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 .
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 obviousness-type 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 LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,198. Claims 3-16 and 18-22 have similar limitations as claims 3-16 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,198 and are rejected under obviousness-type double patenting. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined 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). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim | is anticipated by claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,198.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al. (US 2021/0300674 A1), further in view of MEI (US 2023/0331468 A1) and further in view of Xiong et al. (US 2020/0182771 A1, hereinafter Xiong).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Baur discloses a sensor system for monitoring conditions of a gondola configured to hold bulk harvested grapes and be transported by a trailer, the sensor system comprising:
a capacity sensor (i.e. weight sensor or volumetric sensor) configured to determine a remaining capacity of the gondola (see para. 0038);
a temperature sensor configured to monitor at least one of a temperature of the gondola, a temperature of an environment around the gondola, or a temperature of the bulk harvested grapes held by the gondola (see para. 0034, 0037-0038 and 0049, the system monitors perishable goods (i.e. grapes));
a trailer location sensor (i.e. GPS) configured to determine a global position of the gondola (see para. 0030 and 0038); and
one or more communication modules in communication with the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, and the trailer location sensor and configured to transmit data from the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, and the trailer location sensor to a remote computing system (see fig. 5 and para. 0031),
wherein the sensor system is configured to monitor gondolas at least six feet from a ground level (see para. 0026 and fig. 1).
However, Baur fails to disclose wherein the gondola has an open top.
MEI discloses wherein the gondola has an open top (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baur’s invention to have an open top as described by MEI for the purpose of top loading of the cargo or harvested grapes.
Further, Baur in view of MEI fails to disclose wherein the capacity sensor comprises a load cell.
Xiong discloses wherein a capacity sensor comprises a load cell (see para. 0025 and 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baur’s in view of MEI invention to have a capacity sensor comprising a load cell as taught by Xiong for the benefit of having more precise calculation of the produce present in the container (i.e. gondola).
Regarding claim 2, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a tilt sensor (i.e. orientation sensor, see para. 0030 and 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, further comprising: a housing configured to at least partially enclose (i.e. encapsulate) one or more of the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, the tilt sensor, the trailer location sensor, or the communication module, wherein the housing is configured to be mounted to at least one of an exterior surface of the gondola or a frame supporting the gondola (see para. 0027 and 0030, embedded computing system (ES)).
Regarding claim 4, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 3, wherein the housing is mounted to the exterior surface of the gondola using at least one of an adhesive or a mechanical fastener (see para. 0030 and fig. 1, the encapsulated sensors on the exterior panel).
Regarding claim 5, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 3, wherein the capacity sensor comprises a force-sensing resistor configured to be disposed between the gondola and the frame and configured to measure a weight of the gondola (see para. 0038).
Regarding claim 6, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 2, wherein the tilt sensor comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a force balance sensor, a microelectromechanical system (MEMS), a capacitive tilt sensor, or an electrolytic sensor (see para. 0038).
Regarding claim 7, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the trailer location sensor is configured to receive global position data from at least one of a satellite or a cellular phone tower (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 2, further comprising: a battery configured to provide energy to one or more of the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, the tilt sensor, the trailer location sensor, or the communication module (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 9, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 8, further comprising: a solar panel configured to charge the battery (see para. 0030 and 0050).
Regarding claim 10, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 2, wherein the one or more communication modules is configured to transmit data from the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, the tilt sensor, and the trailer location sensor to the remote computing system using a cellular network or a satellite communication (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 2, further comprising a processing module configured to process data from at least one of the capacity sensor, the temperature sensor, and the tilt sensor (see para. 0038).
Regarding claim 12, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 11, wherein the communication module is configured to receive data packets from the processing module and transmit data to the remote computing system (see para. 0031 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 12, wherein the remote computing system comprises a client device of a user (see fig. 5 access via NFC).
Regarding claim 14, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the capacity sensor comprises a capacitive sensor (see Xiong para. 0025 and 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the remote computing system comprises a cloud network (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor system is configured to monitor a quality of the bulk harvested grapes and generate an alert when the quality has deteriorated or is at risk of deteriorating (see para. 0056).
Regarding claim 18, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the capacity sensor comprises a force-sensing resistor configured to be installed between the gondola and the frame and the capacity data indicates a weight of the bulk harvested grapes in the gondola (see para.0038).
Regarding claim 19, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: receiving, by the trailer location sensor, global position data associated with the gondola from at least one of a satellite or a cellular phone tower (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: generating, by a processing module coupled to the communication module, a data packet comprising the capacity data, and the temperature data (see fig. 5 and para. 0031 and 0038).
Regarding claim 21, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the transmitting the capacity data, the temperature data, and the trailer location data to the remote computing system is over a cellular network or a satellite communication (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Baur and further in view of MEI and Xiong discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: monitoring a quality of the bulk harvested grapes (i.e. wine is made out of grapes) (see para. 0056); and generating an alert when the quality has deteriorated or is at risk of deteriorating (see para. 0056-0057).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the load cell in Xiong is markedly different from the presently claimed load cell.
In response the Examiner would like to point out that a load cell is a type of sensor or transducer that converts a mechanical force, such as weight, tension, compression, or torque, into a measurable electrical signal. Different types of load cells are known such as strain gauge load cells, hydraulic load cells, pneumatic load cells, capacitive load cells, shear and bending load cells, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would just choose what type of load sensor to use depending on their application and needs. The fact that the prior art utilizes a different type of load cell (i.e. platform /load cell) to determine the volume/capacity inside the container, serves the same purpose as the load cell claimed. They are both solving the same problem and therefore meets the claimed language.
Regarding the comments that Xiong belongs to a different technology or field of use (i.e. benchtop analytical instrument), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, they are both resolving the same issue of interest (i.e. determining the volume/capacity inside a container).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights