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 Amendments
Submission dated 09/19/2025 (“submission”) amends claims 11 and 20. Claims 1-10 were previously cancelled. Claims 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the submission have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the submission, the applicant argues that Sangeneni’s camera does not estimate a cargo size because it is the volume estimation unit that estimates the cargo size. The examiner does not agree because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner is interpreting Sangeneni’s vehicular cargo management system, which includes the volume estimation unit along with the camera unit, as the claimed camera. The examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the specification because the specification does not preclude related units, such as the volume estimation unit that processes the camera images, from being grouped with the camera. In fact, similar to the examiner’s interpretation, the camera in the specification includes, along with a camera unit, a neural network that processes images of the camera unit (see, e.g., pars. 21 and 41 of the specification). As such, the examiner finds the above arguments unpersuasive.
On page 6 of the submission, the applicant also argues that Sangeneni as applied does not disclose estimating a size of a cargo during loading the cargo. The examiner disagrees because Sangeneni teaches “[u]pon detection of items being loaded or unloaded into the cargo space, estimating a volume of loaded items in the updated spatial model” (see abstract of Sangeneni and also pars. 8, 9 and 74 of Sangeneni). It appears that the applicant is making the above argument because the estimation process continues after the cargo is loaded. However, as taught in the cited paragraphs and abstract, Sangeneni’s estimation process starts when a cargo is being loaded and hence teaches estimating a size of a cargo during loading the cargo.
On page 6 of the submission, the applicant further argues that Sangeneni as applied does not disclose estimating a size of a cargo based on camera focal length and/or at least one detected dimension of the cargo relative to a reference in the cargo surroundings. The examiner disagrees because Sangeneni as applied teaches estimating a size of a cargo based on at least one detected dimension of the cargo relative to a reference in the cargo surroundings (see, e.g., pars. 37-43 and 74—84 of Sangeneni, which teaches that the size estimation is triggered upon a detection of movement, such as cargo movement that is based on a depth of a cargo in the cargo space).
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the focal length" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as a focal length.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cargo surroundings" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as cargo surroundings.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for their dependencies to claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the camera focal length" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as a camera focal length.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the cargo surroundings" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as cargo surroundings.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over international (WO) patent application publication no. 2020/043350 to Sangeneni et al. (hereinafter Sangeneni) in view of us patent application publication no. 2010/0166263 to Cao et al. (hereinafter Cao).
For claims 11 and 20, Sangeneni as applied teaches a cargo tracking system (10) for tracking a cargo (18) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1-2), comprising:
a camera (14) (see, e.g., par. 30 and FIG. 2, which teach using a camera); and
a central electronic computing device (12) (see, e.g., par. 30 and FIG. 2, which teach using processor(s) and other computing units);
wherein the camera (14) is configured to:
track the cargo (18) during a loading of the cargo (18) into a cargo space (16) for delivering the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 36-44 and 74 and FIGS. 3A and 4, which teach tracking a cargo, e.g., a package or parcel, being loaded into a cargo space),
estimate a size (22) of the cargo (18) in real time during the loading and based on the camera focal length and/or at least one detected dimension of the cargo (18) relative to a reference in the cargo surroundings (see abstract and pars. 8, 9 and 74-82, which teach start estimating a volume of a cargo upon detection of items being loaded or unloaded into the cargo space, wherein the detection is based on a detected depth of the moving cargo),
depending on the estimated size (22) of the cargo (18) and on a predetermined cargo size (24) of the cargo space (16), compute a remaining cargo size of the cargo space (16) (see, e.g., pars. 72-76 and 78-84 and FIGS. 3-5, which calculating a remaining volume of the cargo space based on the estimated volume of the loaded parcel and a total volume of the cargo space, wherein the total volume is calculated based on the initial spatial model), and
transmit information (20) about the cargo (18) and the computed remaining cargo size to the central electronic computing device (12) in real time (see, e.g., pars. 45-47, 77 and 83-84, which teach transmitting the information about the cargos and the estimated remaining cargo volume to the system).
Sangeneni as applied teaches estimating the size of the cargo based on at least one detected dimension of the cargo relative to a reference in the cargo surroundings because the size estimation is triggered upon a detection of movement, such as cargo movement which is based on a depth of a cargo in the cargo space (see, e.g., pars. 37-43 and 74--84). While this may be sufficient, to promote a compact and expedited prosecution, the examiner further relies on Cao. Cao in the analogous art, teaches using a focal length along with the distance between the camera and the object to determine dimensions of the object (see, e.g., abstract and pars. 15 and 24 of Cao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sangeneni to use a focal length and/or detected distance as taught by Cao because doing so would allow one to measure the dimension of an object conveniently, e.g., without having to approach the object with a ruler (see, e.g., pars. 4-5 of Cao).
For claim 12, Sangeneni as applied teaches that the camera (14) is disposed at the cargo space (16) (see, e.g., pars. 32-35 and 71-74) and the size (22) of the cargo (18) is estimated by using a focal length of the camera (14) and a detected distance (d1) of the cargo (18) to the camera (14) (see, e.g., pars. 37-43 and 74--84, which teach determining the dimensions of the loaded cargos using the depth provided by the cameras).
Sangeneni as applied does not explicitly teach using a focal length of a camera when estimating a size of a cargo. Cao in the analogous art teaches using a focal length along with the distance between the camera and the object to determine dimensions of the object (see, e.g., abstract and pars. 15 and 24 of Cao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sangeneni to use a focal length as taught by Cao because doing so would allow one to measure the dimension of an object conveniently, e.g., without having to approach the object with a ruler (see, e.g., pars. 4-5 of Cao).
For claim 13, Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches that a height (h1) of the cargo (18) is detectable by the camera (14) and a size of at least one edge of the cargo (18) is detectable by the camera (14) for estimating the size (22) of the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 72-75 of Sangeneni, which teach estimating the volume of the loaded cargo using the initial spatial model and outer edges of the bounding boxes corresponding to the loaded cargo).
For claim 14, Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches that the camera (14) is configured as a stereo camera facing a door of the cargo space (16) (see, e.g., pars. 32, 35-41 and 78 of Sangeneni, which teach that the cameras include stereo cameras and have a viewing angle to the door) and the camera (14) estimates the size (22) of the cargo (18) depending on a predetermined height (h2) of the cargo space (16) and a detected height (h1) of the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 72-75 of Sangeneni, which teach estimating the volume of the loaded cargo using the initial spatial model and outer edges of the bounding boxes corresponding to the loaded cargo).
For claim 16, Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches that a characterizing parameter (30) of the cargo (18) is detectable by the camera (14) and the characterizing parameter (30) is taken into consideration by estimating the size (22) of the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 50-52 and 57-64 of Sangeneni, which teach, when loading and unloading, identifying a cargo using a unique identifier that may include the size of the cargo).
For claim 17, Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches that the characterizing parameter (30) is a tracking number of the cargo (18) and/or a barcode on the cargo (18) and/or a writing on the cargo (18) describing the size (22) of the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 67-71 of Sangeneni, which teach determining a tracking number/barcode of the cargo).
For claim 19, Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches that at least the camera (14) comprises a neural network (28) for estimating the size (22) of the cargo (18) (see, e.g., pars. 35 and 79-82 of Sangeneni, which teach identifying planes and their dimensions using a neural network, wherein the planes correspond to the geometry of the cargo).
Claim(s) 15 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangeneni in view of Cao and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2016/0047646 to Ochsendorf et al. (hereinafter Ochsendorf).
For claim 15, while Sangeneni in view of Cao teaches, when loading a cargo, taking a distance/depth between the camera and the bottom of the cargo space into consideration by estimating the volume of the cargo with the initial spatial model (see, e.g., par. 74-76 of Cao), it does not explicitly teach a conveyor belt. In the analogous art, Ochsendorf teaches loading cargos into the cargo space with a conveyor belt (see, par. 68 of Ochsendorf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cargo space with the conveyor belt taught by Ochsendorf because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one element for another in the field of cargo management to obtain predictable results of cargo size/volume estimation (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 18 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangeneni in view of Cao and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2019/0124848 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter Johnson).
For claim 18, Sangeneni in view of Cao does not explicitly teach that a speed of a conveyor belt (26) is taken into consideration by the cargo tracking system (10) and depending on the speed a point in time is predetermined when the cargo space (16) reaches its loading capacity. In the analogous art, Johnson as applied teaches estimating and inferring whether a container is full based on the conveyor speed and unloading capacity (see, e.g., pars. 19-21 of Johnson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sangeneni to consider the conveyor speed and estimate whether the container is full as taught by Johnson because doing so would provide a predictable result of preventing overloading the cargo space/container (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
WOO CHUL RHIM
Examiner
Art Unit 2776
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676