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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(2) as being anticipated by Loesch et al. (US 2025/0223120).
Claim 1, Loesch teaches an apparatus for indicating a lack of compliance with a load handling procedure (abstract), the apparatus comprising processing circuitry communicatively coupled to at least one memory, the processing circuitry configured to:
obtain data relating to a vehicle identifier detected at a load handling site (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10), the data indicating:
whether the vehicle identifier was detected in a load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during a visit thereto by a corresponding vehicle (par. 37: The camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12); and
whether the vehicle performed at least one action at the load handling site during the visit (par. 63: The computer then compares the positions of the front and rear of the cab to the silo footprint and compares the positions of the front and rear of the truck bed to the silo footprint to ensure that the cab is outside the footprint of the silo 1, so that the cab 76 is indeed in a safe location);
determine whether to generate a notification indicating the vehicle to have not complied with the load handling procedure during the visit depending on the data (par .37: enhanced to provide output signals that give feedback to the truck driver, advising him to drive forward, stop, drive backwards); and
generate the notification depending on the determination (par. 37: enhanced to provide output signals that give feedback to the truck driver, advising him to drive forward, stop, drive backwards).
Claim 2, Loesch teaches wherein the at least one action comprises at least one non-compliant action (par. 37: vehicle is not positioned in a safe location).
Claim 4, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10); and the data further indicates that the vehicle performed at least one non-compliant action during the visit (par. 14: uses a contactless distance measuring system, such as LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) in conjunction with the use of a camera, to determine the position of the truck bed (or other receptacle). The non-compliant data would be improper position vehicle is detected).
Claim 5, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10); and the data further indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in at least one non-compliant zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 14: uses a contactless distance measuring system, such as LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) in conjunction with the use of a camera, to determine the position of the truck bed (or other receptacle). The non-compliant data would be improper position vehicle is detected).
Claim 6, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10); and the data further indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was not detected in at least one compliant zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 14: uses a contactless distance measuring system, such as LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) in conjunction with the use of a camera, to determine the position of the truck bed (or other receptacle). The non-compliant data would be improper position vehicle is detected).
Claim 9, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10); and the data further indicates at least one measured weight of the vehicle to be outside of a predetermined valid weight range (par. 28: the truck 10 is resting on a scale, which weighs the truck 10 before loading (tare weight)).
Claim 10, Loesch taches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10); and the data further indicates the vehicle to have been invalidly positioned during at least one weigh-in during the visit (par. 14: uses a contactless distance measuring system, such as LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) in conjunction with the use of a camera, to determine the position of the truck bed (or other receptacle). The non-compliant data would be improper position vehicle is detected).
Claim 18, Loesch teaches wherein the vehicle identifier comprises a registration number of the vehicle (par. 37: camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10).
Claim 20, Loesch teaches a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); one or more vehicle detection cameras (Fig. 4, camera 19); and at least one storage device communicatively coupled to each of the apparatus and the one or more vehicle detection cameras (par. 9: In one instance a database or repository or corpus of data comprises thousands of truck sizes and configurations loaded into the system and, upon each new truck arriving, the Look, Lock 'n Load System learns the sizing and configuration of that individual tractor, cab and truck, which may be identified and stored as a record in a database with identifying information such as license plate number or other indicial recallable and recognizable by the system).
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) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesch et al. in view of Walker et al. (US 2008/0191874).
Claim 3, Loesch does not teach wherein the at least one non-compliant action comprises any one or more of: bypassing an inbound weigh-in; bypassing an outbound weigh-in; invalidly performing an inbound weigh-in; invalidly performing an outbound weigh-in; carrying a radioactive load.
In the field of endeavor, Walker teaches a substation includes one or more sensors for sensing cargo or contents including radioactive material of a vehicle at a weight station (par.18&24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Loesch’s system to include radioactive sensing as taught by Walker in order to identify illegal or unauthorized activities concerning the driver of the vehicle (Walker par. 7).
Claim 11, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit (par. 37: the camera captures pictures of the truck 10, the driver, and any identifying numbers or other indicia on the truck 12 (such as the DOT number, for instance) to enable a positive identification of the truck 10).
Loesch does not teach the data further indicates the vehicle to have been carrying a radioactive load during the visit.
In the field of endeavor, Walker teaches a substation includes one or more sensors for sensing cargo or contents including radioactive material of a vehicle at a weight station (par.18&24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Loesch’s system to include radioactive sensing as taught by Walker in order to identify illegal or unauthorized activities concerning the driver of the vehicle (Walker par. 7).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesch et al. in view of Honig et al. (US 2022/0170777).
Claim 14, Loesch does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause provision of the notification to one or more users or user accounts thereof.
In the field of endeavor, Honig teaches a truck scale management system. He goes on to teach “account manager 212 may also facilitate billing and payment functions associated with the usage of truck scale(s) 202. Report generator 218 may generate reports of activity, billings, payments, maintenance, and errors. Notification service 216 may generate alerts or messages to truck driver mobile device 112 and truck scale administrator computing device to report tickets, invoices, confirmations, reminders, warnings, and other system reports” (par. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Loesch’s provision of the notification to users or user accounts as taught by Honig in order to appropriately charge the users for detected overage.
Claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to email the notification to respective email accounts of the one or more users (Honig par. 98: The parameters include a default language, an email address or phone number for support, single login, user login, send tickets through short message service (“SMS”), and send tickets through email address).
Claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause provision of the notification to an online portal or a web application (Honig par. 49: Account manager 212 may also facilitate billing and payment functions associated with the usage of truck scale(s) 202. Report generator 218 may generate reports of activity, billings, payments, maintenance, and errors. Notification service 216 may generate alerts or messages to truck driver mobile device 112 and truck scale administrator computing device to report tickets, invoices, confirmations, reminders, warnings, and other system reports).
Claim 17, Loesch teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause transmission of the notification to respective user devices of the one or more users (Honig par. 49: Account manager 212 may also facilitate billing and payment functions associated with the usage of truck scale(s) 202. Report generator 218 may generate reports of activity, billings, payments, maintenance, and errors. Notification service 216 may generate alerts or messages to truck driver mobile device 112 and truck scale administrator computing device to report tickets, invoices, confirmations, reminders, warnings, and other system reports).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesch et al.
Claim 12, Loesch does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to generate the notification when: the data indicates that the vehicle identifier of the vehicle was not detected in the load handling monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit; and the data further indicates the vehicle to have been detected in at least one other monitoring zone of the load handling site during the visit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to duplicate the monitoring zone taught by Loesch, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a system involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 19, Loesch does not teach wherein the load handling site is one of: a refuse disposal site; a quarry.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the system of Loesch at a quarry site which is known for mining minerals to be relocated to other facility for further processing, since it has been held that relocating a system without producing any unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights