DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the March 5, 2025.
Status of claims: claims 1-12; claims 13-16 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 5, 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 5 – shouldn’t “a vehicle door to be opened” be amended to “an unopened vehicle door”?
Claim 13, line 7 – shouldn’t “inserted into” be amended to “inserted within”?
Claim 13, line 13 – isn’t “to be opened” unnecessary and should be deleted?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12129134 to Gill in view of US 7290378 to Kalnay.
The apparatus disclosed in Gill inevitably discloses a method of controlling docking between a vehicle 200 and a building (the building houses element 102, (see FIGS. 1, 4, 8) the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller, a docking request from the vehicle in a state in which parking of the vehicle is completed; (see portion of col. 8 below – “Data generated by the pressure sensors may be provided to the controller for determining whether a cargo trailer 200 is engaged with the sealing elements 106”)
opening, by the controller, an external door, provided at a side of a vehicle door to be opened, according to the received docking request; (see portion of col. 8 below – “ … and for executing one or more processes upon detecting contact therebetween (e.g., transmitting a control signal to one or more door control motors to move a docking door to an open configuration.”)
Gill also discloses a sealing unit 106 (see FIG. 8) inserted into an entrance frame 102 to be provided at an external door, and configured to extend in a direction toward a vehicle door to connect an internal space of the vehicle and an indoor space of the building into one space, in the direction toward the vehicle door in an opened state of the external door.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The apparatus disclosed in Gill inevitably fails to disclose
extending, by the controller, a sealing unit, inserted into an entrance frame to be provided between the external door and an internal door, and configured to selectively extend in a direction toward the vehicle door to connect an internal space of the vehicle and an indoor space of the building into one space, in the direction toward the vehicle door in an opened state of the external door; and
opening, by the controller, the internal door, spaced from the external door and provided at a side of the building to be opened, in an opened state of the vehicle door.
The apparatus of Kalnay inevitably teaches of extending a sealing unit 101, 106, 107 (see FIG. 4 below) inserted into an entrance frame 102 (see FIG. 4) to be provided between an external door 105 (door furthest from frame 102; see Fig 4) and an internal door 105, and configured to selectively extend in a direction toward a vehicle door to connect an internal space of the vehicle (see col. 4, line 40 – “vehicles”) and an indoor space of the building into one space, (see FIGS. 1, 3, 4 and Summary of the invention; note the sealing unit is extendable) in the direction toward the vehicle door in an opened state of the external door; and
opening, the internal door, spaced from the external door and provided at a side of the building to be opened, in an opened state of the vehicle door.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing unit and controller disclosed in Gill with the sealing unit taught in Kalnay such that the sealing unit could be controlled via a controller to expand and retract and the doors opened and closed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for an expandable sealing unit that “may be rapidly deployed, attached and expanded to provide safe entry” into the building from the vehicle while keeping out “cold, heat, insects, dust, muck, noise, or even unwelcome visitors.” (see col. 1 of Kalnay).
Additionally, by combining the teachings of Kalnay with Gill, Gill, as applied above, inevitably discloses “extending, by the controller, a sealing unit, inserted into an entrance frame to be provided between the external door and an internal door, and configured to selectively extend in a direction toward the vehicle door to connect an internal space of the vehicle and an indoor space of the building into one space, in the direction toward the vehicle door in an opened state of the external door; and opening, by the controller, the internal door, spaced from the external door and provided at a side of the building to be opened, in an opened state of the vehicle door. (claim 13)
Gill, as applied above, further inevitably discloses receiving, by the controller, a docking release request from the vehicle in an opened state of the internal door; (note: the pressure sensors of Gill, connected to the controller, determine whether the vehicle is engaged with the sealing unit. Therefore, disengagement of the vehicle with the sealing unit constitutes a docking release request from the vehicle to the controller.) and closing, by the controller, the internal door according to the received docking release request. (claim 15)
Gill, as applied above, further inevitably discloses coupling, by the controller, the sealing unit to a body frame (the trailer of vehicle 200; see FIG 8) of the vehicle, when the internal space of the vehicle and the indoor space of the building are connected by extending the sealing unit in the direction toward the vehicle door. (claim 16)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill in view of Kalnay, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of WO 85/01495 to Marinitsch.
Gill, as applied above, further inevitably discloses opening, by the controller, the vehicle door when the internal space of the vehicle and the indoor space of the building are connected by extending the sealing unit in the direction toward the vehicle door. However, Gill, as applied above, fails to inevitably disclose opening the vehicle door by rotating the vehicle door within the sealing unit. Marinitsch teaches of opening a vehicle door by rotating the vehicle door within the sealing unit. (see FIG. 10; not the unnumbered door attached to the vehicle 2’ is rotatably opened in the sealing unit 10’.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle door disclosed in Gill such that the vehicle door rotates within the sealing unit as taught in Marintsch with a reasonable expectation of success in order to keep out “cold, heat, insects, dust, muck, noise, or even unwelcome visitors” when opening and closing the vehicle door during engagement with the sealing unit. (claim 14)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634