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 .
Response to Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, drawings, and amended Specification filed on 27 May 2026 is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claim 7, and added Claim 21. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b): In light of the amended claim, the rejection of Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Robinson et al. (US 2023/0174366) “describes that a system controller receives geofencing information, then compares the GPS location of the product transport vehicle with the geofencing region to determine whether to maintain a valve of a tank compartment in a normally locked state”, and states “that the permission/prevention of liquid flow is based on whether a vehicle location is within a geofencing region of a loading station of distribution station”. Applicant further argues that the disclosure of Robinson is different than that as claimed in the present application, wherein “the permission/prevention of liquid flow from the tank compartment is based on a determination of whether a smart elbow is inside or outside a boundary or geofence of a distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product stored in the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that neither the disclosure nor claims preclude a “smart elbow” being located on a vehicle, such as a delivery manifold on a fuel truck. To the contrary, the present Specification does not definitively discuss a permanent location for the smart elbow (such as being a permanent component of a fueling station), and actually appears to teach smart elbow 150 (which includes a GNSS sensor 160) as being mobile alongside product delivery vehicle 102, as shown at Fig. 1 of Applicant’s disclosure.
To the Examiner’s best understanding, the claimed invention operates via a determination from the electronic control unit 130, that a smart elbow 150 is within the boundary or geofence 302 of the distribution tank 170, said determination being calculated using the position information provided by location sensor 160 on the smart elbow itself (see at least para 81 of Applicant’s Specification) and position information reported by tank tags 174 located on distribution tanks 170 (per para 80).
Examiner asserts that Robinson et al. teaches the same concept, as cited in the previous Office Action and as admitted in Applicant’s arguments (see the synopsis above).
Examiner further notes that, although Applicant’s Specification states the concept of “the electronic control unit 130 may determine whether the first (or any) smart elbow 150a, b, …n is within the geofence 302a, b,….n of a particular fuel type(s) to allow/prevent liquid product from flowing through the first smart elbow 150a, b,….n and into the distribution tank 170a, 170b…n” many times, the Specification does not provide any guidance as to 1) how a particular smart elbow is linked to a particular type of fuel, or 2) how the electronic control unit determines that a particular smart elbow is linked to a particular type of fuel.
Examiner acknowledges Specification, para 30, wherein Applicant admits that it is previously known to the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (per US Pat No 9,823,665, granted Nov 21, 2017) to install other sensors on a product delivery vehicle capable of determining the type of fluid within that vehicle’s delivery tanks. However, the present Specification does not detail how or if this information is conveyed to either the smart elbow 150 or electronic control unit 130 of the present invention.
On the contrary, Robinson et al. teaches (as previously cited) the same ‘665 reference as Applicant, to include a smart elbow and electronic control unit. For further clarification of the Examiner’s postion, Robinson et al. additionally teaches
- (see at least Fig 1, Fig 3, paras 107-109, and paras 116-117) system controller 130 of the product delivery system 100 in electronic communication with the tag reader unit 300, tag reader 310, a tag reader processor 320, one or more tag reader storage mediums 330, a tag reader network interface hardware 340, and a tag reader communication path 350. The tag reader 310 may be a tag reader configured to read a tank tag of a distribution tank when the tag reader 310 is positioned sufficiently near the tank tag. The tag reader 310 of the tag reader unit 300 may also be configured to read a tag of a delivery hose when the tag reader 310 is positioned sufficiently near the hose tag. The tag reader unit 300 may additionally include a display 360 and/or a user input device 370 to enable the operating to interface with the tag reader unit 300.
- (see Claim 20) ““cloud system computer readable and executable instructions, when executed by the cloud system processor, cause the cloud system to: receive geolocation information for one or more loading stations, distributions stations, or both from the network; define a geofencing region from the geolocation information received for the loading stations, distributions stations, or both”.
- (see Claim 5) “computer readable and executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system controller to:
- receive a fluid property signal from the fluid property sensor indicative of the transported liquid type of the liquid product in the tank compartment;
- determine the transported liquid type from the signal received from the fluid property sensor or from a transported liquid type parameter stored on the storage medium;
- receive a shipping liquid type of the liquid product to be loaded into the tank compartment;
compare the shipping liquid type to the transported liquid type;
- maintain the valve in the normally locked state when the shipping liquid type and the transported liquid type do not match to prevent the flow of the liquid product to be loaded into the tank compartment”.
Examiner asserts that the Robinson reference therefore discloses ““the permission/prevention of liquid flow from the tank compartment is based on a determination of whether a smart elbow is inside or outside a boundary or geofence of a distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product stored in the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle”, as argued by Applicant. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive, and the rejection stands.
In the interests of clarity to the record, Examiner updates the rejection of Claim 1 with the inclusion of Robinson Claim 5; however, the thrust of Examiner’s rejection has not changed, and the present Office Action is released as Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US 2023/0174366).
Regarding Claim 1, Robinson et al. discloses a crossover protection system (see at least Claim 15, “at least one cloud system processor and at least one cloud system storage medium containing cloud system computer readable and executable instructions”) comprising:
- a processor of an electronic control unit (Claim 15);
- a network interface hardware communicatively coupled to the processor (Claim 15, “a network interface device operable to establish a communication path with one or more external systems”. Claim 15 additionally requires “the cloud system to: receive the one or more signal packets indicative of one or more events, alarms, errors, or combinations of these from the network interface device through the network”);
- at least one memory module communicatively coupled to the processor (a memory module would be necessary to any electronic control unit processor; one is disclosed in the Abstract of the Robinson reference); and
- machine readable instructions (Claim 15) stored in the at least one memory module, wherein: the machine readable instructions stored in the at least one memory module cause the processor to perform at least the following (see further explanation below):
Further regarding Claim 1, Robinson et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1, to include a “smart elbow”, which includes a tank tag reader 152a, per Applicant’s specification at para 82.
At para 83, Applicant additionally defines the “smart elbow” as “includ(ing) the same mechanical interface components and may be configured to be mechanically coupled to the first delivery hose 190a or the second delivery hose 190b and/or configured to be mechanically coupled to the first distribution tank 170a or the second distribution tank 170b in the manner described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665, previously cited in this disclosure, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference.”
Specifically, the Robinson reference (para 59) discloses incorporation of the same U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665 in its entirety, additionally stating that the invention of the Robinson reference incorporates the same hose tag reader (see at least paras 59 and 107 of the Robinson reference). Examiner concludes that the Robinson reference therefore teaches the “smart elbow” of the present application.
The ‘695 patent also discloses system controller 70, which appears to be analogous to the “system controller 130” of the Robinson reference and the “electronic control unit 130” of the present application. See at least Col 23, line 40-Col 24, line 11 of the ‘695 patent, para 108 of the Robinson reference, and para 84 of the present application. Item 70 of the ‘695 patent is further disclosed as capable of receiving GPS position data from GPS antenna 610 (Col 23, line 40-Col 24, line 11 of the ‘695 patent). Fig. 9 of the ‘695 patent clearly shows both items 70 and 610 as located on and part of “individual product transport vehicles 15”, which is analogous to “product transport vehicle 102 (e.g., a fuel truck) of the Robinson reference and “product delivery vehicle 102” of the present application.
Therefore, Examiner concludes that both Patent ‘695 and Robinson et al., as indicated above teach Applicant’s claimed ability to determine a smart elbow position based on a signal output of a sensor of a smart elbow, wherein the smart elbow is configured to be fluidly coupled to a tank compartment of a product delivery vehicle, as presented in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, additionally, the Robinson reference discloses the concept of “geofencing” as claimed by Applicant at Claim 1.
Specifically (see at least paras 172-173 and Claim 20), Robinson et al. discloses cloud system 530, “operable to obtain geographical location information for one more loading stations 500, distribution stations 170, or both and define a geofencing region for the product transport vehicle 102 based on the geographical location information obtained” (para 172). Additionally, per the Robinson reference:
“[0173] The system controller 130, by way of the network interface device 136, may be operable to receive or retrieve the geofencing region information from the fleet management system 520 and/or the cloud system 530. The system controller 130 may include computer readable and executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, may cause the system controller 130 to receive the geofencing region from the cloud system 530 and/or the fleet management system 520, compare the GPS location of the product transport vehicle 102 with the geofencing region, and maintain the at least one valve (e.g., control valve 110 or internal valve 116) in the normally locked state based on the comparison of the GPS location of the product transport vehicle 102 to the geofencing region to prevent the flow of the liquid product into or out of the tank compartments 104a,--,104f when the product transport vehicle 102 is outside of the geofencing region (e.g., not within the geofencing region).”
A similar disclosure as also made at Claim 20 of the Robinson reference.
Therefore, Examiner concludes that Robinson et al. (at least paras 1712-173 and Claim 20; see additionally Claims 16, 17, and 19) teaches ability to
- determine whether the smart elbow position is within a boundary or geofence of a distribution tank comprising a same fuel type as a liquid product, wherein the liquid product is stored in the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle;
- in response to a determination that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, permit the liquid product to flow from the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle to the distribution tank; and
- in response to a determination that the smart elbow position is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, prevent the liquid product from flowing from the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle to the distribution tank”,
as also presented in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to perform the following:
- establish a communication path between the network interface hardware and a location system at a distribution station, a fleet management system, a cloud system (see para 172), or combinations thereof; and
- receive the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank from the location system, fleet management system, cloud system, or combinations thereof, wherein the boundary or geofence corresponds to the fuel type of the distribution tank within the boundary or geofence (paras 172-173).
Regarding Claim 3, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the boundary or geofence corresponds to the fuel type of a plurality of distribution tanks at a plurality of distribution stations (para 173).
Regarding Claim 21, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the location system, the fleet management system, the cloud system, or combinations thereof auto-generate the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank and automatically correspond the fuel type of the distribution tank to the boundary or geofence.
Specifically, Robinson et al. teaches (see at least Fig 1, Fig 3, paras 107-109, and paras 116-117) system controller 130 of the product delivery system 100 in electronic communication with the tag reader unit 300, tag reader 310, a tag reader processor 320, one or more tag reader storage mediums 330, a tag reader network interface hardware 340, and a tag reader communication path 350. The tag reader 310 may be a tag reader configured to read a tank tag of a distribution tank when the tag reader 310 is positioned sufficiently near the tank tag. The tag reader 310 of the tag reader unit 300 may also be configured to read a tag of a delivery hose when the tag reader 310 is positioned sufficiently near the hose tag. The tag reader unit 300 may additionally include a display 360 and/or a user input device 370 to enable the operating to interface with the tag reader unit 300.
Examiner notes that this configuration and process of the Robins reference is identical to that as taught in Applicant’s Specification paras 80-81. In both instances, a “type” of fuel is determined by placing a particular tag on a particular tank (with a particular type of fuel), and reading location information from that tag to determine if the correct “type” of fuel is correctly positioned.
Robinson et al. additionally teaches (see at least Claim 20) “cloud system computer readable and executable instructions, when executed by the cloud system processor, cause the cloud system to: receive geolocation information for one or more loading stations, distributions stations, or both from the network; define a geofencing region from the geolocation information received for the loading stations, distributions stations, or both”. Also see paras 107-109.
Regarding Claim 4, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, and paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20), wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to perform the following:
- in response to the determination that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, transition at least one valve from a normally locked state to an unlocked state, wherein the at least one valve (para 173, “at least one valve (e.g., control valve 110 or internal valve 116)” is configured to fluidly couple to the smart elbow; and
- in response to the determination that the smart elbow position is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, maintain the at least one valve in the normally locked state (para 173).
Regarding Claim 5, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claim 1 above and at least paras 170-171 and Claims 17-18), wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to perform the following:
- display a graphical user interface on a display (para 170, “the cloud system 530 may include a user interface capable of being accessed from a remote location, such as but not limited to a web portal accessible via the Internet”), the graphical user interface comprising:
- a schematic representation of the product delivery vehicle (“one or more conditions of the product delivery vehicle 102”) and a plurality of distribution tanks, the schematic representation including a plurality of distribution tank graphics, the plurality of distribution tank graphics comprising the boundary or geofence for each of the plurality of distribution tanks (para 170 teaches: “The cloud system 530 may also be operable to display to the user interface one or more variables associates with the product transport vehicle 102, such as but not limited to… any other information gathered by or transmitted from the system controller 130 as previously disclosed herein”. Examiner notes that “any other information” includes the “distribution liquid type of the liquid product in a distribution tank 170a, 170b” as taught at least at para 152, and geofencing information taught at paras 172-173).
Regarding Claim 8, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system, wherein the smart elbow position is determined through a position of the smart elbow relative to a product delivery vehicle position. See the rejection of Claim 1 above, to include comments concerning Item 70 of the ‘695 patent, further disclosed as capable of receiving GPS position data from GPS antenna 610 (Col 23, line 40-Col 24, line 11 of the ‘695 patent).
Regarding Claim 9, similarly to the rejection of Claim 1 above, Robinson et al. discloses a crossover protection system comprising (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20):
- a product delivery vehicle (product transport vehicle 102) comprising a tank compartment (Fig 2, tank compartments 104) for containing a liquid product;
- an electronic control unit (Claim 15) comprising a processor, a network interface hardware (Claim 15) communicatively coupled to the processor, at least one memory module (Abstract) communicatively coupled to the processor, and machine readable instructions stored in the at least one memory module (Claim 15); and
- a smart elbow fluidly coupled to the tank compartment and the smart elbow communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit (per U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665), wherein:
- the machine readable instructions stored in the at least one memory module cause the electronic control unit to perform at least the following when executed by the processor (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20):
- determine a smart elbow position;
- determine whether the smart elbow position is within a boundary or geofence of a distribution tank comprising a same fuel type as the liquid product;
- in response to a determination that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of a same fuel type as the liquid product, permit the liquid product to flow from the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle to the distribution tank; and
- in response to a determination that the smart elbow position is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, prevent the liquid product from flowing from the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle to the distribution tank.
Regarding Claim 12, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejections of Claims 1 and 9 above), wherein the machine readable instructions cause the electronic control unit to perform the following when executed by the processor:
- establish a communication path between the network interface hardware and a location system at a distribution station, a fleet management system, a cloud system (see para 172), or combinations thereof; and
- receive the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank from the location system at the distribution station, the fleet management system, the cloud system, or combinations thereof, wherein the boundary or geofence corresponds to a fuel type of the distribution tank within the boundary or geofence paras 172-173).
Regarding Claim 13, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claims 1 and 9 above, paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20), further comprising at least one valve coupled to the smart elbow and communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit (per U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665), wherein the machine readable instructions cause the electronic control unit to perform the following when executed by the processor:
- in response to the determination that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, transition the at least one valve (para 173, “at least one valve (e.g., control valve 110 or internal valve 116)”) from a normally locked state to an unlocked state (paras 172-173); and
- in response to the determination that the smart elbow position (as a component of vehicle 102) is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product, maintain the at least one valve in the normally locked state (paras 172-173 and Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 15, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see the rejection of Claims 1, 5, and 9 above and at least paras 170-171 and Claims 17-18), further comprising a display communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit, wherein the machine readable instructions cause the electronic control unit to perform the following when executed by the processor:
- display a graphical user interface on the display (para 170), the graphical user interface comprising:
- a schematic representation of the product delivery vehicle (“one or more conditions of the product delivery vehicle 102”) and a plurality of distribution tanks, the schematic representation including a plurality of distribution tank graphics, the plurality of distribution tank graphics comprising the boundary or geofence for each of the plurality of distribution tanks (see para 170 and the rejection of Claim 5 above).
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 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 7, 10-11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al.
Regarding Claims 7, 10-11 and 14, Robinson et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include product delivery vehicle 102, equipped with GPS antenna 610 and a “smart elbow” per U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665, shown to be incorporated into the disclosures of both Robinson et al. and the current application. The Robinson reference additionally discloses (para 114) “network interface device 136”, which includes an antenna and a wireless communication module, and may “communicate wirelessly according to the IrDA, Bluetooth, Wireless USB, Z-Wave, ZigBee, and/or any other wireless communication protocols.” The Robinson reference additionally teaches at least one “geofence” with boundaries at paras 172-173 and Claim 20.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that although the Robinson and ‘665 patent references do not explicitly teach GPS, antenna, and/or wireless components directly attached to the “smart elbow”, it would be a simple matter to either rearrange and/or duplicate these aforementioned components to arrive at this configuration. In the present case, shifting the position (e.g. “rearranging”) any of these components would not have modified the operations of the device of Robinson et al. Additionally, the courts have held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; in the present case duplicating the GPS antenna and/or wireless communication components specifically for the smart elbow would have the predictable result of increased accuracy of the individual components of product vehicle 102.
Examiner therefore concludes that the Robinson reference teaches the claimed limitations of Applicant’s Claims 7, 10-11 and 14. Specifically:
Regarding Claim 7, Robinson et al. therefore teaches a crossover protection system (see Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the smart elbow position is determined through a receiver, or any other suitable transceiver communicatively coupled to the network interface hardware (per U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665 and Examiner’s rationale above, and via rearrangement and/or duplication of GPS antenna 610 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 10, Robinson et al. teaches a crossover protection system (see Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 above) wherein the smart elbow is communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit through Bluetooth (para 114), ultra-wideband, or both.
Regarding Claim 11, Robinson et al. teaches a crossover protection system (see Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 above) wherein the smart elbow position is determined through a position of the smart elbow relative to a product delivery vehicle position (per U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665 and Examiner’s rationale above, and via rearrangement and/or duplication of GPS antenna 610 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 14, Robinson et al. teaches a crossover protection system (see Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 above) wherein a distribution station comprises a plurality of boundaries or geofences of a plurality of distribution tanks (via a duplication of the geofences as disclosed at paras 172-173 and Claim 20), each of the plurality of boundaries or geofences corresponding to the fuel type (paras 172-173 and Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 17, Robinson et al. discloses a method for loading liquid product (through the normal use of the apparatus as shown above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 9), the method comprising:
- determining a smart elbow position based on a signal output of a sensor of a smart elbow, wherein the smart elbow is configured to be fluidly coupled to a tank compartment of a product delivery vehicle (see the rejection of Claims 1 and 9 above, to include “system controller 130” capable of receiving GPS data from GPS antenna 610, both located on product transport vehicle 102).
Should Applicant argue that GPS antenna is not taught as being specifically located as “a sensor of a smart elbow”, Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply duplicate the GPS antenna 610 and place it as such as sensor. The courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, the duplication of antenna 610 would have the predictable result of greater accuracy of the location of certain sections of vehicle 102, to include the location of the “smart elbow”;
- determining whether the smart elbow position is within a boundary or geofence of a distribution tank comprising a same fuel type as a liquid product (see the rejection of Claims 1 and 9 above, paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20), wherein the liquid product is stored in the tank compartment (104) of the product delivery vehicle (102);
- permitting the liquid product to flow from the tank compartment of the product delivery vehicle to the distribution tank (170) in response to determining that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product (paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20); and
- preventing the liquid product from flowing from the tank compartment (104) of the product delivery vehicle (102) to the distribution tank (170) in response to a determination that the smart elbow position is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product paras 82-83, 89, 108, 172-173, and Claims 15-20).
Regarding Claim 18, Robinson et al. discloses a method for loading liquid product, the method further comprising:
- establishing (through the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1 and 9 above) a communication path between a network interface hardware and a location system at a distribution station, a fleet management system, a cloud system (para 172), or combinations thereof; and
- receiving (through the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1 and 9 above) the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank from the location system at the distribution station, the fleet management system, the cloud system, or combinations thereof, wherein the boundary or geofence corresponds to the fuel type of the distribution tank within the boundary or geofence (paras 172-173).
Regarding Claim 19, Robinson et al. discloses a method for loading liquid product, the method further comprising:
- transitioning (through the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1 and 9 above) at least one valve (para 173, “at least one valve (e.g., control valve 110 or internal valve 116)” from a normally locked state to an unlocked state (para 173), wherein the at least one valve is configured to fluidly couple to the smart elbow in response to the determination that the smart elbow position is within the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product (paras 172-173); and
maintaining (through the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1 and 9 above) the at least one valve in the normally locked state in response to the determination that the smart elbow position is outside the boundary or geofence of the distribution tank of the same fuel type as the liquid product (para 173).
Regarding Claim 20, Robinson et al. discloses a method for loading liquid product, the method further comprising: displaying (through the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1, 5, and 9 above) a graphical user interface on a display, the graphical user interface comprising a schematic representation of the product delivery vehicle (para 170, “the cloud system 530 may include a user interface capable of being accessed from a remote location, such as but not limited to a web portal accessible via the Internet”) and a plurality of distribution tanks, the schematic representation including a plurality of distribution tank graphics, the plurality of distribution tank graphics comprising the boundary or geofence for each of the plurality of distribution tanks (para 170 teaches: “The cloud system 530 may also be operable to display to the user interface one or more variables associates with the product transport vehicle 102, such as but not limited to… any other information gathered by or transmitted from the system controller 130 as previously disclosed herein”. Examiner notes that “any other information” includes the “distribution liquid type of the liquid product in a distribution tank 170a, 170b” as taught at least at para 152, and geofencing information taught at paras 172-173).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al., in view of Nelson et al. (US 2019/0084821).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Robinson et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a graphical interface/display (see at least para 170), but does not explicitly state that said interface is “color coded”, as claimed by Applicant at Claims 6 and 16.
However, it is well known to color-code any graphical display, for the obvious reasons of quickly and clearly conveying visual information to a user. Nelson et al. teaches a graphical interface of a cross-over protection system wherein the plurality of distribution tank graphics are color-coded. See paras 88, 103, 108, and Claim 15.
Examiner further notes that the Nelson reference explicitly incorporates the entirety of U.S. PG PUB 2014/0129038, which is the associated publication of U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,665 (also incorporated by both Robinson et al. and the present application) by reference. See at least para 1 of Nelson et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the graphical display of Robinson et al. was indeed “color-coded” as taught by Nelson et al., in order to gain the obvious advantages of quickly and clearly conveying visual information to a user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights