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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to for identify” in paragraphs [0012] and [0025] should be –configured to identify--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to for identify” on line 3 should be –configured to identify--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 15 each recite the limitation "the information" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the independent claim it depends from.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, and 13-16 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boguszewski et al. (USP 11,163,968) and further in view of Seiger et al. (USP 10,148,918).
Regarding claim 1, Boguszewski et al. disclose a method for package movement visibility in warehouse operations by a package management system (100), wherein the method comprises:
identifying, by the package management system (100), at least one object entering an area of effect (AOE) and a moving in a predetermined direction (see column 4 lines 29-30);
recording, by the package management system (100), at least one image frame of the at least one object (see column 4 lines 27-38);
determining, by the package management system (100), that the at least one object in the at least one image frame is at least one package (see column 6 lines 6-19);
determining, by the package management system (100), at least one label (204) on the at least one package from the at least one image frame (see column 6 lines 6-19);
determining, by the package management system (100), a match to the at least one label (204) in a cloud platform (see column 10 lines 4-20 and column 8 lines 21-25).
However, they do not disclose sending, by the package management system, tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform, to a client device in real-time. Seiger et al. disclose sending, by the package management system (100), tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform (204), to a client device in real-time (see column 9 lines 3-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Boguszewski et al. by including a method of sending, by the package management system, tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform, to a client device in real-time, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a driver with a view screen, on a tablet or smartphone, with a package identifier which is displayed to enable locating the package for delivery (see column 9 lines 3-24).
Regarding claim 2, Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein identifying, by the package management system (100), the at least one object entering the AOE and moving in the predetermined direction comprises:
determining, by the package management system (100), the at least one object approaching the package management system (see column 3 lines 50-56);
determining, by the package management system (100), a proximity of the at least one object approaching the package management system (see column 3 lines 50-56);
determining, by the package management system (100), that the proximity of the at least one object approaching the package management system (100) meets a proximity threshold (see column 3 lines 50-56); and
identifying, by the package management system (100), the at least one object is in the AOE and moving in the predetermined direction based on the proximity threshold (see column 3 lines 50-56).
Regarding claim 5, Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining, by the package management system (100), the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform comprises:
determining, by the package management system (100), whether the at least one label on the at least one package comprises information associated with the at least one package (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13);
extracting, by the package management system (100), the information associated with the at least one package from the at least one label, in response to determining that the at least one label on the at least one package comprises the information associated with the at least one package (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13);
sending, by the package management system (100), the extracted information associated with the at least one package from the at least one label to the cloud platform (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13); and
determining, by the package management system (100), the match to the extracted information associated with the at least one package in the cloud platform (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 6, Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 5, further comprises:
storing, by the package management system (100), the at least one image frame of the at least one label at an edge computing device of the package management system (see column 6 lines 20-44).
Furthermore, Seiger et al. disclose a method that further comprises:
determining, by the package management system (100), that the at least one label on the at least one package does not comprise the information associated with the at least one package (see column 11 lines 1-2); and
sending, by the package management system (100), the at least one image frame of the at least one label to the cloud platform (204) for initiating a manual intervention (see column 11 lines 1-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. by including steps of determining, by the package management system, that the at least one label on the at least one package does not comprise the information associated with the at least one package; and sending, by the package management system, the at least one image frame of the at least one label to the cloud platform for initiating a manual intervention, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing warnings for loading errors in order to correct the errors (see column 11 lines 1-45).
Regarding claim 7 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the information associated with the at least one package comprises at least one of barcodes (see column 11 lines 57-61), text and contextual information associated with the at least one package, instructions for handling the at least one package and hazard warning associated with the at least one package.
Regarding claim 8, Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tracking details associated with the at least one package comprises at least one of a timestamp associated with a movement of the at least one package and a location information associated with the at least one package (see column 6 lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 9, Boguszewski et al. disclose a package management system (100) for package movement visibility in warehouse operations, wherein the package management system (100) comprises:
a sensor (see column 3 lines 50-56) configured to for identify at least one object entering an area of effect (AOE) and a moving in a predetermined direction (see column 4 lines 29-30);
at least one image sensor (see Figure 1) configured to record at least one image frame of the at least one object (see column 4 lines 27-38);
an edge computing device configured to determine that the at least one object in the at least one image frame is at least one package and determine at least one label on the at least one package from the at least one image frame (see column 6 lines 20-44);
a cloud platform configured to determine a match to the at least one label in a cloud platform (see column 8 lines 21-25).
However, they do not disclose a set of sensor fusion and a cloud platform configured to send tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform, to a client device in real-time. Seiger et al. disclose a set of sensor fusion (see column 5 lines 35-42) and a cloud platform configured to send tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform, to a client device in real-time (see column 9 lines 3-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Boguszewski et al. by including a set of sensor fusion and a cloud platform configured to send tracking details associated with the at least one package based on the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform, to a client device in real-time, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing panoramic view of a tracking area (see column 5 lines 35-42) and a driver with a view screen, on a tablet or smartphone, with a package identifier which is displayed to enable locating the package for delivery (see column 9 lines 3-24).
Regarding claim 10, Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system (100) as claimed in claim 9, wherein the sensor is configured to identify the at least one object entering the AOE and moving in the predetermined direction comprises:
determine the at least one object approaching the package management system (see column 3 lines 50-56);
determine a proximity of the at least one object approaching the package management system (see column 3 lines 50-56);
determine that the proximity of the at least one object approaching the package management system meets a proximity threshold (see column 3 lines 50-56); and
identify the at least one object is in the AOE and moving in the predetermined direction based on the proximity threshold (see column 3 lines 50-56).
Furthermore, Seiger et al. disclose a set of sensor fusion (see column 5 lines 35-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Boguszewski et al. by including a set of sensor fusion, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing panoramic view of a tracking area (see column 5 lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 13, Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system (100) as claimed in claim 9, wherein the package management system (100) is configured to determine the match to the at least one label in the cloud platform comprises:
determine by the edge computing device whether the at least one label on the at least one package comprises information associated with the at least one package (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13);
extract by the edge computing device the information associated with the at least one package from the at least one label, in response to determining that the at least one label on the at least one package comprises the information associated with the at least one package (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13);
send by the edge computing device the extracted information associated with the at least one package from the at least one label to the cloud platform (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13); and
determine by the cloud platform the match to the extracted information associated with the at least one package in the cloud platform (see column 7 lines 37-67 to column 8 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 14, Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the by the edge computing device is further configured to:
store the at least one image frame of the at least one label (see column 6 lines 20-44).
Furthermore, Seiger et al. disclose a system further configured to:
determine that the at least one label on the at least one package does not comprise the information associated with the at least one package (see column 11 lines 1-2); and
send the at least one image frame of the at least one label to the cloud platform (204) for initiating a manual intervention (see column 11 lines 1-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. by including a system further configured to: determine that the at least one label on the at least one package does not comprise the information associated with the at least one package; and send the at least one image frame of the at least one label to the cloud platform for initiating a manual intervention, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing warnings for loading errors in order to correct the errors (see column 11 lines 1-45).
Regarding claim 15 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the information associated with the at least one package comprises at least one of barcodes (see column 11 lines 57-61), text and contextual information associated with the at least one package, instructions for handling the at least one package and hazard warning associated with the at least one package.
Regarding claim 16, Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the tracking details associated with the at least one package comprises at least one of a timestamp associated with a movement of the at least one package and a location information associated with the at least one package (see column 6 lines 6-19).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boguszewski et al. (USP 11,163,968) in view of Seiger et al. (USP 10,148,918) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-16 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) above, and further in view of CELLA et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0036276).
Regarding claim 3, Boguszewski et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining, by the package management system (100), that the at least one object in the at least one image frame is at least one package comprises:
processing, by the package management system (100), the at least one image frame using a KNN classifier (see column 7 lines 13-36 and column 9 lines 22-54); and
determining, by the package management system (100), that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is the at least one package (see column 9 lines 22-54).
However, Boguszewski et al. do not disclose using a KNN classifier. CELLA et al. disclose using a KNN classifier (see paragraph [1363]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. by including using a KNN classifier, as disclosed by CELLA et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing kNN analysis (see paragraph [1363]).
Regarding claim 4, Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. and further in view of CELLA et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 3. Furthermore, Seiger et al. disclose a method further comprising:
determining, by the package management system (100), that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is not the at least one package (see column 10 lines 14-23); and
stopping, by the package management system (100), the recording of the at least one image frame of the at least one object (see column 15 lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. and further in view of CELLA et al. by including steps of determining, by the package management system, that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is not the at least one package; and stopping, by the package management system, the recording of the at least one image frame of the at least one object, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing image data that does not track a human (see column 15 lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 11, Boguszewski et al. disclose the package management system (1000) as claimed in claim 9, wherein the edge computing device (300) is configured to determine that the at least one object in the at least one image frame is at least one package comprises:
process the at least one image frame (see column 7 lines 13-36 and column 9 lines 22-54); and
determine that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is the at least one package (see column 9 lines 22-54).
However, Boguszewski et al. do not disclose using a KNN classifier. CELLA et al. disclose using a KNN classifier (see paragraph [1363]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. by including using a KNN classifier, as disclosed by CELLA et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing kNN analysis (see paragraph [1363]).
Regarding claim 12, Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. and further in view of CELLA et al. disclose the package management system as claimed in claim 11. Furthermore, Seiger et al. disclose a system further configured to:
determine that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is not the at least one package (see column 10 lines 14-23); and
stop the recording of the at least one image frame of the at least one object (see column 15 lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Boguszewski et al. in view of Seiger et al. and further in view of CELLA et al. by including a system further configured to: determine that the at least one object in the captured at least one image frame is not the at least one package; and stop the recording of the at least one image frame of the at least one object, as disclosed by Seiger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing image data that does not track a human (see column 15 lines 16-20).
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 MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
12/4/2025
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655