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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, line 14, “a tension sensor” appears to be a double recitation of the same which is recited in line 5 of the claim. This rejection could be overcome by replacing “a tension sensor,” in line 14, with “said” or “the” tension sensor.
In claim 2, line 3 “a spring-loaded magnet-holder” appears to be a double recitation of the same which is recited in line 2 of claim 2. This rejection could be overcome by replacing “a spring-loaded magnet-holder,” in line 3 with “said” or “the” spring-loaded magnet-holder.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,199 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341).
With respect to claim 1 of the instant application, the patent recites the claimed invention except for the tension sensor being disposed in the upper housing Claim 2 of the patent recites all the structure of claim 1 of the instant application except for the tension sensor being disposed in the upper housing. Claim 2 of the patent recites the structure of claim 1 of the instant application as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,993,199
1. A cargo strap tension monitoring device for use with a cargo strap used for stabilizing a load on a vehicle, the cargo strap tension monitoring device comprising:
an upper housing;
1. A cargo strap tension monitoring device comprising:
an upper housing and
a lower housing removably attached to the upper housing;
a lower housing connected by a hinge and said cargo strap tension monitoring device, the upper housing having an upper housing hinge side and an upper housing latch side, the lower housing having a lower housing hinge side and a lower housing latch side, and
wherein the upper and lower housings are latched together on the latch side of the upper housing and lower housing by a latch;
a tension sensor for sensing tension of the cargo strap when the cargo strap tension monitoring device is engaged with the cargo strap;
said cargo strap tension monitoring device having a sensor and said cargo strap tension monitoring device is clamped onto a cargo strap used with a vehicle;
a circuit board assembly having the tension sensor connected thereto;
a circuit board assembly
a battery for providing power to the circuit board assembly;
a battery positioned in the lower housing and a microprocessor disposed on the circuit board assembly.
a first rigid support disposed in the lower housing extending toward the upper housing and a second rigid support disposed in the lower housing extending toward the upper housing, the first rigid support parallel to and spaced a distance from the second rigid support;
wherein the cargo strap rests on a first rigid support and a second rigid support and is in contact with a spring-loaded magnet holder such that the strap forces deflect the spring-loaded magnet holder as a function of strap tension;
a cavity disposed between the first rigid support and the second rigid support;
and said spring-loaded magnet holder is a spring-loaded mechanism located between said first support and said second support (the space occupied by the spring-loaded mechanism being a cavity)
a tension sensor, the tension sensor for providing a tension signal to the circuit board assembly;
said cargo strap tension monitoring device having a sensor
wherein the tension sensor determines tension of the cargo strap when the cargo strap is engaged in the cargo strap tension monitoring device and the cargo strap tension monitoring device is in a closed position.
(claim 2) the cargo strap tension monitoring device is installed by clamping the cargo strap tension monitoring device onto said cargo strap. (i.e., closed position).
Wenzel et al. disclose a similar cargo strap tension monitoring device including a tension sensor 28 disposed in an upper housing 20 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Wenzel et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Wenzel et al. with the claim recited by claim 4 of the patent because It would have been obvious to try. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., locating the tension sensor in the upper housing or the lower housing). Furthermore, placing the tension sensor in the upper housing would have a reasonable expectation of success because the tension sensor would be placed adjacent the cargo strap 12, and thus ready for measuring strap tension, when the upper housing 20 is in the closed position (as shown in Fig. 2 of Wenzel et al.).
With respect to claim 2 of the instant application, claim 1of the patent recites all the structure as outlined below:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,993,199
2. The cargo strap tension monitoring device according to claim 1 wherein the tension sensor is a spring-loaded magnet holder movable within the first rigid support and the second rigid support
(claim 1) said spring-loaded magnet holder is a spring-loaded mechanism located between said first support and said second support such that the strap forces deflect the spring-loaded magnet holder as a function of strap tension; and
wherein a spring-loaded magnet-holder includes a magnet interacting.
wherein the spring-loaded magnet-holder includes a magnet interacting with said sensor to monitor tension in said cargo strap
With respect to claim 3, Wenzel et al. teach a battery 42 that is a rechargeable battery (Wenzel et al., paragraph [0042]; Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2003/0111835) in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341).
With respect to claim 1, Sullivan et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tensions monitoring device except for the battery for providing power to the circuit board assembly. Sullivan et al. disclose a cargo strap tension monitoring device 10 for use with a cargo strap used for stabilizing a load on a vehicle, the cargo strap tension monitoring device comprising:
an upper housing 28;
a lower housing 30 removably attached to the upper housing 28 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Sullivan et al.––note, housing 28 is an upper housing if the device 10 is held in an upside down position with respect to Fig. 4);
a tension sensor 56-64 for sensing tension of the cargo strap 24 when the cargo strap tension monitoring device 10 is engaged with the cargo strap 24 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Sullivan eta l.);
a circuit board assembly having the tension sensor 24 connected thereto (“the Hall effect sensor 64 may be mounted on a circuit board (not shown),” Sullivan et al, paragraph [0021]);
a first rigid support 50 disposed in the lower housing 30 extending toward the upper housing 28 and a second rigid support 50 disposed in the lower housing 30 extending toward the upper housing 28 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Sullivan et al.), the first rigid support 34 parallel to and spaced a distance from the second rigid support 34;
a cavity 32 disposed between the first rigid support 34 and the second rigid support 34 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Sullivan et al.);
a tension sensor 56-64 disposed in the upper housing, the tension sensor for providing a tension signal to the circuit board assembly; wherein the tension sensor determines tension of the cargo strap when the cargo strap is engaged in the cargo strap tension monitoring device and the cargo strap tension monitoring device is in a closed position.
Wenzel et al. teach a similar cargo strap tension monitoring device 10 including a battery 52 for providing power to a circuit board assembly 56 (Wenzel et al., paragraph [0040]; Fig. 5).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Wenzel et al. with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. for the advantage of not requiring a user to wire the monitoring device to the vehicle’s power supply as disclosed by Sullivan et al. (Sullivan et al., paragraph [0021]).
With respect to claim 2, Sullivan et al. disclose that the tension sensor 56-64 is a spring-loaded magnet holder movable (actuator 58 holds magnet 62 and is spring-loaded by springs 56) within the first rigid support 50 and the second rigid support 50 wherein a spring-loaded magnet-holder includes a magnet 62 interacting (Sullivan et al., paragraph [0021]; Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 3, Sullivan et al. disclose that the battery 52 is a rechargeable battery (Sullivan et al., paragraph [0042]).
With respect to claim 9, Wenzel et al. teach a latch 34 for securing the upper housing 22 to the lower housing 20.
With respect to claim 11, Wenzel et al. teach including a wired port for wired communication (“The antenna could be omitted if information is stored and subsequently accessed directly from the strap tension detector, such as a USB link to a mobile phone,” Wenzel et al., paragraph [0040]) allowing programming of a microprocessor 56, the microprocessor mounted to the circuit board assembly (as shown in Fig. 17 of Wenzel et al.).
With respect to claim 16, Wenzel et al. disclose that the circuit board assembly includes a wireless communication module for the cargo strap tension monitoring device to communicate with a mobile device (“The battery, process and antenna may be any components that collectively allow for wireless communication of strain detected by the strap tension detector to another device, Wenzel et al., paragraph [0040]).
With respect to claim 17, this claim is a functional recitation of an intended use without the recitation of any structure to achieve the claimed functional. The device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. is capable of an initial pairing of the mobile device and the wireless communication module is established and the mobile device is automatically connected to the cargo strap tension monitoring device when under tension if it were to be structured or programmed in that manner.
With respect to claim 18, this claim is directed to non-positively recited subject matter. That is, claim 18 recites further limitations of “the mobile device” but the mobile device is never claimed as part of the positively recited invention. Since no further structure of the claimed invention is recited in claim 18, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. meet all the positively claimed limitations as recited in claim 16.
With respect to claim 19, Wenzel et al. teach that an alert is sent to the mobile device when there is an issue of stack ups, assembly differences, shifts over time, or other potential load problem (“A strap tension detector for enhancing safety by wirelessly connecting tension sensors on one or more straps on a transport vehicle or trailer to a driver's mobile phone to report loose straps or dangerous tension levels.” Wenzel et al., paragraph [0030]).
With respect to claim 20, this claim is directed to non-positively recited subject matter. That is, claim 20 recites further limitations of “the mobile device” but the mobile device is never claimed as part of the positively recited invention. Since no further structure of the claimed invention is recited in claim 20, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. meet all the positively claimed limitations as recited in claim 16.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2003/0111835) in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cai (TW M633519).
With respect to claim 4, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the cover for preventing contamination from entering the battery charge port. Wenzel et al. teach a battery charge port 100 (Wenzel, paragraph [0042]; Fig. 17).
Cai teach a chargeable device attached to a vehicle including a battery charge port 107 and a cover 108 for preventing contamination from entering the battery charge port. It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Cai with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of keeping dust, debris, and fluids out of the battery charge port.
Claims 6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2003/0111835) in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341), as applied to claims 1 or 11 above, and further in view of Dooley (US 11,465,550).
With respect to claim 6, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the ridged edge for securing the strap in a longitudinal direction between the upper housing and the lower housing.
However, Dooley teaches a similar strap monitoring device including a ridged edge (“ridges,” Dooley, col. 4, line 60) for securing a strap S in a longitudinal direction between an upper housing and a lower housing 110, as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Dooley.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Dooley the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of the increase in friction between the housing and the strap thereby lessening the possibility that the strap will slip in the housing.
With respect to claim 8, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the at least one status indicator for providing visible indication of a status of the cargo strap tension monitoring device and the upper housing includes a status indicator window for allowing light from the at least one status indicator to be seen by a user.
However, Dooley teaches a similar strap tension monitoring device including an at least one status indicator 125 for providing visible indication of a status of the cargo strap tension monitoring device and an upper housing 105 includes a status indicator window for allowing light from the at least one status indicator 125 to be seen by a user as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Dooley:
[AltContent: textbox (window)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
316
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Dooley with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of visually alerting the driver, via direct inspection of the monitoring device when the strap has come loose from the cargo.
With respect to claim 14, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the external LED.
However, Dooley teaches a similar strap monitoring device including an external LED 125 showing a tension status (Dooley, col. 5, lines 42-53).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Dooley the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of the light quickly and remotely indicating a secure or loose status of a strap.
Claims 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2003/0111835) in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Horn et al. (CH 710461).
With respect to claim 12, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the microprocessor allowing the cargo strap tension monitoring device to enter a sleep when a tension sensor detect that there is no cargo strap engaged with the cargo strap tension monitoring device.
However, Horn et al. teach a similar strap tension monitoring device 23 with a microprocessor 41 wherein the microprocessor 41 allows the cargo strap tension monitoring device 23 to enter a sleep mode when the tension sensor detects that there is no cargo strap engaged with the cargo strap tension monitoring device (see bottom of pg. 6 and top of pg. 7 of the machine translation of Horn et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Horn et al. with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et a l. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of conserving device power when it is not actively being used.
With respect to claim 13, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except for the microprocessor waking the cargo strap tension monitoring device when a strap is detected.
However, Horn et al. teach a similar strap tension monitoring device 23 with a microprocessor 41 wherein the microprocessor 41 (“Depending on the distance 20 of the two legs 13a, 13b to each other, the electronic belt tension indicator 23 may be in different modes,” and “If a belt tension is applied to the indicator 23, then the indicator 23 changes to the "active mode" in which the transmitter transmits data at specific time intervals which reproduce the distance 20 between the two legs13a, 13b and a corresponding belt tension–see bottom of pg. 6 and top of pg. 7 of the machine translation of Horn et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Horn et al. with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et a l. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of conserving device power when it is not actively being used.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2003/0111835) in view of Wenzel et al. (US 2022/0146341), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Moulton et al. (US 2025/0060433).
With respect to claim 15, Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. disclose the claimed cargo strap tension monitoring device except that they are silent on whether the microprocessor zeros out a magnetic field reading after assembly and determines tension based on a delta magnetic field calibration. It is noted that this claim is simply reciting a functional statement of intended use and fails to recite any structure to further limit the device. Applicant could recite such structure by reciting that the “microprocessor is programed” or “configured” to zero out a magnetic field reading . . .
Nevertheless, Moulton et al. teach a similar method of calibrating a magnetic sensor 202 with a microprocessor 25 including wherein the microprocessor 25 zeros out a magnetic field reading after assembly (“Zeroing each of the passive sensors may include setting a direction of the magnetic field as detected by the passive sensor when the subject table is positioned at the desirable orientation with respect to the magnet [e.g., docked with the MRI apparatus[ to null [e.g., having no direction],” Moulton et al., paragraph [0056]) and determines a sensor value based on a delta magnetic field calibration (“In this way, as the subject table is moved away from the magnet [e.g., a distance between the magnet and the subject table increases], a strength of the magnetic field detected by the passive sensor may decrease,” Moulton et al., paragraph [0056]).
In the combination, the sensor taught by Moulton et al. would determine tension of the cargo strap based on the a delta magnetic field calibration.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Moulton et al. with the cargo strap tension monitoring device disclosed by Sullivan et al. in view of Wenzel et al. for the advantage of providing meaningful data to a user based on the physical arrangement of the sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the hinge rotatably connects an upper housing and a lower housing and the hinge includes a torsion spring engaged with the upper housing and the lower housing for biasing the cargo strap monitoring device in an open position.
Claim 7 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the battery being connected to the circuit board assembly by a wire harness extending through the hinge.
Claim 10 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the latch including a lock release button to allow the upper housing to be rotated from the lower housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612