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 Status
claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slade et al. (Slade; US 2023/0102039) in view of Gengerke (Gengerke; US 20130269832) and further in view of Abdelhamid et al. (Abdelhamid; US 2023/0267821).
As per claim 1, Slade teaches a system for providing visual indication of a trailer door status, the system comprising:
a first proximity sensor mounted to the trailer configured to detect a position of the door (a door sensor configured to detect open or closed position of a door; see e.g. abstract and para. [0050-52]);
a light source affixed to the trailer, the light source in electrical communication with the first sensor (status information including one or more indicators or light including a door indicator, see e.g. FIG. 6 and para. [0052], wherein the status information including the indicator are included in or on the trailer); and
a power source connected to the first proximity sensor, and the light source (sensor node is connected to power, see e.g. para. [0061-62], wherein the one or more indicators also need power for their operation, see e.g. para. [0184], which would be provided by the same or an obvious different source),
the power source configured to provide electrical power to the first proximity sensor, and the light source (LEDs or lamps which require electrical power; see e.g. para. [0184-185]),
wherein the light source is activated when the first proximity sensor detects a door in an open configuration (the door indicator 604 is activated, based on the sensor data, open or closed status of a rear door, side door, roof opening, or other opening in the trailer; see e.g. para. [0052]), and
wherein the light source is deactivated when the first proximity sensor detects that the door is in the closed configuration (the one or more status indicator are switched based on status information using a shunt resistance, see e.g. para. 0063-65], wherein it would have been obvious to change the status of the door indicator using the same or different shunt resistance thereby disabling the indicator).
Salade does not explicitly teach that the trailer is a grain hopper trailer configured for towing by a semi-truck, the grain hopper trailer having four sidewalls and a bottom, the bottom comprising a first downwardly extending chute having a door configured to transition from a closed configuration to an open configuration, and a second downwardly extending chute having a door configured to transition from a closed configuration to an open configuration; the first proximity sensor is associated with a first chute, a second proximity sensor mounted to the grain hopper trailer configured to detect a position of the door of the second chute; the light source affixed to the grain hopper and the second proximity sensor, the a power source connected to the first proximity sensor, the second proximity sensor, the power source configured to provide electrical power to the first proximity sensor, the second proximity sensor; wherein the light source is activated when the either the first proximity sensor or the second proximity sensor detects a door in an open configuration; wherein the light source is deactivated when both the first proximity sensor and the second proximity sensor detects that both the door of the first chute and the door of the second chute are in the closed configuration.
Gengerke, however, teaches a grain hopper trailer configured for towing by a semi-truck (a grain hopped to be towed by a towing vehicle, see e.g. abstract and FIG. 1), the grain hopper trailer having four sidewalls and a bottom (the pictured grain storage trailer has four sides and a bottom; see e.g. FIG. 1), the bottom comprising a first downwardly extending chute having a door configured to transition from a closed configuration to an open configuration (a purity of chutes with doors at the bottom which can be slid to open position; see e.g. para. [0007] and FIG. 2), and a second downwardly extending chute having a door configured to transition from a closed configuration to an open configuration (two sliding doors 34, see e.g. para. [0031, which can be opened as discussed earlier; see also figure 2).
Furthermore, the first proximity sensor is associated with a first chute, a second proximity sensor mounted to the grain hopper trailer configured to detect a position of the door of the second chute (it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed system of Slade for the door status monitoring can be associated with the disclosed chute doors 34 for monitoring their open status and generating an associated notification).
In addition, the light source affixed to the grain hopper and the second proximity sensor (the disclosed single door indicator of Slade, see e.g. [0052], can be duplicated for multiple doors or can be associated with both of the disclosed chute doors of Gengerke), the a power source connected to the first proximity sensor, the second proximity sensor (Salade teaches a single power source as discussed earlier, [0061-62], it would have been obvious to have a separate power source or a single power source for two proximity sensors for two chute doors), the power source configured to provide electrical power to the first proximity sensor, the second proximity sensor (wherein the power source provides electrical power as discussed earlier).
Salade and Gengerke are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for an improved system where monitoring grain hopper chute doors can take place for saving time to recollect spillage or to avoid accidents and associated legal and economic complications.
Salade and Gengerke do not explicitly teach the claimed wherein the light source is activated when the either the first proximity sensor or the second proximity sensor detects a door in an open configuration; wherein the light source is deactivated when both the first proximity sensor and the second proximity sensor detects that both the door of the first chute and the door of the second chute are in the closed configuration.
Abdelhamid, however, teaches a light source is activated when the either first proximity sensor or second proximity sensor detects a door in an open configuration (a plurality of door sensors which are activated and their associated status door ajar status is outputted; see e.g. para. [on instrument cluster or display]; see e.g. para. [0039]); wherein the light source is deactivated when both the first proximity sensor and the second proximity sensor detect that both the doors are in the closed configuration (the door ajar status, see e.g. para. [0039], would not be outputted when the both the doors are closed). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed chute doors of the disclosed grain hopper of Gengerke can be associated with a plurality of sensors, light display [and power source] for determining real-time status and generating corresponding output.
Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing accidents and/or associated loss of time, life or property.
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, except the claimed wherein the light source is mounted to a sidewall of the grain hopper trailer (Gengerke teaches installing indicator on a sidewall; see e.g. para. [0036]).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, wherein the light source is visible to a user proximate to the grain hopper trailer when the light source is activated (Gengerke teaches installing indicator on a sidewall, see e.g. para. [0036], making it visible tp a proximate user).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, wherein the proximity sensor is an infrared, ultrasonic, magnetic, or capacitive sensor (one or more sensors can be ultrasonic or magnetic sensors; see e.g. para. [0157] and [0191], wherein it would have been obvious to use the sensors for door status detection).
As per claim 6, The system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, wherein the light source is a Light Emitting Diode (LED) (LEDs for status indication; see e.g. para. [0051]).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, wherein the power source is a rechargeable battery (the disclosed towing vehicle is a powered vehicle, which inherently comprises a rechargeable battery; see e.g. [0086]).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, wherein the power source is the semi-truck (the vehicle is truck and trailer; see e.g. abstract).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salade in view of Gengerke, Abdelhamid and further in view of Clark (Clark; US Patent No. 6,374,766).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, except the claimed wherein the light source is visible in a rear-view mirror mounted to the semi-truck to a user seated inside the semi-truck when the light source is activated.
Clark, however, teaches a light source is visible in a rear-view mirror mounted to the semi-truck to a user seated inside the semi-truck when the light source is activated (a light source indicating an open or closed position of a door, where the light is visible from a driver rear-view mirror; see e.g. col. 3, line 61-67—col. 4, lines 1-9).
Salade, Gengerke, Abdelhamid and Clark are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing accidents and/or associated loss of time, life or property due to open door.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salade in view of Gengerke, Abdelhamid and further in view of Current (Current; US 2024/0001840).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 1 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Abdelhamid, except the claimed wherein the power source comprises a solar panel.
Current, teaches a rechargeable or a solar panel for powering one or more components (see e.g. para. [0031]). Salade, Gengerke, Abdelhamid and Current are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of longevity even when no external power source.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slade in view of Gengerke.
As per claim 10, Slade teaches a sensor assembly affixed to a trailer, the sensor assembly comprising:
a first proximity sensor unit configured to detect the position of a first door on the trailer (a door sensor configured to detect open or closed position of a door; see e.g. para. [0052]);
a first light source affixed to the trailer (status information including one or more indicators or light including a door indicator, see e.g. FIG. 6 and para. [0052], wherein the status information including the indicator are included in or on the trailer); and
a power source connected to the first sensor unit and the first light source (sensor node is connected to power, see e.g. para. [0061-62], wherein the one or more indicators also need power for their operation which would be provided by the same or an obvious different source), the power source configured to provide electrical power for the operation of the first proximity sensor unit and the first light source (the power is provided to the one or more components, see e.g. para. [0061-62], for their operation),
wherein the first light source receives a signal from the first proximity sensor unit indicating a position of the door (the door indicator 602, based on the sensor data, open or closed status of a rear door, side door, roof opening, or other opening in the trailer; see e.g. para. [0052]).
Slade does not teach that the trailer is a grain hopper.
Gengerke, however, teaches a grain hopper (grain trailer or grain hopper; see e.g. abstract) with a plurality of sliding doors (see e.g. para. [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person that the disclosed door indication can be installed for the disclosed grain hopper of Gengerke for the purpose of reducing accidents.
Salade and Gengerke are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing injury or save time required for collecting spilled grain if the door remains open.
As per claim 11, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, wherein the first light source is illuminated when the signal from the first proximity sensor unit indicates that the first door is open, and the light source is deactivated when the signal from the first proximity sensor unit indicates that the first door is closed (the door indicator, see e.g. para. [0052] of Salade, can indicate the door status by turning on when the associated door is open and turn off when the door is closed).
As per claim 13, the sensor assembly of claim 10, further comprising a second sensor unit configured to detect the position of a second door on the grain hopper trailer, the second sensor unit connected to the power source and the first light source, wherein the first light source is illuminated when the first or second door is open, and the first light source is deactivated when both the first and second doors are closed (the disclosed system of Salade teaches a single door, associated indicator and a power source as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 10, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed system can be extended to a plurality of doors or hatches, see e.g. a plurality of doors as suggested by Gengerke; see e.g. FIG. 2, since a duplication of a known element of structure has been held by courts to be obvious unless an unexpected result is found).
As per claim 16, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, further comprising a second sensor unit configured to detect the position of a second door on the grain hopper trailer, the second sensor unit connected to the power source and a second light source, wherein the second light source is illuminated when the second door is open, and the second light source is deactivated when the second door is closed (as discussed earlier, Salade teaches the light indicator can be turn on, see e.g. para. [0052], with a first color when the door is open or turned off when the door is closed; wherein Salade teaches a single door, associated indicator and a power source as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 10, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed system can be extended to a plurality of doors or hatches, see e.g. a plurality of doors as suggested by Gengerke; see e.g. FIG. 2, since a duplication of a known element of structure has been held by courts to be obvious unless an unexpected result is found).
As per claim 19, the sensor assembly of claim 18 as taught by Salade, Gengerke and Del Toro, wherein the variable brightness automatically adjusts in relation to ambient light (Del Toro teaches adjusting brightness based on ambient light; see e.g. para. [0024).
Claims 12, 14, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salade in view of Gengerk and further in view of Levine .
As per claim 12, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, wherein Salade teaches the first light source is illuminated with a first color when the signal from the first proximity sensor unit indicates that the first door is open (as discussed in analysis of claim 10, the light indicator can be turn on, see e.g. para. [0052], with a first color when the door is open) but fails to teach the first light source is illuminated with a second color when the signal from the first proximity sensor unit indicates that the first door is closed.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a change of status can be indicated with a different color. For example, Levine teaches generating light with a first color and change to a second color when a status is changes from a first condition to a second condition (see e.g. col. 5, lines 6-15). Similarly, the disclosed system of Salade can output light with different colors when the door is open and when it is closed.
Salade, Gengerke and Levine are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose unsafe condition as suggested by Levine.
As per claim 14, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, further comprising a second sensor unit configured to detect the position of a second door on the grain hopper trailer, the second sensor unit connected to the power source and the first light source, wherein the first light source is illuminated a first color when the first or second door is open (as discussed earlier, Salade teaches the light indicator can be turn on, see e.g. para. [0052], with a first color when the door is open; wherein Salade teaches a single door, associated indicator and a power source as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 10, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed system can be extended to a plurality of doors or hatches, see e.g. a plurality of doors as suggested by Gengerke; see e.g. FIG. 2, since a duplication of a known element of structure has been held by courts to be obvious unless an unexpected result is found), except the claimed wherein the first light source is illuminated a second color when both the first and second doors are closed.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a change of status can be indicated with a different color. For example, Levine teaches generating light with a first color and change to a second color when a status is changes from a first condition to a second condition (see e.g. col. 5, lines 6-15). Similarly, the disclosed system of Salade can output light with different colors when any of the doors is open and when all of the doors are closed.
Salade and Gengerke are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose unsafe condition as suggested by Levine.
As per claim 17, the sensor assembly of claim 16as taught by Salade and Gengerke, exceot the claimed wherein the second light source is a different color than the first light source.
Levine, however, teaches second light source is a different color than the first light source (see e.g. col. 5, lines 6-15). Salade, Gengerke and Levine are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding unsafe conditions as suggested by Levine.
As per claim 20, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, further comprising a control module in electrical communication with the first proximity sensor unit, the control module configured to wirelessly transmit a door status (outputting door status using a door sensor and associated indicate as discussed earlier in analysis of merits of claim 10 and taught by Salade), however there is no teaching for a wireless control module to transmit the status to a remote indicator.
Levine, however, teaches status monitoring and a remote communication using a wireless module (see e.g. col. 5 lines, 4-15 and FIG 7). Salade, Gengerke and Levine are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of increased awareness for a plurality of users for reducing accidents.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salade in view of Gengerk and further in view of Siminoff.
As per claim 15, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, further comprising a second sensor unit configured to detect the position of a second door on the grain hopper trailer, the second sensor unit connected to the power source and the first light source, wherein the first light source is illuminated a first color when only the first door is open (as discussed earlier, Salade teaches the light indicator can be turn on, see e.g. para. [0052], with a first color when the door is open; wherein Salade teaches a single door, associated indicator and a power source as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 10, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed system can be extended to a plurality of doors or hatches, see e.g. a plurality of doors as suggested by Gengerke; see e.g. FIG. 2, since a duplication of a known element of structure has been held by courts to be obvious unless an unexpected result is found), wherein Salade and Gengerkea do not explicitly teach a second color when only the second door is open, a third color when both the first and second doors are open, a fourth color when both the first and second doors are closed.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that different conditions can be indicated with a different color. For example, Siminoff teaches that a color of an LED light can be changed to a first color, a second color, third color or a fourth color when a condition is detected or changes (see e.g. para. [0096). Similarly, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed lights or light colors can be used to indicate status of one or more doors (with any desired combination) of the disclosed combination as taught by Salade and Gengerke and discussed earlier.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salade in view of Gengerk and further in view of Del Toro.
As per claim 18, the sensor assembly of claim 10 as taught by Salade and Gengerke, except the claimed wherein the first light source has a variable brightness.
Del Toro, however, teaches first light source has a variable brightness (micro-controller 123 can adjust the intensity of the light being emitted by the LEDs 121; see e.g. para. [0024]). Salade, Gengerke and Del Toro are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of conserving power as suggested by Del Toro.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688