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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on August 13, 2024. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on August 13, 2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 4, “providiing” should read “providing”.
Claim 14, line 14, “form the sensor” should read “from the sensor”.
Claim 14, line 15, insert a semicolon (;) after “illuminated”.
Claim 14, line 16, “retrieving the sensor” should read “retrieving the device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “said device” including, inter alia, a user receiving device/cell phone. This inclusion of the user receiving device/cell phone as a claimed element renders the scope of the claims unclear.
Specifically, it is ambiguous whether the claimed “device” is limited to the docking apparatus itself or instead encompasses a larger combination or system that includes an external operable cell phone. A cell phone is a separate article of manufacture that is not ordinarily a structural component of a device for installation at a loading dock, and the claims do not clarify whether the cell phone is permanently integrated into the device, or merely in operative communication therewith.
Accordingly claims 1, 8, and 14 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claims 1 and 8, respectively.
The claim may be rendered definite by amending the claim to recite the device as being configured to receive, communicate with, or be controlled by the user receiving device/cell phone, rather than reciting the user receiving device/cell phone as a component of the device. Alternatively, the claim may be rewritten as a system claim that explicitly include both the device and the user receiving device/cell phone.
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbeau (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0145697) in view of Chien et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0267205; hereinafter as “Chien”).
As per claim 1, Barbeau discloses a device (30) for assisting truckers monitoring a docking station to watch and alert an operator/user when workers indicate that loading or unloading has finished, said device adapted for temporary installation, above ground, adjacent a green light indicator (22) for the docking station in which the operater/user has temporarily parked for loading or unloading (see e.g., Figs. 1-5; para. [0013]-[0015] & [0031]-[0032]: discloses a system 10 including a detector 30 for determining loading dock status based on signal lights provided at the dock and for conveying information regarding the loading dock status to a driver), said device including:
i. a housing and clip end (clip 34) for hanging onto the green light indicator of the docking station to detect when the green light of the indicator has been illuminated (see e.g., para. [0033]: “Clip 34 is an attachment device that provides for positioning detector 30 in close proximity with a ready signal 22. As shown, clip 34 is configured to engage with a portion of signal 22 such as extended shelter 36 such that detector 30 is positioned to sense the status of signal 22.”);
ii. a sensor for: (a) detecting when the green light for the docking station has been illuminated indicating that loading or unloading is finished and the rig can be safely removed; and for (b) emitting a signal (see e.g., Fig. 5; para. [0034]: “As shown in FIG. 5, detector 30 includes a sensor switch 42, a delay 44 and a relay 46. Sensor switch 42 is configured to detect the presence or absence of light according to predetermined parameters of quantity of light. For example, when switch 42 is exposed to light below a predetermined amount of lumens, switch 42 indicates that no light is present and when switch 42 is exposed to light at or above a predetermined amount of lumens, switch 42 generates a signal indicating that light is present.”; para. [0037]-[0038] & [0046]: indicating the safe condition);
iii. a user receiving device indicating that the green light of the docking station has been illuminated (see e.g., para. [0036]: outputting signals to other devices such as a cell phone)
Barbeau does not explicitly disclose said device includes a telescopic arm, and a charging connector for the user receiving device for keeping the user receiving device sufficiently powered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chien teaches: a device (e.g., Figs. 2, 5: a desk, floor, wall-mounted item or light or electric device 200/500) including: a telescopic arm (adjustable arms/poles 206/506 to enable the LED lamp to be moved to a desired height, orientation, direction, and/or angle; see e.g., para. [0834], [0874] & [0877]-[0878]), and a charging connector (USB-Module 208/512) for the user receiving device for keeping the user receiving device sufficiently powered (see e.g., para. [0835]: the USB-unit(s) has number of USB-port(s) to quick charge the other electric or digital device, built-in energy storage unit or assembly including rechargeable batteries; para. [0990]: “Electric or digital data device(s) that may be charged by the USB-unit(s) is one of an MP3 or MP4 player, smart phone, computer, iPhone™, iPad™, video game, digital visual equipment, communication equipment, and other consumer electric products”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Barbeau to include a telescopic arm, and a charging connector for the user receiving device, as taught by Chien. Doing so allows the user to conveniently position the device at the desired height while also quickly charging their personal device using the built-in USB connector.
As per claim 2, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes a warning signal should the operator/user leave before retrieving/removing the device from the docking station (e.g., para. [0044]: “When the operator hears the buzzer indicating that the signal is green and it is safe to depart, the driver silences the buzzer using the operator interface and switches system 10 off. Detector 30 and associated wiring is removed from signal 22 and placed within cab 16 such that it is ready to be used at the next loading dock.”).
As per claim 4, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where the combination further teaches: wherein the user receiving device is a cell phone having a signal receiving app installed thereon (see Barbeau, e.g., para. [0036]: outputting signals to other devices such as a cell phone; it is evident that the cell phone may have an app installed to control or operate the dock device; also see Chien, e.g., para. [0889] & [0991]: the light or electric device may be controlled by a remote controller, wireless controller, an APP software, etc.).
As per claim 5, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: wherein the user receiving device is a dashboard display (see e.g., para. [0032]: operator interface 24 wirelessly connected to signal detector 30).
As per claim 6, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes an audible alert (see e.g., para. [0031] & [0036]: indicator 26 can be configured to output an audible alarm).
As per claim 7, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes a visual alert (see e.g., para. [0036]: indicator 26 can be configured to output a visual indication).
As per claim 8, Barbeau a device (30) for remotely monitoring a truck docking station to watch and alert an operator/user when workers indicate that notify an operator when loading or unloading has finished and a green light indicator (22) has illuminated (see e.g., Figs. 1-5; para. [0013]-[0015] & [0031]-[0032]: discloses a system 10 including a detector 30 for determining loading dock status based on signal lights provided at the dock and for conveying information regarding the loading dock status to a driver), said device including:
(i) a housing and clip end (clip 34) for hanging on the green light indicator of the docking station to detect when the green light of the indicator has been illuminated (see e.g., para. [0033]: “Clip 34 is an attachment device that provides for positioning detector 30 in close proximity with a ready signal 22. As shown, clip 34 is configured to engage with a portion of signal 22 such as extended shelter 36 such that detector 30 is positioned to sense the status of signal 22.”);
(ii) a sensor for: (a) detecting when the green light for the docking station has been illuminated and (b) sending a signal indicating loading or unloading has finished (see e.g., Fig. 5; para. [0034]: “As shown in FIG. 5, detector 30 includes a sensor switch 42, a delay 44 and a relay 46. Sensor switch 42 is configured to detect the presence or absence of light according to predetermined parameters of quantity of light. For example, when switch 42 is exposed to light below a predetermined amount of lumens, switch 42 indicates that no light is present and when switch 42 is exposed to light at or above a predetermined amount of lumens, switch 42 generates a signal indicating that light is present.”; para. [0037]-[0038] & [0046]: indicating the safe condition); and
(iii) a cell phone having an app for receiving the signal from the sensor and alerting the operator/user accordingly (see e.g., para. [0036]: outputting signals to other devices such as a cell phone; it is clear that the cell phone may have an app installed to control or operate the dock device).
Barbeau does not explicitly disclose said device includes a telescopic arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chien teaches: a device (e.g., Figs. 2, 5: a desk, floor, wall-mounted item or light or electric device 200/500) including: a telescopic arm (adjustable arms/poles 206/506 to enable the LED lamp to be moved to a desired height, orientation, direction, and/or angle; see e.g., para. [0834], [0874] & [0877]-[0878]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Barbeau to include a telescopic arm, as taught by Chien. Doing so allows the user to conveniently position the device at the desired height.
As per claim 9, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where Barbeau fails to teach the device which further includes
(iv) a charging connector.
However, Chien teaches: the device (e.g., Figs. 2, 5: a desk, floor, wall-mounted item or light or electric device 200/500) which further includes a charging connector (USB-Module 208/512; see e.g., para. [0835]: the USB-unit(s) has number of USB-port(s) to quick charge the other electric or digital device, built-in energy storage unit or assembly including rechargeable batteries; and para. [0990]: “Electric or digital data device(s) that may be charged by the USB-unit(s) is one of an MP3 or MP4 player, smart phone, computer, iPhone™, iPad™, video game, digital visual equipment, communication equipment, and other consumer electric products”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Barbeau to include a charging connector, as taught by Chien. Doing so allows the user to quickly charge their personal device using the built-in USB connector.
As per claim 10, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes a warning signal should the operator/user leave before retrieving/removing the device from the docking station (e.g., para. [0044]: “When the operator hears the buzzer indicating that the signal is green and it is safe to depart, the driver silences the buzzer using the operator interface and switches system 10 off. Detector 30 and associated wiring is removed from signal 22 and placed within cab 16 such that it is ready to be used at the next loading dock.”).
As per claim 12, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes an audible alert (see e.g., para. [0031] & [0036]: indicator 26 can be configured to output an audible alarm).
As per claim 13, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where Barbeau further teaches: the device which includes a visual alert (see e.g., para. [0036]: indicator 26 can be configured to output a visual indication).
Method claim 14 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-2 and 4. Therefore, method claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claims 1-2 and 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbeau in view of Chien, and further in view of Whitley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0203059; hereinafter as “Whitley”).
As per claim 3, Barbeau and Chien teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where the combination fails to teach: the device which includes a signal should the sensor separate from the green light of the docketing system prematurely.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whitley teaches: the device which includes a signal should the sensor separate from the green light of the docketing system prematurely (see e.g., para. [0036]: “In the event that the vehicle barrier 21 is prematurely and/or inadvertently disengaged from the vehicle, the restraint 20 can send a corresponding signal to the controller 470 causing the controller 470 to in turn illuminate the colored LED array 328 b (FIG. 3B) of the signal light 120”; para. [0037]: “the controller 470 can illuminate an array of blue lights on the signal light 120 to notify the operator of a change in status of a different piece of dock equipment, such as the dock leveler 10. Moreover, the controller 470 can cause the signal light 120 to display yet another color of light, such as amber, in the event that the barrier gate 30 inadvertently closes, the over-head door 18 inadvertently closes, or some other event takes place to change the status of a particular piece of dock equipment that a person working in or around a trailer at the loading dock 100 may wish to know about.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Barbeau in view of Chien to include a signal should the sensor separate from the green light of the docketing system prematurely, as taught by Whitley. Doing so enables the device to notify the operator of dock equipment status changes, including accidental disengagement from the green light indicator.
Claim 11 is rejected as obvious for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3, as it contains similar limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Coshow (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0002090) teaches a loading dock signal light change indicator that lets the driver know of a signal light change in a red light/green signal light system mounted in a common housing mounted on the outer surface of the dock structure adjacent a dock door to advise a truck driver when it is safe to back up to a dock or depart from a dock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov