec[208]); Although Lane does not specifically recite the use of a memory storing instructions, Lane does state that the logic(302) does include software, which would have inherently required some form of memory(not shown) to store the software that causes the functioning of the logic(302);
3) the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processor configure the processor to: receive, from the plurality of sensors, sensor data representing a plurality of cargo loss related conditions; determine a cargo loss event has occurred; transmit a lost cargo detection signal to an external receiver is met by the software(not shown) of the cargo sensing logic(302) of the detection processor(210) which processes the sensor inputs(316) to determine a cargo state at any given time, such that trigger events based on input from any type of sensor, such as door sensor, vibration sensor, connection sensor, trigger the cargo sensing logic(302) to detect the cargo state(see: Lane, sec[0037]), and wherein the cargo sensing logic(302), and communicates with a remote station via an MCT to provide cargo state information determined from the sensor(208)(see: Lane, secs[0026-0027;0045]).
- Lane does not teach:
1) determining a cargo loss event has occurred based on a combination of more than one cargo loss related conditions of the plurality of cargo loss related conditions.
Use of systems that determine cargo events based on a combination of detected trigger events is well known. In related art, Jain et al(Jain) teaches a tractor trailer monitoring system, wherein sensors detect various parameters pertaining to an interior of a monitored trailer(12)(see: Jain, column 4, lines 42-49]). As well, Jain teaches that a combination of trigger events determine a cargo loss related condition. In particular, Jain teaches that information from door contact sensors(20), can be used for detecting the possible presence of a human intruder. The combination occurs when a door contact sensor detects a door being opened, and in response, causes a signal to be sent to motion detector(22) which begins monitoring the interior of the trailer space for motion(see: Jain, column 5, lines 1-12).
Since the use of monitoring systems which require a combination of trigger events for the purpose of determining loss related conditions is well known, as taught by Jain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the combination detection sequence of Jain, into the system of Lane, since this would have helped alleviate false alarms, and as well, would have provided a more comprehensive measure of cargo loss conditions occurring, by providing redundancy measures in the determination.
-- With regards to claim 2, Lane does not teach:
1) the plurality of sensors includes one or more magnetic sensors, one or more electrical contact sensors, one or more infrared sensors, one or more cameras, one or more proximity sensors, one or more presence detection sensors, one or more location sensors, one or more light sensors.
However, upon incorporation of Jain into Lane, as discussed in claim 1 above, Jain does teach the use of sensors including magnetic environmental sensors, electrical contact sensors, daylight sensors, presence detection sensors(in the form of motion detectors which are calibrated to sense human or non-human movement within the trailer)(see: Jain, column 5, lines 13-55). As well, the examiner takes Official Notice that in the field of tractor trailer monitoring, use of infrared sensors, cameras, proximity sensors, and locations sensors are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate infrared sensors, cameras, proximity sensors, and location sensors, along with the above stated sensors of Jain, into the system of Lane, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized the most comprehensive collection of sensors which would have provided the desired results for loss related conditions.
Further, Lane states that virtually any type of sensor that senses the shape, size, position or other characteristics inside of the monitored trailer, would have been suitable for use in the cargo detection system(see: Lane, sec[0024; 0037]). Therefore, this would have provided motivation for one of ordinary skill to utilize any sensor type as desired that would have been beneficial to the system in determining trigger events for protection against cargo loss.
-- With regards to claim 3, Lane does not show:
1) the vehicle includes a trailer having at least one trailer door and oriented longitudinally front to back;
2) wherein the plurality of cargo-loss related conditions includes a longitudinal movement of a cargo inside the trailer, an open trailer door, or absence of the cargo.
However, Lane teaches the use of a trailer as seen in figure 2, and therefore the trailer would have inherently included some form of opening, since this would have been necessary to place items in and take items out of the trailer. As well, Lane does desire to monitor status of a door, since it teaches the use of a door sensor(see: Lane, sec[0037]), and this would have constituted the loss related condition including an open trailer door.
-- With regards to claim 4, Lane does not specifically teach:
1) the longitudinal movement of the cargo inside the trailer is detected using one or more infrared sensors.
However, Lane does desire to monitor shifting movement of cargo within the trailer(see: Lane, sec[0009]. As discussed in claim 2 above, the examiner took Official Notice that use of infrared sensors for monitoring movement on the interior of trailers is well known. Therefore, upon incorporation of the sensors into Lane, as discussed in claim 2 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an infrared sensor for determining longitudinal movement of cargo within the trailers, since infrared sensors are accurate, energy efficient, and reliable in low light environments, which is highly beneficial for determining movement in a closed trailer, which would have virtually no light interiorly when closed and locked.
-- With regards to claim 5, to further expound on the subject matter of claim 4, upon incorporation of the infrared sensors into the system of Lane, as discussed above, it would have also been beneficial to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the one or more infrared sensors proximate to the at least one trailer door, since this would have been a primary entry point of a would be intruder, into the trailer, and therefore, positioning the infrared sensors proximate the door would have provided the best opportunity for the sensors to detect intrusion at the earliest point and at the only entrance.
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the open trailer door is detected using one or more electrical contact sensors or one or more magnetic sensors is met, since Jain teaches the use of door contact sensors along with magnetic sensors, each of which would have been readily incorporated into the system of Lane, for the reasons as discussed in claim 2 above.
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the one or more magnetic sensors or the one or more electrical contact sensors are positioned on the at least one trailer door are met, since the contact sensors of Lane are door contact sensors, which would have been required to be positioned on the trailer door to be functional.
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the absence of the cargo is detected using one or more proximity sensors, one or more presence detection sensors, or one or more location sensors is met by the sensor(208) of Lane, which comprises an ultrasonic sensor, which operates to sense whether or not there is cargo in the trailer(see: Lane, sec[0024]).
-- With regards to claim 9, although the position of the proximity, presence detection and location sensors are not disclosed by Lane or Jain, upon incorporation of theses sensors into the system of Lane, as discussed in claim 2 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the one or more proximity sensors, the one or more presence detection sensors, or the one or more location sensors are positioned on the cargo that is nearest to the at least one trailer door, since one of ordinary skill would have readily recognized the most advantageous position of any sensor within the system, that would have provided the desired results in the most efficient and beneficial way possible. Therefore, positioning the above claimed sensors nearest to the at least one trailer door, would have been beneficial, because it would have allowed detection at the earliest possible time of potential cargo loss events, since a loss event would have most likely occurred do to intrusion by an intruder at the opening to the cargo trailer.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) the vehicle includes a trailer having at least one trailer door and oriented longitudinally front to back is met by the trailer of Lane, as seen in figure 2, including some form of door, as discussed in claim 3 above.
- Lane does not teach:
1) wherein determining the cargo loss event has occurred is based on the combination including an open trailer door and absence of the cargo.
As discussed in claim 1 above, although Lane does not teach cargo loss based on a combination of events, Jain does teach a combination of events prior to determining a cargo loss event occurring(see: Jain, column 5, lines 1-12). Jain teaches a detected door intrusion signal, causing a motion detector to awaken, and therefore verify detection of intrusion, prior to establishing a cargo loss event occurring. Since this concept of combining triggering events to establish a cargo loss event is already taught by Jain, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize any combination of sensors for detected events, for the purpose of establishing redundancy, and thereby alleviating potential false alarms in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a combination of detected door opening, and as well, absence of cargo by the ultrasonic sensor(208) of Lane, for the purpose of determining a cargo loss event, since this would have been beneficial to the system by establishing 2-step authentication, by utilizing multiple triggers, prior to initiating a loss event trigger.
-- Claim 11 is met for similar reasons as discussed in claim 10, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the cargo loss event has occurred based on a sequence of cargo loss related conditions including an open trailer door followed by longitudinal movement of a cargo inside the trailer, since this would have been beneficial to the system by establishing 2-step authentication, by utilizing multiple triggers, prior to initiating a loss event trigger.
-- Claim 12 is met for similar reasons as discussed in claim 10, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the cargo loss event has occurred based on a sequence including longitudinal movement of a cargo inside the trailer followed by an open trailer door, since this would have been beneficial to the system by establishing 2-step authentication, by utilizing multiple triggers, prior to initiating a loss event trigger.
-- Claim 13 is met for similar reasons as discussed in claim 10, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the cargo loss event has occurred based on the combination including an open trailer door and longitudinal movement of a cargo inside the trailer, since this would have been beneficial to the system by establishing 2-step authentication, by utilizing multiple triggers, prior to initiating a loss event trigger.
-- Claim 14 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the system of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 15 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 5 and 12. Therefore, claim 15 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5,12, and 14 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 6 and 7. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 6,7, and 14 above, as well as:
1) the plurality of cargo-loss related conditions includes an open trailer door is met by the trigger event being a door sensor(see: Lane, sec[0037]);
2) determining the cargo loss event has occurred includes detecting the at least one trailer door is the open trailer door using the one or more electrical contact sensors or one or more magnetic sensors is met by the door contact sensors determining a door opening, as taught by Jain, being incorporated into the system of Lane, as discussed in claim 1 above.
-- Claim 17 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 10 and 11. Therefore, claim 17 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 10,11, and 14 above.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 14, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 11 and 12. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 11,12, and 14 above.
-- Claim 19 recites a vehicle that substantially corresponds to the system of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) the tractor is met by the tractor portion of the vehicle, as seen in figure 1 of Lane;
2) the trailer connectable to the tractor is met by the trailer portion of the vehicle, which is seen in figure 1, and being connectable to the tractor portion, based on the connection sensor that senses which the delivery portion of the vehicle is connected to a tractor portion(see: Lane, sec[0037]).
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claims 2 and 3. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2,3, and 19 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In related art, Nalepka et al(USPGPUB 2016/0050356 A1) teaches a system and method for onboard event detection, wherein a tractor and trailer include a monitoring system which utilizes cameras and other sensors, and logs event data to determine alerts pertaining to the safety of merchandise being transported and transmits the detected event to a remote central office(see: Nalepka, sec[0072-0073]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686