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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 11,12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambra (US 8902052 B2) in view of Schondorf (US 20220141423 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Dambra teaches, a lift system configured to engage with a rear portion of an automobile (abstract – hitch mounted lift platform), the lift system comprising:
a lift tower (14);
a platform (16) which can be moved between an up position and a down position (fig.2/3 – show platform in up and down position);
a first sensor housing (18) engaged with the platform,
a second sensor housing (18 – plurality of sensors) engaged with the platform,
a display screen (20)
and a switch (21),
Dambra fails to teach,
the first sensor housing comprising: a first camera;
the second sensor housing comprising: a second camera;
The display screen being configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera;
the switch configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera when the platform is in the up position and the second camera when the platform is in the down position;
However, Schondorf teaches,
the first sensor housing comprising: a first camera (108);
the second sensor housing comprising: a second camera (114);
The display screen (326) being configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera ([0020] – user display can display selected camera output);
the switch (312) configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera when the platform is in the up position and the second camera when the platform is in the down position ([0020] – switch (312) can select which camera input to display based on tailgate position);
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf. As stated by Schondorf, doing so allows for imaging and sensing in both open and closed positions, which is analogous to the flipped up/down positions of Dambra’s wheelchair lift, which allows for safer operation and movement of the vehicle system.
Neither Dambra or Schondorf explicitly teach,
wherein the first sensor housing may be manually rotated to a first angle and the second sensor housing may be manually rotated to a second angle such that when the platform is in the up position the first camera is directed substantially rearward, and when the platform is in the down position the second camera is directed substantially rearward
This limitation after the word “may” is construed as being optional per MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 2, Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 1 further comprising:
a sensor system housing (104) configured to engage both of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing (first sensor housing and second sensor housing are engaged with upper portion of tailgate).
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the sensor system housing taught by Schondorf. Doing so allows for easy maintenance with both sensors located in the same housing.
Regarding claim 7, neither Dambra or Schondorf explicitly teach, the lift system of claim 1,
wherein the switch is a gyroscope switch.
Dambra discloses the claimed invention except for the explicit use of a gyroscope switch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Dambra’s wheelchair lift to use a gyroscope switch since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of gyroscopes as switches and switches for their use in the art of electronic switches and the selection of any of these known equivalents to the switch disclosed by Dambra would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switch to explicitly use a gyroscope switch to limit the use of toxic substances such as mercury, and use switches compatible with modern digital electronics.
Regarding claim 8, neither Dambra or Schondorf explicitly teach, the lift system of claim 1,
wherein the switch is an accelerometer.
Dambra discloses the claimed invention except for the explicit use of a accelerometer as a switch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Dambra’s wheelchair lift to use a gyroscope switch since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of gyroscopes as switches and switches for their use in the art of electronic switches and the selection of any of these known equivalents to the switch disclosed by Dambra would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switch to explicitly use an accelerometer as a switch to limit the use of toxic substances such as mercury, and use switches compatible with modern digital electronics.
Regarding claim 9, Dambra teaches, the lift system of claim 1,
wherein the first sensor housing further comprises a first proximity sensor (18).
Regarding claim 10, Dambra teaches, the lift system of claim 9,
wherein the second sensor housing further comprises a second proximity sensor (18 – plurality of proximity sensors).
Regarding claim 11, Dambra teaches, a lift system configured to engage with a rear portion of an automobile, the lift system comprising:
a lift tower (14);
a platform (16) which can be moved between an up position and a down position (fig.2/3 – show platform in up and down position);
a first sensor housing (18) engaged with the platform,
and a first proximity sensor (18 – proximity sensor within housing);
a second sensor housing (18) engaged with the platform,
and a second proximity sensor (18 – proximity sensor within housing);
a display screen (20)
and a switch (21),
Dambra fails to teach,
the first sensor housing comprising: a first camera;
the second sensor housing comprising: a second camera;
a display screen configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera;
the switch configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera and first proximity sensor when the platform is in the up position and the second camera and second proximity sensor when the platform is in the down position;
However, Schondorf teaches,
the first sensor housing comprising: a first camera (108);
the second sensor housing comprising: a second camera (114);
a display screen (326) configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera ([0020] – display toggles between feed of first camera and second camera);
the switch (312) configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera and first proximity sensor when the platform is in the up position and the second camera and second proximity sensor when the platform is in the down position ([0020] – switch toggles between feed of first camera and second camera;
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed in claim 1.
Neither Dambra or Schondorf explicitly teach,
wherein the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing may be rotated such that when the platform is in the up position the first camera and the first proximity sensor are directed substantially rearward, and when the platform is in the down position the second camera and the second proximity sensor are directed substantially rearward.
This limitation after the word “may” is construed as being optional per MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 12, Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 11 further comprising:
a sensor system housing (104) configured to engage both of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing (first sensor housing and second sensor housing engage with upper portion of tailgate (104).
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Dambra teaches, a lift system configured to engage with a rear portion of an automobile (abstract – hitch mounted lift platform), the lift system comprising:
a lift tower (14);
a platform (16) which can be moved between an up position and a down position (fig.2/3 – show platform in up and down position);
a sensor system housing (18) engaged with a rear edge of the platform;
a display screen (20);
and a switch (21),
Dambra fails to teach,
a first camera engaged with the sensor system housing;
a second camera engaged with the sensor system housing;
a display screen configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera;
the switch configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera when the platform is in the up position and the second camera when the platform is in the down position.
However, Schondorf teaches,
a first camera (108) engaged with the sensor system housing (104);
a second camera (114) engaged with the sensor system housing (104);
a display screen (326) configured to display images from the first camera and the second camera ([0020] – display toggles between feed of first camera and second camera);
the switch (312) configured to switch an image displayed on the display screen between the first camera when the platform is in the up position and the second camera when the platform is in the down position ([0020] – Switch toggles between feed of first camera and second camera).
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Dambra fails to teach, the lift system of claim 16,
wherein the first camera is directed to a first angle and the second camera is directed to a second angle such that when the platform is in the up position the first camera is directed substantially rearward and when the platform is in the down position the second camera is directed substantially rearward
However, Schondorf teaches, The lift system of claim 16,
wherein the first camera is directed to a first angle and the second camera is directed to a second angle such that when the platform is in the up position the first camera is directed substantially rearward, and when the platform is in the down position the second camera is directed substantially rearward. (Abstract - When the tailgate is in the closed position, the first camera and the first proximity sensor are used. When the tailgate is in the open position, the second camera and the second proximity sensor are used)
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Dambra fails to teach, The lift system of claim 16,
wherein the first camera (108) is adjacent to the second camera (114) (fig. 1 – both cameras located on tailgate adjacent to each other).
However, Schondorf teaches,
wherein the first camera (108) is adjacent to the second camera (114) (fig. 1 – both cameras located on tailgate adjacent to each other).
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Dambra fails to teach, the lift system of claim 16,
further comprising at least one proximity sensor (112) engaged with the sensor system housing (104).
However, Schondorf teaches,
the lift system of claim 16,
further comprising at least one proximity sensor (112) engaged with the sensor system housing (104).
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed in claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambra (US 8902052 B2) in view of Schondorf (US 20220141423 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 above, and further in view of RVS Systems RVS-811-01 Camera system.
Regarding claim 3, Neither Dambra or Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 2,
wherein the first sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing.
However, RVS teaches, the lift system of claim 2,
wherein the first sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing (camera and sensors within rotatable assembly).
Dambra, Schondorf and RVS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and camera technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to include the rotatable sensor housing taught by RVS. Doing so allows for precise rotation of the camera systems for accurate video capturing during flipped up/flipped down operation.
Regarding claim 4, Neither Dambra or Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 3,
wherein the first sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing.
However, RVS teaches, the lift system of claim 3,
wherein the second sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing (camera and sensors within rotatable assembly).
Dambra, Schondorf and RVS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and camera technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to include the rotatable sensor housing taught by RVS for the reasons disclosed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Dambra teaches, The lift system of claim 4,
wherein the first sensor housing is adjacent the second sensor housing (18 – multiple sensors adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 13, Neither Dambra or Schondorf teaches, The lift system of claim 12,
wherein the first sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing.
However, RVS teaches, the lift system of claim 12,
wherein the first sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing (camera and sensors within rotatable assembly).
Dambra, Schondorf and RVS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and camera technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to include the rotatable sensor housing taught by RVS for the reasons disclosed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Neither Dambra or Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 13,
wherein the second sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing.
However, RVS teaches, the lift system of claim 13,
wherein the second sensor housing is rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing (camera and sensors within rotatable assembly).
Dambra, Schondorf and RVS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and camera technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to include the rotatable sensor housing taught by RVS for the reasons disclosed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Dambra fails to teach, the lift system of claim 14,
wherein the first sensor housing is adjacent the second sensor housing.
However, Schondorf teaches, the lift system of claim 14,
wherein the first sensor housing is adjacent the second sensor housing.
Dambra and Schondorf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of load handling and sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra’s Wheelchair lift platform and sensing system to include the cameras, sensors and display system for a folding liftgate taught by Schondorf for the reasons disclosed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Dambra and Schondorf fails to teach, the lift system of claim 16,
wherein the first camera and the second camera are each rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing.
However, RVS teaches, the lift system of claim 16,
wherein the first camera and the second camera are each rotatably engaged with the sensor system housing (camera and sensors within rotatable assembly).
Dambra, Schondorf and RVS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and camera technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to include the rotatable sensor housing taught by RVS for the reasons disclosed above in claim 3.
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambra (US 8902052 B2) in view of Schondorf (US 20220141423 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 6858835 B2).
Regarding claim 6, neither Dambra or Schondorf explicitly teach, the lift system of claim 1,
wherein the switch is a mercury switch.
However, Smith teaches, the lift system of claim 1,
wherein the switch is a mercury switch (Col 1 – lines 10-20).
Dambra, Schondorf and smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of sensor and electronics control. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dambra and Schondorf’s Wheelchair lift platform and tailgate sensor system to explicitly include the mercury switch disclosed by Smith, doing so allows for cost effective and low maintenance switches for use in electrical systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon in the application is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Yang (US 20160176342 A1) – Multi camera system for vehicle reversing system
Rao (US 8890956 B2) – Camera and driver alertness system with imaging devices and sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights