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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, 16-17, and 20 under Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Anderson (US 2017/0349166).
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, “a bottom surface” should read, “the bottom surface” in line 2.
Regarding claim 10, “an acceleration of the vehicle and a change in a weight measured by a weight detector” should read, “the acceleration of the vehicle and the change in the weight measured by the weight detector” in line 3.
Regarding claim 19, “a change in the weight measured by the weight detector” should read, “a change in the weight information measured by the weight detector” in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10 (which depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1), claim 1 discloses “a controller configured to control deployment of the barrier based on acceleration of the vehicle”, and claim 9 discloses “a weight detector installed on a bottom surface of the cargo platform and configured to measure a weight of cargo loaded on the cargo platform, wherein the controller is further configured to control deployment of the barrier based on a change in the measured weight”. Therefore, claim 10 (which recites “The vehicle of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to control deployment of the barrier based on both an acceleration of the vehicle and a change in a weight measured by a weight detector”) fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2017/0349166).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a vehicle {202; 302; 402; 406: “SDV 302 (an autonomous version of the cargo vehicle 202 shown in FIG. 2)” [0055]; “vehicle 402 and/or vehicle 406” [0070]} comprising: a cargo platform {212 (Fig. 2)}; a barrier {222} mounted to a bottom surface of the cargo platform {212 (Fig. 2)} configured to be deployed upward to prevent displacement of cargo {208} loaded on the cargo platform {212 (Fig. 2): “instructions can activate a cargo repositioning mechanism 222, which is an electromechanical device that pushes box 208 back to an upright position when activated” [0052]}; and a controller {201+301: “vehicle controller 201 shown in FIG. 2 is wirelessly coupled to the SDV on-board computer 301” [0055]} configured to control deployment of the barrier {222} based on acceleration of the vehicle {via 220 (“cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement. Such excessive levels of movement may ultimately result in box 208 falling” [0044]): “the SDV on-board computer 301 is capable of activating the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 and/or reconfiguring the SDV vehicular physical control mechanisms 305 shown in FIG. 3 in order to compensate for the rough road conditions on roadway 404. For example, the SDV on-board computer 301 may cause the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 to extend in order to provide additional support to a cargo box, thus preventing it from falling over while vehicle 406 is traveling on the rough roadway 404” [0073-0074]}.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses a method of preventing displacement of cargo {208} in a vehicle {202; 302; 402; 406}, the method comprising: acquiring acceleration of the vehicle {“cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement” [0044]}; and controlling deployment of a barrier {220 (Fig. 2)} mounted to a bottom surface of a cargo platform {212} upward based on the acquired acceleration to prevent displacement of cargo {208} loaded on the cargo platform {212 (Fig. 2): “cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement. Such excessive levels of movement may ultimately result in box 208 falling” [0044]; “the SDV on-board computer 301 is capable of activating the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 and/or reconfiguring the SDV vehicular physical control mechanisms 305 shown in FIG. 3 in order to compensate for the rough road conditions on roadway 404. For example, the SDV on-board computer 301 may cause the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 to extend in order to provide additional support to a cargo box, thus preventing it from falling over while vehicle 406 is traveling on the rough roadway 404” [0073-0074]}.
Regarding claim 20, Anderson discloses acquiring movement information of the cargo {208} using a movement detector {214, 216: “one or more processors (e.g., within the vehicle controller 201 and/or the robotic cargo loader controller 501 shown in FIG. 5) receive output from a cargo sensor (e.g., cargo state sensor 214 shown in FIG. 2) and a camera (e.g., cargo bay camera 216 shown in FIG. 2) on a first cargo vehicle… The output from the cargo sensor and the camera describes an amount of movement of first cargo (e.g., boxes 206, 208, and 210 shown in FIG. 2) being transported” [0094]} disposed near the cargo platform {212}; wherein controlling deployment of the barrier {222} is based on both the acquired acceleration of the vehicle {via 220: “cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement. Such excessive levels of movement may ultimately result in box 208 falling” [0044]} and a movement detected by the movement detector {via 214, 216: “vehicle controller 201 then issues instructions to cargo vehicle 202… in order to avoid any further damage to the cargo and/or to prevent such damage to other cargo as a result of falling over. That is, ameliorative instructions are issued to the operator of cargo vehicle 202 to reposition and/or secure boxes 208” [0050]; “ameliorative instructions can activate a cargo repositioning mechanism 222, which is an electromechanical device that pushes box 208 back to an upright position when activated” [0052]; “Sensors on vehicle 402 (e.g., cargo state sensor 214, cargo bay camera 216, cargo vehicle state sensor 220 shown in FIG. 2) generate information about the state of the cargo within vehicle 402 and/or the state of vehicle 402 itself and/or the state of the environment (e.g., roadway) through which vehicle 402 is traveling. The vehicle-based transceiver (e.g., vehicle-based transceiver 218 shown in FIG. 2) on vehicle 402 then transmits this information (i.e., cargo, cargo vehicle, and/or environmental information) to the vehicle controller 201. The vehicle controller 201 evaluates this information, and generates an instruction/recommendation” [0068-0069]; “the SDV on-board computer 301 is capable of activating the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 and/or reconfiguring the SDV vehicular physical control mechanisms 305 shown in FIG. 3 in order to compensate for the rough road conditions on roadway 404. For example, the SDV on-board computer 301 may cause the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 to extend in order to provide additional support to a cargo box, thus preventing it from falling over while vehicle 406 is traveling on the rough roadway 404” [0073-0074]}.
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 2-4, 6-7, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lopez (ES 2,591,239).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Anderson further discloses the controller {301} is configured to deploy the barrier {222: “on-board computer 301 may cause the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 to extend in order to provide additional support to a cargo box, thus preventing it from falling over while vehicle 406 is traveling on the rough roadway 404” [0074]} when the cargo has been determined to have shifted beyond a predetermined amount {“The processor(s) also receive output from vehicle sensors on the first cargo vehicle, where the output from the vehicle sensors describe a movement of the first cargo vehicle, and determine that the movement of the first cargo vehicle has caused the first cargo to shift beyond the predetermined amount in the first cargo vehicle” [0003]}, wherein this predetermined amount is based (in part, or entirely) on the vehicle acceleration {“cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement” [0044]}.
However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to deploy the barrier when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold.
Lopez teaches the controller {automatically activated emergency system [0036]} is configured to deploy the barrier {4, 5 (Figs. 6-7)} when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold {“the measuring means is adapted to measure at least one parameter relative to the acceleration, deceleration and / or inclination of the railway vehicle car” [0031]; “these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as acceleration, deceleration and/or inclination, reach a certain value, i.e. the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in speed, an acceleration or deceleration or an inclination, exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson, such that the controller is configured to deploy the barrier when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises a front barrier installed at a front portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface.
Lopez teaches the barrier {5} comprises a front barrier {5 (Figs. 6-7)} installed at a front portion of the cargo platform {2} and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface {Figs. 6-7}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson, such that the barrier further comprises a front barrier installed at a front portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 4, Anderson and Lopez disclose all the aspects of claim 3. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to deploy the front barrier when the vehicle is decelerated.
Lopez teaches the controller {automatically activated emergency system [0036]} is configured to deploy the front barrier {5} when the vehicle is decelerated {“these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as… deceleration… reach a certain value, i.e. the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in… deceleration… exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson and Lopez, such that the controller is configured to deploy the front barrier when the vehicle is decelerated, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Anderson further discloses the barrier {222} comprises a rear barrier {222} installed at a rear portion of the cargo platform {212} and configured to be erected {“instructions can activate a cargo repositioning mechanism 222, which is an electromechanical device that pushes box 208 back to an upright position when activated” [0052]}.
However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose
Lopez teaches a barrier {5} installed at a portion of the cargo platform {2} and configured to be erected to form a downward inclined surface {Figs. 6-7}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson, such that, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 7, Anderson and Lopez disclose all the aspects of claim 6. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to deploy the rear barrier when the vehicle is accelerated.
Lopez teaches the controller {automatically activated emergency system [0036]} is configured to deploy the barrier {5} when the vehicle is accelerated {“these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as acceleration… reach a certain value, i.e., the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in speed, an acceleration… exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson and Lopez, such that the controller is configured to deploy the rear barrier when the vehicle is accelerated, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 11. Anderson further discloses the controller {301} is configured to deploy the barrier {222: “on-board computer 301 may cause the cargo repositioning mechanism 222 shown in FIG. 2 to extend in order to provide additional support to a cargo box, thus preventing it from falling over while vehicle 406 is traveling on the rough roadway 404” [0074]} when the cargo has been determined to have shifted beyond a predetermined amount {“The processor(s) also receive output from vehicle sensors on the first cargo vehicle, where the output from the vehicle sensors describe a movement of the first cargo vehicle, and determine that the movement of the first cargo vehicle has caused the first cargo to shift beyond the predetermined amount in the first cargo vehicle” [0003]}, wherein this predetermined amount is based (in part, or entirely) on the vehicle acceleration {“cargo vehicle state sensor 220 is an accelerometer, which detects changes in motion/acceleration to the cargo vehicle 202 when stopping, starting, moving laterally, etc. If cargo vehicle 202 experiences a sudden large change in acceleration (from stopping, starting, changing lanes, swerving, etc.), then the cargo vehicle 202 will be subjected to excessive levels of movement, including lateral movement” [0044]}.
However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose controlling deployment of the barrier comprises deploying the barrier when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold.
Lopez teaches controlling deployment of the barrier {4, 5 (Figs. 6-7)} comprises deploying the barrier {4, 5} when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold {“the measuring means is adapted to measure at least one parameter relative to the acceleration, deceleration and / or inclination of the railway vehicle car” [0031]; “these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as acceleration, deceleration and/or inclination, reach a certain value, i.e. the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in speed, an acceleration or deceleration or an inclination, exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson, such that controlling deployment of the barrier comprises deploying the barrier when an amplitude of the acceleration exceeds a preset threshold, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 11. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises a front barrier installed at a front portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface.
Lopez teaches the barrier {5} comprises a front barrier {5 (Figs. 6-7)} installed at a front portion of the cargo platform {2} and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface {Figs. 6-7}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson, such that the barrier further comprises a front barrier installed at a front portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected rearward to form a downward inclined surface, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 14, Anderson and Lopez disclose all the aspects of claim 13. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose controlling deployment of the front barrier comprises deploying the front barrier when the vehicle is decelerated.
Lopez teaches the controller {automatically activated emergency system [0036]} is configured to deploy the front barrier {5} when the vehicle is decelerated {“these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as… deceleration… reach a certain value, i.e. the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in… deceleration… exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson and Lopez, such that controlling deployment of the front barrier comprises deploying the front barrier when the vehicle is decelerated, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 11. Anderson further discloses the barrier {222} comprises a rear barrier {222} installed at a rear portion of the cargo platform {212} and configured to be erected {“instructions can activate a cargo repositioning mechanism 222, which is an electromechanical device that pushes box 208 back to an upright position when activated” [0052]}.
However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises a rear barrier installed at a rear portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected forward to form a downward inclined surface (emphasis added).
Lopez teaches a barrier {5} installed at a portion of the cargo platform {2} and configured to be erected to form a downward inclined surface {Figs. 6-7}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson, such that the barrier comprises a rear barrier installed at a rear portion of the cargo platform and configured to be erected forward to form a downward inclined surface, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Regarding claim 17, Anderson and Lopez disclose all the aspects of claim 16. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose controlling deployment of the rear barrier comprises deploying the rear barrier when the vehicle is accelerated.
Lopez teaches the controller {automatically activated emergency system [0036]} is configured to deploy the barrier {5} when the vehicle is accelerated {“these emergency systems are activated automatically when the measurement of a specific parameter relative to the car, such as acceleration… reach a certain value, i.e., the safety of the passenger will not depend on whether it remembers or not to close the security system, since the passenger does not have to carry out any action other than to place the luggage in the trunk and to sit in his seat. In the event of an emergency in which there is a sudden change in speed, an acceleration… exceeding certain predetermined values, which activate the operation of these safety systems” [0036]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson and Lopez, such that controlling deployment of the rear barrier comprises deploying the rear barrier when the vehicle is accelerated, as taught by Lopez, in order to provide “a simple, practical, comfortable and reliable emergency system” [0037].
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Venkata (WO 2021/053611).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose a weight detector installed on a bottom surface of the cargo platform and configured to measure a weight of cargo loaded on the cargo platform, wherein the controller is further configured to control deployment of the barrier based on a change in the measured weight.
Venkata teaches a weight detector {6: “load sensing unit 6” [0060]} installed on a bottom surface of the cargo platform {1: “trailer unit 1” [0060]} and configured to measure a weight of cargo {“Load Monitoring 6: Cargo loaded on the trailer body is transmitted to subframe of the chassis. Multiple methods with contact and contactless methods including wireless can be deployed to measure accurate movement of subframe. One of the methods is to use rotary potentiometer with possible type of mounting in between axle and subframe. Deflection in the subframe depends on load and it is captured. A special mounting technique with accessories is incorporated to take care of side thrust and other forces acting on the sensor. Load vs. voltage characteristic will be generated based on the experimentation with trailer and used subsequently for converting sensor output to indicate current load” [0094]} loaded on the cargo platform {1: “a load sensing unit 6 for sensing/detecting and monitoring load on the trailer unit 1” [0060]}, wherein the controller {11 (3, 34, 39): “the load sensor of the said load sensing unit 6 provides current load signal to the trailer context engine and control unit 11” [0063]} is further configured to control deployment of a barrier {28} based on a change in the measured weight {“plurality of modular structure elements 28 typically one or more control structures (mechatronic units) for providing dynamic options to physically restructure the trailer, based on the context and deployment application… a trailer context engine and control unit 11 connected to all the above said components, modules and units to determine the local contexts. The said trailer context engine and the control unit 11 receive commands from the central control tower 34 and master context engine 39 and the data sent through the cloud infrastructure 3” [0060]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle, as disclosed by Anderson, such that a weight detector installed on a bottom surface of the cargo platform and configured to measure a weight of cargo loaded on the cargo platform, wherein the controller is further configured to control deployment of the barrier based on a change in the measured weight, as taught by Venkata, thus “providing dynamic options to physically restructure the trailer, based on the context and deployment application” [0060].
Regarding claim 10, in view of the 112(d) rejection above, Anderson discloses in the claim 1 rejection that the controller is configured to control deployment of the barrier based on an acceleration of the vehicle. Anderson and Venkata disclose in the claim 9 rejection that the controller is configured to control deployment of the barrier based on a change in weight measured by a weight detector. Therefore, since claim 10 depends from claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Anderson and Venkata already disclose all the aspects of claim 10 from the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses all the aspects of claim 11 (including controlling deployment of a barrier based on the acquired acceleration). However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose acquiring weight information of cargo loaded on the cargo platform using a weight detector, wherein controlling deployment of the barrier is based on both the acquired acceleration of the vehicle and a change in the weight measured by the weight detector.
Venkata teaches acquiring weight information of cargo loaded on the cargo platform {1: “trailer unit 1” [0060]} using a weight detector {6: “load sensing unit 6” [0060]; “Load Monitoring 6: Cargo loaded on the trailer body is transmitted to subframe of the chassis. Multiple methods with contact and contactless methods including wireless can be deployed to measure accurate movement of subframe. One of the methods is to use rotary potentiometer with possible type of mounting in between axle and subframe. Deflection in the subframe depends on load and it is captured. A special mounting technique with accessories is incorporated to take care of side thrust and other forces acting on the sensor. Load vs. voltage characteristic will be generated based on the experimentation with trailer and used subsequently for converting sensor output to indicate current load” [0094]}, wherein controlling {via control unit 11 (3, 34, 39): “the load sensor of the said load sensing unit 6 provides current load signal to the trailer context engine and control unit 11” [0063]} deployment of the barrier {28} is based on a change in the weight measured by the weight detector {“plurality of modular structure elements 28 typically one or more control structures (mechatronic units) for providing dynamic options to physically restructure the trailer, based on the context and deployment application… a trailer context engine and control unit 11 connected to all the above said components, modules and units to determine the local contexts. The said trailer context engine and the control unit 11 receive commands from the central control tower 34 and master context engine 39 and the data sent through the cloud infrastructure 3” [0060]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Anderson, such that the method further comprises acquiring weight information of cargo loaded on the cargo platform using a weight detector, wherein controlling deployment of the barrier is based on both the acquired acceleration of the vehicle and a change in the weight measured by the weight detector, as taught by Venkata, thus “providing dynamic options to physically restructure the trailer, based on the context and deployment application” [0060].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 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:
Regarding claim 5, 8, 15 and 18, Anderson and Lopez disclose all the aspects of claims 3, 6, 13 and 16, respectively. Anderson further disclose an actuator {222} configured to extend.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, SpanSet Inter AG (DE 10114409) teaches {Fig. 1} a front barrier {5+15 (in front of rear barrier 6+16, see Fig. 1)} comprises a front panel {15} slidably {via 5 sliding along 9} and rotatably {via 15 pivoting about 18} mounted to the cargo platform {2}, and configured to extend and push the front panel {15} to rotate and erect the front panel {15} rearward {Fig. 1}.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, SpanSet Inter AG teaches {Fig. 1} a rear barrier {6+16 (Fig. 1)} comprises a front panel {16} slidably {via 6 sliding along 9} and rotatably {via 16 pivoting about 19} mounted to the cargo platform {2}, and configured to extend and push the rear panel {16} to rotate and erect the rear panel {16} forward {Fig. 1}.
However, the slidable and rotatable barriers of SpanSet Inter AG are configured to be extended and pushed by hand or in response to the cargo load sliding due to vehicle deceleration, not by an actuator. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the disclosure of Anderson and Lopez with the teachings of SpanSet Inter AG to arrive at the limitations of claim 5, 8, 15 and 18, as this would require a significant engineering modification of the prior arts of record, and involves an inventive step.
Therefore, regarding claim 5, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the front barrier comprises a front panel slidably and rotatably mounted to the cargo platform, and a front actuator configured to extend and push the front panel to rotate and erect the front panel rearward (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the rear barrier comprises a rear panel slidably and rotatably mounted to the cargo platform, and a rear actuator configured to extend and push the rear panel to rotate and erect the rear panel forward (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 15, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the front barrier comprises a front panel slidably and rotatably mounted to the cargo platform, and a front actuator configured to extend and push the front panel to rotate and erect the front panel rearward (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the rear barrier comprises a rear panel slidably and rotatably mounted to the cargo platform, and a rear actuator configured to extend and push the rear panel to rotate and erect the rear panel forward (emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights