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 amendment filed 04/16/2026 is acknowledged and has been accepted by the examiner. Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 12-14 are pending. Claims 4-5, 11, and 15-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Gann (US20050012852A1), 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 opposing second end comprising an opening;
an image sensor disposed in the housing and near the first end and configured to be oriented toward the cargo;
a shutter disposed in the housing between the image sensor and the opening;
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 opposing second end of the housing adjacent to the opening in the opposing second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, in the same field of endeavor of image detectors, Gann discloses a detector (‘digital camera’ – 100, Fig. 1A), which includes:
a housing (body of the camera, shown in Figs. 1A-C) having a first end (backside, shown in Fig. 1B), and an opposing second end (from end, shown in Fig. 1A) with an opening (lens opening, 104, Fig. 1A),
an image sensor disposed in the housing (504, Fig. 5; paragraph [0019] discloses a photosensor disposed in the digital camera housing) configured to be oriented toward the object to be imaged (Fig. 5 depicts the image sensor 504 in the housing. While it does not explicitly disclose the sensor is oriented towards an object to be imaged, Gann also does not disclose the optical elements needed to make other configurations possible (such as a mirror to reflect the light from the camera lens to the image sensor). Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the image sensor to be in the usual orientation, which is facing towards the lens and thus the object to be image),
a shutter disposed in the housing between the image sensor and the opening (Gann does not explicitly disclose a shutter, but it does a shutter button which controls a shutter (102, Fig. 1A; paragraph [0037]), a lens with a shutter speed (paragraph [0046]), and that the shutter button causes image capture (paragraph [0075]). Therefore, the examiner is concluding the camera does have a shutter. Further, the disclosure of paragraph [0046] of a lens with a shutter speed implies the shutter is between the image sensor and the lens opening), and
a light source mounted to the top of the second end, adjacent to the opening in the second end (flash -112, Fig. 1A).
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 Gann 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 Gann in order to achieve detection and imaging of cargo.
Scheer as modified by Gann 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 Gann with the pinhole camera taught in Hooker would require the 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, therefore simplifying the camera design. 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 Scheer as modified Gann in order to yield the predictable result of a cargo inspection apparatus with a simpler design. Thus, 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 Gann 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 Gann, 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]).
Regarding claim 8, Scheer teaches a cargo detector (ULD sensor – 219, Fig. 2A) , wherein the cargo detector is disposed within a power drive unit (210, Fig. 2A).
Scheer fails to teach the cargo detector comprising:
a housing having a first end and an opposing second end, the opposing second end comprising an opening;
an image sensor disposed in the housing and near the first end and configured to be oriented toward cargo;
a shutter disposed in the housing between the image sensor and the opening;
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 opposing second end of the housing adjacent to the opening in the opposing second end and configured to illuminate the cargo.
However, Gann teaches a detector (‘digital camera’ – 100, Fig. 1A), which includes:
a housing (body of the camera, shown in Figs. 1A-C), a first end (backside, shown in Fig. 1B), and an opposing second end (from end, shown in Fig. 1A) with an opening (lens opening, 104, Fig. 1A),
an image sensor disposed in the housing (504, Fig. 5; paragraph [0019] discloses a photosensor disposed in the digital camera housing) configured to be oriented toward the object to be imaged (Fig. 5 depicts the image sensor 504 in the housing. While it does not explicitly disclose the sensor is oriented towards an object to be imaged, Gann also does not disclose the optical elements needed to make other configurations possible (such as a mirror to reflect the light from the camera lens to the image sensor. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the image sensor to be in the usual orientation, which is facing towards the lens and thus the object to be image),
a shutter disposed in the housing between the image sensor and the opening (Gann does not explicitly disclose a shutter, but it does a shutter button which controls a shutter (102, Fig. 1A; paragraph [0037]), a lens with a shutter speed (paragraph [0046]), and that the shutter button causes image capture (paragraph [0075]). Therefore, the examiner is concluding the camera does have a shutter. Further, the disclosure of paragraph [0046] of a lens with a shutter speed implies the shutter is between the image sensor and the lens opening), and
a light source mounted to the top of the outside of the opening in the second end (flash -112, Fig. 1A).
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 Gann 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 Gann in order to achieve detection and imaging of cargo.
Scheer as modified by Gann fails to teach a pin hole disposed in the shutter.
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 Scheer as modified by Gann 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 Scheer as modified by Gann 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 detector taught in Scheer as modified by Gann 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 12, Scheer in view of Gann and Hooker teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and teaches a second housing 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).
Regarding claim 13, Scheer in view of Gann and Hooker 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]).
Claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Gann (US20050012852A1), and Hooker (US6525333B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20220287562A1).
Regarding claim 2, Scheer in view of Gann, 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 Gann, 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 Gann 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, 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 pinhole diameters taught by Yoon, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Scheer in view of Gann and Hooker teaches 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 Scheer in view of Gann and Hooker with the pinhole diameter taught in Yoon as this range enables good image resolution with room for adjustment depending on the light intensity (Yoon: paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Scheer in view of Gann and Hooker 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, 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 pinhole diameters taught by Yoon, 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Scheer (EP 3653503A1) in view of Gann (US20050012852A1), and Hooker (US6525333B1)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harms (US20180172827A1).
Regarding claim 7, Scheer as modified by Gann, and Hooker teaches 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 Gann, and Hooker with the distance between the object being imaged and the detector (thus, the pinhole) as taught in Harms in order to achieve the desired converges or divergences of the light reflected from the object (Harms: paragraph [0021]), ensuring the light is focused correctly on the image detector (Harms: paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, teaches 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 with the distance between the object being imaged and the detector (thus, the pinhole) in order to achieve the desired converges or divergences of the light reflected from the object (Harms: paragraph [0021]), ensuring the light is focused correctly on the image detector (Harms: paragraph [0022]).
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights