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 Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kubo (US20010003466A1).
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Kubo (US20010003466A1) and Hooker (US6525333B1).
Regarding claim 1, Scheer teaches a cargo handling system (100, Fig. 1B), comprising:
a conveyance surface (102, Fig. 1B);
a power drive unit for moving cargo along the conveyance surface (110, Fig. 1B), the power drive unit disposed in the conveyance surface (Fig. 1B); and
a cargo detector (ULD sensor - 219, Fig. 2A) coupled to the power drive unit (210; paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0042]) and disposed within the power drive unit (Fig. 2A).
Scheer fails to teach the cargo detector including:
a housing having a first end and an opposing second end, the second end being open thereby forming an open second end an image sensor disposed in the housing and near the first end and configured to be oriented toward the cargo;
a shutter disposed in relation to the image sensor to be the housing between the image sensor and the cargo open second end; [[and]] a pin hole disposed in the shutter, wherein the cargo detector is disposed within the power drive unit; and
a light source mounted to at least one of a top, bottom, or side of an outside of the housing adjacent to the open second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, in the same field of endeavor of image detectors, Kubo discloses a detector ('digital camera' - 1, Fig. 1) which includes a housing (body of the housing) with a first end (back of camera, shown in Fig. 2) and an open second end (end with the lens, 11, Fig. 1), an image sensor oriented towards the object meant to be imaged ('CCD' - 12, Fig. 1), a shutter between the image sensor and the open second end (17, Fig.1), and a light source mounted to the top of the outside of the housing ('flash device' - 2, Fig. 3).
Scheer discloses the ULD sensor may be a passive optical sensor (paragraph [0034]), which includes a digital camera. Digital cameras are well-known and widely used to capture images of objects. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute the ULD sensor taught in Scheer with the digital camera taught in Kubo and still have a reasonable expectation of success of capturing and detecting cargo as digital cameras are widely used and their use well-known. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Scheer with the digital camera of Kubo in order to achieve detection and imaging of cargo.
Scheer as modified by Kubo fails to teach a pin hole disposed in the shutter.
However, in the same field of endeavor of object inspection, Hooker teaches a camera with a pinhole lens (column 4, lines 20-21).
Combining the camera taught in Kubo with the pinhole camera taught in Hooker would require the shutter and pinhole to be disposed in the housing.
Pinhole cameras are well known in the art and used as a simple way of imaging as there is no need for other optical elements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try using the pinhole camera taught in Hooker with the digital camera taught in Kubo in order to yield the predictable result of a cargo inspection apparatus with a simpler design.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the cargo handling system taught in Scheer as modified by Kubo with the pinhole camera taught in Hooker as pinhole cameras are well known in the art to yield the predictable result of inspecting an object while maintaining a simple design.
Regarding claim 6, Scheer in view of Kubo and Hooker teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Scheer further teaches the image sensor is a charge- coupled device (a CCD is a type of passive optical sensor, paragraph [0034]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Kubo (US20010003466A1) and Hooker (US6525333B1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20220287562A1).
Regarding claim 2, Scheer in view of Kubo and Hooker teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the pin hole has a diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imaging objects with a pinhole camera, Yoon teaches a pinhole camera with a diameter between 0.1 mm to 3 mm (paragraph [0062]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Scheer as modified by Kubo and Hooker with the pinhole diameter taught in Yoon as this range enables specific image resolution and can be adjusted depending on the light intensity (Yoon: paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Scheer in view of Kubo and Hooker teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach there is a distance between the image sensor and the pin hole, the distance being about 8 mm to about 12 mm.
However, as shown by Yoon teaches a pinhole camera with a diameter between 0.1 mm to 3 mm (paragraph [0062]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the Rayleigh criterion for optimal resolution in a pinhole camera:
d=1.9√λf
Where d is the diameter of the pinhole, λ is the wavelength of the light source (approximately 550 nm for visible light), and f is the focal length (or, the distance between the pinhole and the image sensor). Applying the optimal pinhole diameters, the resulting focal length would be between 7.5 mm and 745 mm in order to have a clear image, which covers the claimed range.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Kubo (US20010003466A1) and Hooker (US6525333B1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Harms (US20180172827A1).
Regarding claim 7, Scheer as modified by Kubo and Hooker teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the distance between a top surface of the conveyance surface and the pin hole, the distance being about 15 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Harms teaches a cargo detector (ULD sensor, 300 - Fig. 13) being a distance (502) away from the object being imaged (500; object (ULD) is on a PDU, paragraph [0051]), which is included in the conveyance surface (paragraph 0046]) that ranges from approximately 13 mm to approximately 152 mm (paragraph [0074] discloses the distance, 502, may be greater than one half of a first distance, 406. Paragraph [0072] teaches the first distance, 406, may be between 25.4 mm and 305 mm.).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the cargo handling system of Scheer in view of Kubo with the distance between the object being imaged and the detector (thus, the pinhole) in order to accurately determine if an object is present or out of the distance range (Harms: paragraph [0066]).
Claims 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah (GB2595490A) in view of Hooker (US6525333B1), Scheer (EP3653503A1) and Kubo (US20010003466A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cheah teaches cargo detector (100), comprising:
a housing (105, Fig. 1b) having a first end (104, Fig. 1b) and an opposing second end (106, Fig. 1b), the second end being open thereby forming an open second end (abstract) an image sensor disposed in the housing and near the first end and configured to be oriented toward cargo (Fig. 1b shows the image sensor, 103, near the closed end, 104).
Cheah fails to teach a shutter disposed relation to the image sensor to be the housing between the image sensor and the cargo open second end; a pin hole disposed in the shutter, wherein the cargo detector is disposed within a power drive unit, and a light source mounted to at least one of a top, bottom, or side of an outside of the housing adjacent to the open second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, Hooker teaches a camera with a pinhole lens (column 4, lines 20-21). A pinhole camera (such as the one taught by Hooker) would teach a shutter between an image sensor and the cargo, and a pinhole disposed in the shutter.
Combining the optical sensor taught in Cheah with the pinhole camera taught in Hooker would require the shutter and pinhole to be disposed in the housing.
Pinhole cameras are well known in the art and used as a simple way of imaging as there is no need for other optical elements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try using the pinhole camera taught in Hooker in place of the optical sensor taught in Cheah in order to yield the predictable result of a cargo inspection apparatus with a simpler design.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the cargo handling system taught in Scheer as modified by Cheah with the pinhole camera taught in Hooker as pinhole cameras are well known in the art to yield the predictable result of inspecting an object while maintaining a simple design.
Cheah as modified by Hooker fails to teach the detector is disposed within a power drive unit a light source mounted to at least one of a top, bottom, or side of an outside of the housing adjacent to the open second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, Scheer teaches a detector (ULD sensor - 219, Fig. 2A) disposed within a power drive unit (paragraph [0034]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the detector taught in Cheah as modified with Hooker with the detector disposed within a power drive unit taught in Scheer in order to detect the presence of the object as it passes (Scheer: paragraph [0015]).
Cheah as modified by Hooker and Scheer fails to teach a light source mounted to at least one of a top, bottom, or side of an outside of the housing adjacent to the open second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, Kubo discloses a detector ('digital camera' - 1, Fig. 1) which includes a light source mounted to the top of the outside of the housing ('flash device' - 2, Fig. 3).
Scheer discloses the ULD sensor may be a passive optical sensor (paragraph [0034]), which includes a digital camera. Digital cameras are well-known and widely used to capture images of objects. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute the ULD sensor taught in Scheer with the digital camera taught in Kubo and still have a reasonable expectation of success of capturing and detecting cargo as digital cameras are widely used and their use well-known. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Cheah as modified by Hooker and Scheer with the digital camera of Kubo in order to achieve detection and imaging of cargo.
Regarding claim 12, Cheah in view of Hooker, Scheer and Kubo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and teaches a second housing (Cheah: page 8, lines 15-18 disclose a wall which separates the single housing into two separate housings) for housing a motor (Scheer: 242, Fig. 2A; paragraph [0032] discloses the tray is comprised of the motor), a wheel (Scheer: drive roller – 208, Fig. 2A; paragraph [0032] discloses the driver roller is a cylindrical wheel), and the cargo detector (Scheer: ULD sensor - 219).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the housing taught in Cheah as modified by Hooker, Scheer and Kubo with the motor, wheel and cargo detector taught in Scheer as this configures facilitates transportation of containers while also imaging the containers (Scheer: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Cheah in view of Hooker, Scheer and Kubo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the image sensor is a charge-coupled device (Scheer: a CCD is a type of passive optical sensor, paragraph [0034]).
A CCD is a very common type of image detector. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably substitute the know CCD with the image detector taught in Cheah as modified by Hooker, Scheer and Kubo and yield the expected outcome of imaging an object.
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Cheah as modified by Hooker, Scheer and Kubo with the CCD taught in Scheer as CCDs are well-known in the art and widely used in imaging objects.
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to combine the detector taught in Cheah in view of Hooker with the passive optical sensor (CCD) taught in Scheer as CCDs are well known in the art to yield predictable results of capturing images of an object.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah (GB2595490A) in view of Hooker (US6525333B1), Scheer (EP3653503A1) and Kubo (US20010003466A1) as applied above to claim 8, further in view of Yoon (US20220287562A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cheah in view of Hooker, Scheer and Kubo teach the invention as explained above in claim 8, but fails to teach the pin hole has a diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imaging objects with a pinhole camera, Yoon teaches a pinhole camera with a diameter between 0.1 mm to 3 mm (paragraph [0062]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Cheah as modified by Hooker, Scheer and Kubo with the pinhole diameter taught in Yoon as this range enables specific image resolution and can be adjusted depending on the light intensity (Yoon: paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Scheer in view of Hooker, Scheer and Kubo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, but fails to teach there is a distance between the image sensor and the pin hole, the distance being about 8 mm to about 12 mm.
However, as shown by Yoon teaches a pinhole camera with a diameter between 0.1 mm to 3 mm (paragraph [0062]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the Rayleigh criterion for optimal resolution in a pinhole camera:
d=1.9√λf
Where d is the diameter of the pinhole, λ is the wavelength of the light source (approximately 550 nm for visible light), and f is the focal length (or, the distance between the pinhole and the image sensor). Applying the optimal pinhole diameters, the resulting focal length would be between 7.5 mm and 745 mm in order to have a clear image, which covers the claimed range.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah (GB2595490A) in view of Hooker (US6525333B1), Scheer (EP3653503A1) and Kubo (US20010003466A1) as applied above to claim 8, further in view of Harms (US20180172827A1).
Regarding claim 14, Cheah in view of Hooker, Scheer and Kubo teach the invention as explained above in claim 8, but fails to teach the distance between a top surface of the conveyance surface and the pin hole, the distance being about 15 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Harms teaches a cargo detector (ULD sensor, 300 - Fig. 13) being a distance (502) away from the object being imaged (500; object (ULD) is on a PDU (paragraph [0051]), which is included in the conveyance surface (paragraph 0046]) that ranges from approximately 13 mm to approximately 152 mm (paragraph [0074] discloses the distance, 502, may be greater than one half of first distance, 406. Paragraph [0072] teaches the first distance, 406, may be between 25.4 mm and 305 mm.).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the cargo handling system of Cheah as modified by Hooker, Scheer and Kubo with the distance between the object being imaged and the detector (thus, the pinhole) in order to accurately determine if an object is present or out of the distance range (Harms: paragraph [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877