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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN 101824926, as cited by applicant, in view of WO 2021/175403, as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘928 teaches a container handling system, comprising: a container yard, 510, and a loading/unloading zone, 530, an automated stacking crane, 114, configured to move a container between the container yard and the loading/unloading zone, the loading/unloading zone is configured to receive a transport vehicle for transporting the container, the loading/unloading zone further comprises a protective structure, 535, configured to cover a predetermined section of the loading/unloading zone, see figures 5A.
The CN ‘926 reference does not teach the sensor, as claimed. The WO ‘403 reference teaches a container-loading system with a sensor, 10, for monitoring the working area, 3, of a crane. The reference teaches the sensor scans the working area and is configured to detect both the location of a vehicle cab, 5, in relation to the working area, 3, and the location and movement of persons within the loading area, see pages 8 and 9 of English translation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensors of WO ‘403 with the protective structure of CN ‘928 in order to achieve the predictable result of monitoring the working space of the protective structure to ensure the correct position of the truck within the loading area and under the protective structure.
Applicant has amended claim 1, to claim that the sensor is attached to the underside of the protective structure. The space within the protective structure is understood to be the working area of the CN ‘926 reference, and the sensor of the WO ‘403 reference monitors the working area of the system. While the WO ‘403 figure do not show a ceiling or structure to which the sensors are attached, it can be understood that the sensors are not floating in midair and are depicted as above the working area directed down. As such, the examiner contends that the WO ‘403 reference does teach sensors attached to an underside of a roof or ceiling of a working area, and therefore it would be obvious to located the sensors on the underside of the working area, as claimed, in order to achieve the predictable result of sensing the space that the vehicle is within.
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘928 teaches the protective structure is configured to cover a larger section than a cabin area of the transport vehicle, see figure 5A.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, CN ‘928 teaches the loading/unloading zone comprises a plurality of parking lanes and the protective structure, 535, is configured to cover the section having a width of one parking lane of the plurality of parking lanes, see figure 5A.
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 18, CN ‘928 teaches the protective structure is fixed to a ground, see figure 5B.
Regarding claim 12, the WO ‘430 reference teaches the sensor is a 3D scanner.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the protective structure comprises two sides and supporting a top, wherein the transport vehicle can pass between the two sides and under the top, see figures 5A and 5B.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101824926, as cited by applicant, in view of WO 2021/175403, as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 107816215.
Regarding claim 5, the CN ‘926 reference is silent about the structural parts of the protective structure. CN ‘215 teaches a steel safety structure wherein the protective structure comprises two sides and supporting a top, see figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the protective structure of CN ‘926 as taught by CN ‘215 in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a strong safety structure to protect objects within the structure.
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘215 teaches the top comprises a roof made of a metal plate and metal grids or reinforcements, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘215 teaches the roof is at least partially inclined, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 8, the CN ‘215 reference teaches a sloped roof, but not the specific ranges of angles, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a slope of the roof to a range from 1-15 degrees, and particularly 1-10 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, the CN ‘215 structure, at an angle, is configured to guide rainwater towards a longitudinal border of the parking lane, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘215 teaches the side comprises a pillar or/and a wall, see figure 1.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101824926, as cited by applicant, in view of WO 2021/175403, as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2006504595.
Regarding claim 13, neither CN ‘926 nor WO ‘403 teach the wheel stopper, as claimed. JP ‘595 teaches a container loading system that includes a wheel stopper, 8.2, for indicating the correct place for a transport vehicle, 7, to stop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to combine the wheel stop of JP ‘595 with the system of CN ‘926 in order to achieve the predictable result of stopping the wheel of the vehicle at the correct parking spot for loading of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101824926, as cited by applicant, in view of WO 2021/175403, as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 202111343087.
Regarding claim 14, neither the CN ‘926 nor the WO ‘403 reference teach the container handling system further comprises an emergency stop switch for stopping all crane operation when activated. CN ‘087 teaches a control platform with an emergency stop button. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the emergency stop of CN ‘087 with the system of CN ‘926 in order to achieve the predictable result of stop the crane operation should an emergency occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 claims the protective structure is movable and the sensor detects motion under the protective structure. The prior art was not found to teach this feature of the movable protective structure and sensor as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is relying on the WO ‘403 to teach a sensor that detects position and movement of a vehicle in a working area. The working area of the CN ‘926 reference is underneath the protective area, therefore is stands to reason that when combining the sensor of the WO ’403 reference with the system of the CN ‘926 reference they would be located under the protective structure taught by the CN ‘926 reference, as claimed. Applicant argues that “there is not teaching or suggestion that would lead one skilled int eh art to realize that the fixed or static protection roof of CN ‘926 needs to be checked relative to the vehicle cabin. In CN ‘926, the truck simply drives to a set position.” The sensor of WO ‘403 is being used to ensure that the vehicle is at the set position, and when the sensor is combined with the system and fixed in the working area of CN ‘926, as taught by WO ‘403, the position of the vehicle relative to the protective structure can be checked, which is inherently the same as the position of the structure relative to the vehicle. As outlined in the rejection above, the sensor of WO ‘403 is located within the working area and is located above the vehicle and directed downward. Which the WO ‘403 does not teach a structure of the working area, the sensors are not floating in air. Attaching the sensors, as claimed in claim 1, is obvious in order for the sensors to monitor the working area of CN ‘926, which is under the protective structure.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included to show other examples container handling systems and the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
30 January 2026