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
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 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) 20, 22-27, 33 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AVALOS (WO-2016044327-A1).
Regarding claims 20, 32, 37, Avalos discloses-
a docking bay for servicing a truck trailer, (docking bay 100, Fig. 1); the docking bay comprising: a programmable logic controller system configured to operate the docking bay (programmable logic controller (PLC) system, configured to switch the loading dock to a ready-to- engage mode whereby the loading deck is ready to accept an incoming truck trailer, [0023]); and one or more sensors configured to detect an orientation of a truck trailer with respect to the docking bay (a first sensor pair 120 and a second sensor pair 124. Supporting each of the first and second sensor pairs 120, 124 (angle/alignment) is a beam 128 fastened above the docking bay 100, Fig. 2; a sensor 140 and a sensor 142 (distance) are located below the floor 112 of the loading dock behind the vehicle restraint system 116., and a first sensor 304 and a second sensor 308 are used to measure respective distances 306 and 310 the distance between a trailer 312 and a wall 316 of the dock; [0025]- [0029]); a lighting system configured to provide feedback to a truck driver during moving the truck trailer into the docking bay, outside signal lights 156 configured to indicate to the driver when to proceed with backing the trailer 312 into the docking bay 100 and when to stop [0028]. Avalos further discloses directional arrow lights 160 configured to help the driver to properly orient the trailer 312 with respect to the docking bay 100 [0028]. The outside signal lights 156 and the directional arrow lights 160 operate in response to signals from the PLC system based on orientation data obtained by way of the sensors 120, 124, 140, 142 to ensure that the truck trailer is properly centered and aligned in the docking bay [0028]).
Avalos does not explicitly disclose; and a human machine interface system in communication with the programmable logic controller system and the one or more sensors. However, Avalos discloses (It should be further understood that the PLC incorporated into each of the docking bays 100, 200 is configured to allow for human interaction, such that the docking bays 100, 200 may be switched into a manual operational mode. [0032] The ready-to-engage mode prepares dock equipment at the docking bay to receive the incoming truck. It is envisioned that the shipping clerk readies the dock equipment by way of a digital signal initiated at the front gate by way of a button, switch, touch screen, or any other suitable interface.[0034].) In other words, these interfaces (buttons, switches, panels, etc.) communicate with the PLC, which in turn communicates with the sensors, and therefore are in communication with the PLC system and the one or more sensors. These operator interface elements are in communication with the PLC system, as they send commands to and receive status information from the PLC.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the various operator interface elements disclosed by Avalos, including the touch screen, control buttons and switches, the System Key and Automatic Mode pilot light, and the Remote Disengage Request button ( [0044]) into a unified human machine interface system in communication with the PLC system and the sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for easy human interaction with the PLC-controlled automated dock system and provide multiple operator interface options distributed across the docking bay and front gate, including a touch screen. Integrating these interface elements into a unified HMI system is merely the combination of known elements (touch screen, control buttons, status indicators, PLC communication) according to known methods in the industrial automation art to yield the predictable result of a centralized operator interface. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, Avalos does not specifically disclose the claimed one or more sensors are further configured to determine whether a height of the truck trailer is proper based on communications with the programmable logic controller system. However, Avalos discloses an embodiment 300 including sensors being used to align a trailer and trigger an engagement of dock equipment. In the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 3., a first sensor 304 and a second sensor 308 are used to measure respective distances 306 and 310 the distance between a trailer 312 and a wall 316 of the dock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specifically determine the height of the truck trailer and communicate the height as further measure of determining proper alignment of the trailer 312 [0029]).
Regarding claim 23, Avalos discloses the one or more sensors are further configured to detect a presence of improperly opened truck trailer doors, ( third sensor 320 and a fourth sensor 322 measure a distance 318 between dock door and the rearmost portion of trailer 312, as well as determining whether or not the trailer doors are open [0029], [0036]).
Regarding claim 24, Avalos discloses a vehicle restraint system configured to fixate the truck trailer within the docking bay, wherein the vehicle restraint system engages the truck trailer after the truck trailer is properly positioned within the docking bay, (The docking bay 100 further comprises a vehicle restraint system 116 configured to engage the trailer. As described below, the vehicle restraint system 116 typically is a hydraulic restraining device used to fixate trucks and semi-trailers to the face of the loading dock. [0024]).
Regarding claims 25, 26, Avalos discloses an overhead door configured to open once the truck trailer is fixated by the vehicle restraint system; and a dock leveler configured to deploy after the overhead door opens, wherein the dock leveler is deployed after the overhead door is opened and doors of the truck trailer are detected to be properly opened, (Once the docking bay 100 is ready to accept the incoming truck, the overhead door 104 is maintained in a closed position, the dock leveler 108 is stored and disabled, and the vehicle restraint system 116 is disengaged and disabled.[0035]).
Regarding claim 27, Avalos discloses the one or more sensors are further configured to detect obstructions located near or on the dock leveler during lifting and lowering of the overhead door, (, one or more of the sensors 140, 142 are used to verify that the trailer doors are open, and that the dock leveler 108 is clear of obstruction. [0042])
Regarding claim 33, Avalos does not specifically disclose wherein the touch screen is configured to display docking bay status information based on data provided by the one or more sensors. However, Avalos does disclose that (Fig. 2, an inside signal light 232 indicates the status of the trailer to dock personnel, and is particularly useful during times when the overhead door 104 is closed.[0028]. It is envisioned that the shipping clerk readies the dock equipment by way of a digital signal initiated at the front gate by way of a button, switch, touch screen, or any other suitable interface.[0034]). Since Avalos teaches providing a status of the trailer to dock personnel and the PLC system can be operated using a touch screen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the status of the trailer on the touch screen for real-time status to be easily viewed by the dock personnel.
Claim(s) 21, 28-31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avalos in view of Mertz et al. (US 9539995 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Avalos includes various sensors within and around a loading dock, but does not disclose the claimed docking bay including one or more sensors are configured to recognize and assess objects in an interior of the docking bay. In the same field of endeavor, Mertz et al. discloses a system including sensors used to monitor the area of a loading dock 12 including a camera 68 pointed at the wheel chock 40 to confirm that the chock has been placed properly [Col. 6, lines 48-67] and [Col. 12, 25-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automated docking bay system of Avalos to incorporate an inside control panel with a touch-sensitive LCD display in communication with the PLC system and the sensors, as taught by Metz, in order to provide dock personnel with a centralized, visual interface displaying sensor-derived dock safety status information and camera-based verification, for purposes of providing additional safety mechanisms within and around the loading dock.
Regarding claims 28, 29, 31, Avalos does not disclose the human machine interface system is configured to enable an authorized user to switch an operation of the docking bay between an automation mode and a manual mode. However, Avalos discloses (the docking bay equipment may be operated by the shipping clerk [who] readies the dock equipment by way of a digital signal initiated at the front gate by way of a button, switch, touch screen, or any other suitable interface. [0034]). Mertz discloses (a user can input an identification tag, such as, for example, a PIN, a name, a signature, or a code (e.g. a barcode in a NFC, QR, or other format) that can be stored or transmitted. Once one or more IDs have been entered into a smart wheel chock system, there can be one or more levels of authorized use by the one or more IDs. For example, there can be one or more of the stored IDs authorized to operate the loading dock including loading dock operations that can be interlocked by a smart wheel chock system, such as, for example, the door leveler or door opener functions.[Col. 12, lines 14-24]).
Since Avalos teaches a clerk using an interface to operate dock equipment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of a method that authorizes only docking bay operators, as taught by Mertz, to provide a safer environment.
Regarding claim 30, Avalos discloses the automation mode includes automatically opening the overhead door, automatically engaging the vehicle restraint system, and automatically extending the dock leveler in a correct sequence, (the vehicle restraint system 116 goes through a workflow method 400 in which operations of the overhead door 104 and dock leveler 108 are automatically operated at the loading dock [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 34, the rejection made for claim 28 applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 and 36 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: AVALOS (WO-2016044327-A1) discloses an automated docking bay system controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC) that uses multiple sensors — including laser guided vehicle (LGV) sensors positioned above and below the dock — to detect the alignment, angle, and distance of an incoming truck trailer relative to the docking bay centerline and wall. An outside lighting system comprising signal lights and directional arrow lights provides real-time visual feedback to the truck driver during backing, while the PLC automatically engages a vehicle restraint system, opens an overhead door, and deploys a dock leveler in a predetermined sequence once the trailer is properly positioned and aligned [0029] – [0044].
Mertz et al. (US 9539995 B2) discloses a system including sensors used to monitor the area of a loading dock 12 including a camera 68 pointed at the wheel chock 40 to confirm that the chock has been placed properly [Col. 6, lines 48-67] and [Col. 12, 25-67). However, AVALOS, Mertz nor any of the prior art of record disclose a human machine interface system configured to provide an interface whereby calibration and testing tasks may be performed; or a human machine interface system is configured to display sensor raw data whereby calibration and testing tasks may be performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVETTA W GOINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
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.
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.
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights