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 Objections
Claims 4, 9, 13-14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3, “the same profile” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a same profile--.
In claim 9, line 3, “the profile of the collar” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a profile of a collar--.
In claim 13, lines 2-3, “the twist-locks via a wired or wireless communication to operate the respective drivers” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a plurality of twist-locks via a wired or wireless communication to operate respective drivers--.
In claim 14, line 2, “the cabin” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a cabin--.
In claim 19, line 3, “the position” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a position--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watterson et al. AU 2017202128 A1 (hereinafter ‘128).
Regarding claim 26, ‘128 disclose a truck trailer configured to receive a shipping container atop of, the truck trailer including a plurality of twist-locks (‘128 10; ‘128 Fig. 1), each twist-lock having a rotatable locking element (‘128 paragraph 39), and a driver (‘128 40) for causing one or more of the locking elements to rotate for locking and unlocking the twist-lock to lock and unlock, respectively, the shipping container to the truck trailer (‘128 paragraph 39), wherein each twist-lock has a visual indicator that displays to an operator where to position the container on the truck trailer (‘128 paragraphs 23 and 53-54).
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, 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 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. AU 2017202128 A1 (hereinafter ‘128), in view of Clive-Smith US 20210245999 A1.
Regarding claim 1, ‘128 disclose a twist-lock system for locking a shipping container to a structure (‘128 paragraph 27), the system including:
(a) a twist-lock (‘128 10; ‘128 Fig. 1) having a rotatable locking element (‘128 paragraph 39),
(b) a driver (‘128 40) for causing the locking element to rotate for locking and unlocking the twist-lock to lock and unlock, respectively, the shipping container to the structure (‘128 paragraph 39), and
(c) a remote device for generating an input signal to operate the driver (‘128 paragraph 27).
‘128 do not disclose the remote device being hand-held.
However, Clive-Smith discloses a system for shipping containers that include a hand-held device for data input related to twist-locks (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069).
Therefore, 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 to combine the twist-lock system of ‘128 with the hand-held device of Clive-Smith with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of connecting and securing the device to a data server that may only be accessed by authorized personnel, preventing improper operations of the twist-locks by unauthorized individuals (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 2, ‘128 do not disclose the twist lock system defined in claim 1, wherein the remote hand-held device is a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or control panel.
However, Clive-Smith disclose a system for shipping containers that include a hand-held device that may be a computer or smartphone (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069).
Therefore, 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 to combine the twist-lock system of ‘128 with the hand-held device of Clive-Smith with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of connecting and securing the device to a data server using internet connection that may only be accessed by authorized personnel, preventing improper operations of the twist-locks by unauthorized individuals (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069). Using an internet connection in a computer or smartphone to input data and/or perform remote operations is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the locking element comprises a locking head (‘128 60) and a stem (‘128 paragraph 5; ‘128 Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the twist lock includes a locking lug which includes a collar (‘128 80) to which the driver is connected such that the locking head is rotatable relative to the collar and the locking head and collar have [a] same profile of a locking recess on a shipping container so that the collar and the locking head are receivable in the locking recess (‘128 paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 5, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 4, as discussed above, wherein the twist-lock includes a bracket (‘128 12) in which the locking lug is mechanically locked and wherein the locking head and at least a portion of the collar project above an upper platform of the bracket (‘128 paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 6, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 5, as discussed above, wherein the locking lug is able to move generally vertically relative to the bracket and wherein the vertical movement is limited by the mechanical locking of the locking lug to the bracket and wherein the locking lug is biased upwardly relative to the bracket to cause the collar and locking head to project into the locking recess of a shipping container when the locking recess is aligned with the locking head and collar (‘128 paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 7, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 6, as discussed above, wherein the upper platform includes a downwardly depending sleeve (‘128 22) having an inner profile that guides generally vertical movement of the collar within the sleeve, and therefore guides generally vertical movement of the locking lug within the bracket (‘128 paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 8, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 6, as discussed above, wherein the upward bias is provided pneumatically, hydraulically or by a coil spring (‘128 70) or a deformable element disposed between the locking lug and the bracket (‘128 Fig. 1; ‘128 paragraphs 18-20).
Regarding claim 9, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the driver is configured to cause rotation of the locking head between an unlocked position (‘128 Fig. 1) in which its profile is aligned with [a] profile of [a] collar (‘128 80) to an unlocked position in which the profiles of the collar and the locking head are generally perpendicular (‘128 paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 11, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the twist-lock is disposed on a rail transport vehicle such that the twist-lock enables locking of the shipping container to the rail transport vehicle (‘128 paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 12, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the twist-lock is disposed on a truck trailer such that the twist-lock enables locking of the shipping container to the truck trailer (‘128 paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 13, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 12, comprising an actuator that sends input signals to [a plurality of twist-locks] via a wired or wireless communication to operate [respective drivers] and an input terminal that is remote from the twist-locks and which receives inputs from a truck driver and transmits an operation signal to the actuator whereby to operate the respective drivers to lock or unlock a shipping container with the truck trailer (‘128 claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 13, as discussed above, wherein the input terminal is located in [a] cabin of a truck and is in communication with the twist-locks (‘128 paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 15, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 13, as discussed above, wherein the system includes an actuator on the truck trailer that receives a signal from the input terminal and sends input signals to the twist-locks to operate the respective drivers (‘128 paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 16, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim, as discussed above, wherein the twist-locks provide a status feedback signal to the input terminal to indicate a status condition of a twist-lock (‘128 paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 17, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the status feedback signal is provided to the input terminal via the actuator (‘128 paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 19, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 12, as discussed above, wherein the twist-lock includes an arm (‘128 38) linked to the driver to rotate in unison with the locking head and wherein the arm is configured to provide a visual indication of [a] position of the locking head (‘128 paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 21, ‘128, in view of Clive-Smith, disclose the twist-lock system defined in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the twist-lock is disposed on a container such that the twist-lock enables locking between the container and an adjacent shipping container (‘128 paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 22, ‘128 disclose a truck trailer configured to receive a shipping container atop of, the truck trailer including a plurality of twist-locks (‘128 10; ‘128 Fig. 1), each twist-lock having a rotatable locking element (‘128 paragraph 39), and a driver (‘128 40) for causing one or more of the locking elements to rotate for locking and unlocking the twist-lock to lock and unlock, respectively, the shipping container to the truck trailer (‘128 paragraph 39), wherein each twist-lock is configured to receive an input signal from a remote device to operate the driver to lock or unlock the shipping container to the truck trailer (‘128 paragraph 25).
‘128 do not disclose the remote device being hand-held.
However, Clive-Smith discloses a system for shipping containers that include a hand-held device for data input related to twist-locks (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069).
Therefore, 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 to combine the twist-lock system of ‘128 with the hand-held device of Clive-Smith with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of connecting and securing the device to a data server that may only be accessed by authorized personnel, preventing improper operations of the twist-locks by unauthorized individuals (Clive-Smith paragraph 0069).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ture AU 2019275555 A1 discloses a twist-lock system for shipping containers, wherein a twist-lock includes a locking head, locking stem, arm, and spring bias.
Espinosa Andrade et al. WO 2021258230 A1 disclose a remote twist-lock system for shipping containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights