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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 16 December 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 were amended; claim 15 was cancelled; claim 21 was added; therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “cargo unit comprising individual packages that are stacked together and the cargo unit comprising unbounded sides”, “determine an outer envelope…determine empty gaps…determine an efficiency”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 16 December 2025. Therefore, the issue of whether Sangeneni or Siris addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Morris and Carroll in the present Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 ln. 1, “cargo” appears twice instead of “a cargo unit” and “the cargo unit”
Claim 12 ln. 4, “a cargo unit” appears instead of “the cargo unit”
Claim 12 lns. 5-6, “three dimensional” appears instead of “three-dimensional”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, and Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”)
Regarding claim 1, Payson teaches a system to monitor loading a cargo unit onto a vehicle (Figs. 2A-2D, [0069-71]), the cargo unit comprising individual packages that are stacked together and the cargo unit comprising unbounded sides (loaded pallets, Fig. 10, [0069-71]), the system comprising:
one or more sensors mounted to the vehicle and configured to scan the cargo unit (digital camera system, [0069-71]);
a communication network mounted in the vehicle and configured to transmit signals from the one or more sensors (wired or wireless network, [0069-71]); and
a control unit comprising processing circuitry (servers and/or computing devices[0071]):
Payson does not explicitly teach the control unit is configured to determine an outer envelope of the cargo unit that is defined by a height, width, and length of the stacked packages; determine empty gaps within the outer envelope formed between the packages and between the packages and the outer envelope; determine an efficiency of the cargo unit comprising a density of the packages relative to a volume of the outer envelope.
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet ([0081-83]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size and shape of a pallet is defined by the dimensions of stacked packages on the pallet).
Wen teaches scanning dimensions of packages on a pallet ([0019-21]).
Zhao teaches calculating efficiency of pallet based on volume of used space to volume of envelope (Section 2.3 Background, Fig. 2-2; Packing (outcome) efficiency on pg. 70; Fig. 4-3 shows calculated efficiency based on objects in a container). (Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhao’s calculation would easily be applied based on the data of Canini’s total envelope and Wen’s package sizes with the difference between the two being the empty gaps)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the control unit is configured to determine an outer envelope of the cargo unit that is defined by a height, width, and length of the stacked packages; determine empty gaps within the outer envelope formed between the packages and between the packages and the outer envelope; determine an efficiency of the cargo unit comprising a density of the packages relative to a volume of the outer envelope similar to Canini, Wen, and Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit onto a vehicle and ensuring the cargo unit was appropriately loaded with packages for transportation.
Regarding claim 4, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit determines the efficiency of the cargo unit based on a three-dimensional shape relative to the outer envelope of the cargo unit with the outer envelope defined by planar dimensions of the height, width, and length of the cargo unit.
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet ([0081-83]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size and shape of a pallet is defined by the dimensions of stacked packages on the pallet).
Wen teaches scanning dimensions of packages on a pallet ([0019-21]).
Zhao teaches calculating efficiency of pallet based on volume of used space to volume of envelope (Section 2.3 Background, Fig. 2-2; Packing (outcome) efficiency on pg. 70; Fig. 4-3 shows calculated efficiency based on objects in a container). (Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhao’s calculation would easily be applied based on the data of Canini’s total envelope and Wen’s package sizes with the difference between the two being the empty gaps)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the control unit determines the efficiency of the cargo unit based on a three-dimensional shape relative to the outer envelope of the cargo unit with the outer envelope defined by planar dimensions of the height, width, and length of the cargo unit similar to Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold and ensuring each cargo unit is loaded appropriately.
Regarding claim 12, Payson teaches a method of monitoring cargo that is loaded onto a vehicle (Figs. 2A-2D, [0069-71]) with the cargo comprising packages that are stacked together and with lateral sides and a top side being unbounded (loaded pallets, Fig. 10, [0069-71]), the method comprising:
scanning a cargo unit that is being loaded onto the vehicle (digital camera system, [0069-71]);
Payson does not explicitly teach determining a three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the scanning with the three dimensional shape comprising planar outer dimensions of the stacked packages; and determining an efficiency of the cargo unit as a volume of the stacked packages relative to a volume of the three-dimensional shape.
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet ([0081-83]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size and shape of a pallet is defined by the dimensions of stacked packages on the pallet).
Wen teaches scanning dimensions of packages on a pallet ([0019-21]).
Zhao teaches calculating efficiency of pallet based on volume of used space to volume of envelope (Section 2.3 Background, Fig. 2-2; Packing (outcome) efficiency on pg. 70; Fig. 4-3 shows calculated efficiency based on objects in a container). (Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhao’s calculation would easily be applied based on the data of Canini’s total envelope and Wen’s package sizes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include determining a three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the scanning with the three dimensional shape comprising planar outer dimensions of the stacked packages; and determining an efficiency of the cargo unit as a volume of the stacked packages relative to a volume of the three-dimensional shape similar to Canini, Wen, and Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit onto a vehicle and ensuring the cargo unit was appropriately loaded with packages for transportation.
Regarding claim 21, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cargo unit comprises a pallet that supports the packages (loaded pallets, Fig. 10, [0069-71]).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, and Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and further in view of Sangeneni US 20210319582 A1
Regarding claim 2, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Sangeneni teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor and a second sensor that are each mounted to the vehicle and spaced apart, the first sensor and the second sensor comprising different fields of view to simultaneously scan different sections of the cargo unit (cameras are configured in and around the cargo space and provide a full coverage of the cargo space, [0027-31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor and a second sensor that are each mounted to the vehicle and spaced apart, the first sensor and the second sensor comprising different fields of view to simultaneously scan different sections of the cargo unit similar to Sangeneni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure a more complete view of the pallets as they are loaded which will help improve dimension measurements.
Regarding claim 3, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Sangeneni teaches wherein at least one of the sensors are mounted at a door of the vehicle and at least one of the sensors is mounted within an interior of the vehicle and away from the door (cameras are configured in and around the cargo space and provide a full coverage of the cargo space, with one camera mounted above the door, and in middle of cargo space [0027-38]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that at least one of the sensors are mounted at a door of the vehicle and at least one of the sensors is mounted within an interior of the vehicle and away from the door similar to Sangeneni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure a more complete view of the pallets as they are loaded which will help improve dimension measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Sangeneni teaches wherein the control unit determines an amount of empty space in a cargo hold of the vehicle based on a three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit ([0070-72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the control unit determines an amount of empty space in a cargo hold of the vehicle based on a three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit similar to Sangeneni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping inform where the cargo unit may be placed.
Regarding claim 13, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Sangeneni teaches further comprising scanning the cargo unit prior to the cargo unit moving through a door of the vehicle and into the vehicle ([0031-38]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include scanning the cargo unit prior to the cargo unit moving through a door of the vehicle and into the vehicle similar to Sangeneni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of avoiding wasting time loading an incorrectly loaded pallet and helping determine where to place the pallet to save time while loading.
Regarding claim 17, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach further comprising determining a position and a size of gaps in the cargo unit with the gaps formed between the packages and between the packages and the planar outer dimensions.
Zhao teaches empty spaces with positions and sizes shown as part of calculating efficiency of packing (Section 2.3 Background, Fig. 2-2; Packing (outcome) efficiency on pg. 70; Fig. 4-3 shows calculated efficiency based on objects in a container).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include determining a position and a size of gaps in the cargo unit with the gaps formed between the packages and between the packages and the planar outer dimensions similar to Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold and ensuring each cargo unit is loaded appropriately.
Claims 8-10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, and Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and further in view of Siris US 20180285813 A1
Regarding claim 8, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Siris teaches wherein the control unit determines where to locate the cargo unit within a cargo hold of the vehicle based on a three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit ( Fig. 6, [0025, 61, 77-87]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pays such that the control unit determines where to locate the cargo unit within a cargo hold of the vehicle based on the three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit similar to Siris with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold.
Regarding claim 9, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Siris teaches wherein the one or more sensors are LiDAR sensors ([0024, 54]).
Additionally, LiDAR sensors are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the one or more sensors are LiDAR sensors similar to Siris with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping determine 3D shapes and positions of objects using well-known sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Payson teaches instructions that (computer program products, [0024]), when executed by processing circuitry of a control unit (computing device, [0024, 70]), configures the control unit to:
receive signals from sensors that are mounted to a vehicle and configured to scan a cargo unit with the cargo unit comprising stacked packages with packages being visible as the cargo unit moves relative to the vehicle (loaded pallet scanned by digital camera system, Figs. 2A-2D, 10, [0069-71]);
Payson does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable medium, determine an outer envelope of the cargo unit based on the signals from the sensors with the outer envelope defined by planar dimensions of a height, width, and length of the stacked packages; determine an efficiency of the cargo unit comprising a volume of the outer envelope that is occupied by the packages; and determine whether the efficiency is above a predetermined amount.
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet and a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0081-83, 126]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size and shape of a pallet is defined by the dimensions of stacked packages on the pallet).
Wen teaches scanning dimensions of packages on a pallet ([0019-21]).
Zhao teaches calculating efficiency of pallet based on volume of used space to volume of envelope (Section 2.3 Background, Fig. 2-2; Packing (outcome) efficiency on pg. 70; Fig. 4-3 shows calculated efficiency based on objects in a container). (Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zhao’s calculation would easily be applied based on the data of Canini’s total envelope and Wen’s package sizes).
Siris teaches determining if an unused volume and utilization rate in a receptacle is below an alert threshold ([0071-72]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Siris teachings can be easily applied to pallets and that determining if the efficiency is above a predetermined amount is simply the negative of determining if the rate is below a threshold)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include a non-transitory computer readable medium similar to Canini with a reasonable expectation of success, determine an outer envelope of the cargo unit based on the signals from the sensors with the outer envelope defined by planar dimensions of a height, width, and length of the stacked packages similar to Canini with a reasonable expectation of success; determine an efficiency of the cargo unit comprising a volume of the outer envelope that is occupied by the packages similar to Canini, Wen, and Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success; and determine whether the efficiency is above a predetermined amount similar to Siris with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit onto a vehicle and ensuring the cargo unit was appropriately loaded with packages for transportation and improve safety of transportation.
Regarding claim 14, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach wherein scanning the cargo unit that is being loaded onto the vehicle further comprises scanning the cargo unit from a first direction with a first sensor and scanning the cargo unit from a second direction with a second sensor and determining the three-dimensional shape based on the scans from the first sensor and the second sensor.
Siris teaches detecting size and surfaces of objects using multiple cameras at different positions ([0067-69]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that scanning the cargo unit that is being loaded onto the vehicle further comprises scanning the cargo unit from a first direction with a first sensor and scanning the cargo unit from a second direction with a second sensor and determining the three-dimensional shape based on the scans from the first sensor and the second sensor similar to Siris with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit onto the cargo hold while getting a more complete picture of the objects and limiting effects of “shadows” (Siris: [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Siris teaches further comprising determining where to position the cargo unit in a cargo hold of the vehicle based on the three-dimensional shape (Fig. 6, [0025, 61, 77-87]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include determining where to position the cargo unit in a cargo hold of the vehicle based on the three-dimensional shape similar to Siris with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and Siris US 20180285813 A1and further in view of Krishnamurthy US 10697757 B2.
Regarding claim 5, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 4,
Payson does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit prevents loading the cargo unit onto the vehicle when the efficiency is below a predetermined amount.
Siris teaches receptacles (similar to cargo units) loaded into a larger receptacle ([0061]; such as a cargo plane) and determining unused volume and utilization rate in a receptacle is below an alert threshold ([0071-72])
Krishnamurthy teaches preventing loading of freight if there is an issue (Col. 1 lns. 24-29;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson such that the control unit prevents loading the cargo unit onto the vehicle when the efficiency is below a predetermined amount similar to Siris and Krishnamurthy with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold.
Regarding claim 19, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach further comprising determining whether the cargo unit can fit into the cargo hold based on the three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit
Siris teaches determining which spaces an object can fit in and which spaces are incompatible (Fig. 6, [0025, 61, 77-87]; determines if the object can fit or is incompatible).
Krishnamurthy teaches preventing loading of oversized freight (Col. 1 lns. 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include determining whether the cargo unit can fit into the cargo hold based on the three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit similar to Siris and Krishnamurthy with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and Siris US 20180285813 A1 further in view of Sangeneni US 20210319582 A1
Regarding claim 11, Payson as modified above teaches the computer readable medium of claim 10,
Payson does not explicitly teach but Sangeneni teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine an amount of unused space in the cargo hold after the cargo unit is loaded ([0070-72]); and determine an efficiency of the cargo hold based on the unused space ([0070-72]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and further in view of Post US 11769268 B1.
Regarding claim 6, Payson as modified above teaches the system of claim 4,
wherein the control unit is further configured to:
receive first ones of the signals from a first scan of the cargo unit taken at a first time (loaded and unloaded, [0069-71]);
receive second ones of the signals from a second scan of the cargo unit taken at a second time (loaded or unloaded, [0069-71]);
Payson does not explicitly teach determine a first three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the first ones of the signals; determine a second three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the second ones of the signals; compare the first three-dimensional shape and the second three-dimensional shape; and determine that the cargo unit has been damaged when the first three-dimensional shape is different than the second three-dimensional shape.
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet ([0081-83]).
Post teaches determining damage by comparing 3D scans at different times (Col. 5 lns. 39-49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to determine a first three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the first ones of the signals; determine a second three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit based on the second ones of the signals; similar to Canini with a reasonable expectation of success compare the first three-dimensional shape and the second three-dimensional shape; and determine that the cargo unit has been damaged when the first three-dimensional shape is different than the second three-dimensional shape similar to Post with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping determine if the cargo was damaged during shipment.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), and further in view of Siris US 20180285813 A1 and Huber US 8622298 B2.
Regarding claim 16, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Payson does not explicitly teach further comprising unloading the cargo unit from the vehicle prior to transport when the efficiency is below a predetermined level.
Siris teaches receptacles (similar to cargo units) loaded into a larger receptacle ([0061]; such as a cargo plane) and determining unused volume and utilization rate in a receptacle is below an alert threshold ([0071-72]).
Huber teaches accounting for incorrectly loaded freight based on an alarm (Col. 3 lns. 55-61; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this includes unloading the incorrectly loaded freight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include unloading the cargo unit from the vehicle prior to transport when the efficiency is below a predetermined level similar to Siris and Huber with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping efficiently load the cargo unit into the cargo hold.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payson US 20220169166 A1 in view of Wen US 20220097889 A1, Canini US 20230360398 A1, Zhao (2021, “Optimal Packing of Irregular 3D Objects For Transportation and Disposal”), Siris US 20180285813 A1, and Krishnamurthy US 10697757 B2, and further in view of Post US 11769268 B1 and Somers US 20200137360 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Payson as modified above teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit is a first three-dimensional shape (a shape can be called a first shape),
Payson does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: determining a second three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit, the second shape is determined when the cargo unit is being unloaded form the vehicle; determining that the second three-dimensional shape is different than the first three-dimensional shape; and determining that the cargo unit was damaged based on the difference.
Somers teaches taking a first image at outset of journey and second image upon arrival ([0020]; monitored as loaded and unloaded in [0031])
Canini teaches dynamic pallet dimensioning to measure the shape and size of a pallet ([0081-83]).
Post teaches determining damage by comparing 3D scans at different times (Col. 5 lns. 39-49)
Additionally, Payson does teach scanning during loading and unloading ([0069-71])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payson to include determining a second three-dimensional shape of the cargo unit similar to Canini with a reasonable expectation of success, the second shape is determined when the cargo unit is being unloaded form the vehicle; determining that the second three-dimensional shape is different than the first three-dimensional shape; and determining that the cargo unit was damaged based on the difference similar to Post and Somers with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping determine if the cargo was damaged during shipment.
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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights