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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments to independent claims 1 and 14, the objections to claims 1 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Examiner notes the cancellation of claims 13 and 18-20 as well as the inclusion of new claims 21-24, which have been entered and considered fully on the merits.
In response to the amendments to independent claims 1 and 14, the previously-applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmani in view of Burch.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments, taken in conjunction with the amendments to independent claims 1 and 14, the previously-applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmani in view of Burch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Independent claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the computing device is configured to “position the cargo at a storage position according to a loading instruction report”, when there does not appear to be support within the specification which would reasonably support the ability of the recited system to position the cargo. Although Examiner notes that the loading instructions report is disclosed within the Specification of the instant application (in at least para. 0047), it is not apparent how the disclosed invention includes a mechanism for positioning cargo, either by the computing device or an external user.
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 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 1-7, 9-11, 14-17, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmani et al. (US PG Pub 20220405704, hereinafter “Kirmani”) in view of Burch et al. (US Patent No. 10,878,364, hereinafter “Burch”).
Regarding claim 1, Kirmani describes a system to identify cargo (paras. 0010-0012, wherein the system is intended for detection and identification of cargo based on a plurality of sensors), the system comprising:
a plurality of different types of sensors with each of the types of sensors configured to sense different aspects of the cargo and to transmit signals corresponding to the aspects (paras. 0023-0032, wherein the plurality of sensor type include weight sensors, cameras or other image sensors, and optical/barcode sensors; and wherein the weigh sensors transmit signals corresponding to detected weight and/or object weight changes, the image sensors transmit a video stream, and the optical sensor transmits identification information by scanning barcodes); and
a computing device that receives the signals from the sensors, the computing device configured to:
determine initial identifications of the cargo based on different aspects of the cargo other than the storage position with the different aspects being sensed by the sensors (paras. 0023-0034 0034, wherein the initial identifications are determined by the signals from the aforementioned sensors (weight for package weight determination, optical/barcode for database matching, and image for package tracking), and the central processor/CPU of paras. 0029 and 0034 for signal processing);
when a storage position identification matches the initial identifications, determine that a final identification of the cargo is equal to the storage position identification (paras. 0048-0053 and figs. 3, 4A, and 4B for initial identification methods either succeeding or failing, wherein a high level of confidence in the proper package being loaded is a result of the plurality of identification criteria (sensor signal outputs) being satisfied, and wherein a lower level of confidence arises from the initial identification criteria not matching; and paras. 0054, 0056-0068, and 0079-0089, and figs. 5 and 6A-6C, wherein at the final verification time, comparisons between the barcode scan, weight, and image properties at the first time and the final time are compared to check to ensure that the package is placed in the proper shelf or location within the cargo bay of the vehicle, and additionally for tracking package movement en route); and
when the storage position identifications does not match the initial identifications, send a notification at a time an inconsistency is detected (paras. 0048-0053 and figs. 3, 4A, and 4B for the matching determination methods and confidence increase/decrease and, additionally, paras. 0068-0072 for the explicit notification to the drivers or loaders of the vehicles when a mismatch or an occlusion is detected).
PNG
media_image1.png
6
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kirmani does not disclose positioning the cargo at a storage position is done in accordance with a loading instruction report, wherein the system determines a storage position identification of the cargo based on the loading instruction report.
However, Burch discloses a method and system for identifying and loading cargo for transport within a cargo bay of a vehicle the method and system containing steps for positioning the cargo at a storage position according to a loading instruction report, wherein the system further comprises determining a storage position identification of the cargo based on the loading instruction report (paras. 0164-0166, wherein a screen includes specific item identification, location, loading instructions, and placement instructions of a specified cargo item, with specific placement and control instructions for transporting specialized goods (live animals, hazardous materials, etc.) and wherein the ordinarily skilled artisan would know to follow those instructions to position the cargo at the specified points). Specifically, Burch discloses a logistics information and management system wherein a scanner identifies an item and returns information regarding item location, placement, and further instructions.
Therefore, Kirmani and Burch both disclose systems and methods for cargo logistics, specifically with respect to cargo location, placement, and item characteristics as observed by sensors. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the description from loading instructions as disclosed by Burch within the method of Kirmani as the application of a known technique to a known device to yield the predictable improvement of another identification method for the system of Kirmani.
Regarding claim 14, Kirmani discloses a system to identify cargo (paras. 0010-0012, wherein the system is intended for detection and identification of cargo based on a plurality of sensors), the system comprising:
a first sensor configured to sense a first aspect of the cargo (paras. 0023-0024, wherein the first sensor is (or sensors are) image sensor(s) configured to observe the location of the cargo);
a second sensor configured to sense a different second aspect of the cargo (paras. 0023-0025, wherein the second sensor is (or sensors are) weight sensor(s) configured to measure the weight of the cargo within the shelf or section within/upon which the cargo is located); and
a computing device configured to:
determine a hierarchy with the first sensor and the second sensor (paras. 0050-0053, wherein the hierarchy is determined based on weight sensor signals, image sensor signals, and barcode scan based on the mismatch observed to produce a high-confidence identification);
determine a first initial identification of the cargo based on signals from the first sensor (paras. 0024, 0029, and 0032-0034, wherein the initial identifications are determined by the image sensors of para. 0024 and central processor/CPU of paras. 0029 and 0032-0034);
determine a second initial identification of the cargo based on signals from the second sensor (paras. 0024-0025, 0029, and 0032-0034, wherein the second initial identifications are determined by the weight sensors of para. 0024-0025 and central processor/CPU of paras. 0029 and 0032-0034);
identify the cargo in a first manner when each of the storage position, the first initial identification, and the second initial identification match (para. 0052 and fig. 4A, wherein the first and second identification methods matching in the original storage position indicates a high level of confidence that the appropriate cargo is present);
and identify the cargo in a second manner when the storage position is different than the first initial identification and the second initial identification by selecting the initial identification of the first sensor and the second sensor with a higher rating according to the hierarchy (paras. 0049-0054 and fig. 4B, wherein the first and second identification methods not matching with the original storage position or each other indicates a lowered level of confidence that the appropriate cargo is present, and might indicate the wrong cargo was loaded, and wherein the confidence is “weighed” by the hierarchy of the sensor signals).
Kirmani does not disclose wherein the system determines a storage position identification of the cargo based on the loading instruction report.
However, Burch discloses a method and system for identifying and loading cargo for transport within a cargo bay of a vehicle the method and system containing steps for positioning the cargo at a storage position according to a loading instruction report, wherein the system further comprises determining a storage position identification of the cargo based on the loading instruction report (paras. 0164-0166, wherein a screen includes specific item identification, location, loading instructions, and placement instructions of a specified cargo item, with specific placement and control instructions for transporting specialized goods (live animals, hazardous materials, etc.) and wherein the ordinarily skilled artisan would know to follow those instructions to position the cargo at the specified points). Thus, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have utilized the loading instructions report disclosure of Burch within the system of Kirmani according to the rationale of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claim 1. Kirmani further discloses determining a hierarchy for the different types of sensors; [and] determining that the final identification is the equal to the initial identification from the type of sensors with a highest rating according to the hierarchy (paras. 0048-0053, wherein the hierarchy is determined based on weight sensor signals, image sensor signals, and barcode scan based on the mismatch observed to produce a high-confidence identification; a high-confidence level indicates that multiple sensors (e.g., image sensors, weight sensors, optical sensors (barcodes/QR codes, etc.)) agree on the object detected; and paras. 0068, 0086, and 0089 disclosing the identification method defaulting to the optical sensor’s signal upon a mismatch, and paras. 0068-0072 explicitly disclosing that a mismatch has occurred).
Regarding claim 3, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claim 1. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to pair an image of the cargo with the final identification (para. 0072, wherein a tracking subroutine is executed by the image processing CPU if a change between paired (time 1 vs time 2) images is observed, and wherein an image absolute difference image comparison might take place for proper package verification); and wherein the image of the cargo is one or more 3D scans of the cargo (paras. 0079-0080, wherein 3D images might be obtained through either the plurality of cameras, depth sensing cameras, acoustic scanning, or machine learning generation).
Regarding claim 4, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 1. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a confidence value of the final identification of the cargo and pair the confidence value with the final identification (paras. 0049-0052, and element 312 of fig. 3, wherein the confidence value of the final identification of the cargo is a result of repeated increases of the overall confidence level from an initial baseline as a result of repeated registration and confirmation of different sensor signals up to the point of a match).
Regarding claim 5, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 4. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the confidence value based on a first one of the initial identifications of the cargo (paras. 0024-0026, wherein the initial degree of confidence is based on a barcode scan and image calculation); and determine that the first one of the initial identifications matches a second one of the initial identifications and increase the confidence value (paras. 0050-0052 and fig. 3 element 312, wherein the confidence value is increased based on the weight sensor readings).
Regarding claim 6, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 5. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine that the first one of the initial identifications of the cargo is different than a third one of the initial identifications and decrease the confidence value (paras. 0024-0026 and 0049-0054, wherein the initial degree of confidence is based on a barcode scan and image calculation, and wherein the confidence value is decreased based on a detected discrepancy in package weight or dimensions between a package in the vehicle’s cargo bay and cargo information within the database).
Regarding claim 7, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 1. Kirmani further discloses wherein one of the sensors comprises a camera that captures an image of the cargo at the storage position (paras. 0023-0025, wherein the plurality of cameras are disclosed within a cargo area and paras. 0069-0073 and 0095-0098, wherein paras. 0069-0073 describe an initial “matching” process between the image processing system and barcode scanning to determine an initial position, and paras. 0095-0098 describe augmented loading techniques, wherein position and extended location of the package might be further tracked using marking or light-based techniques for directing loading location).
Regarding claim 9, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 2. Kirmani further discloses wherein one of the sensors comprises an optical reader and one of the aspects is an optical code that is on the cargo (paras. 0030-0031, wherein the reader is a barcode scanner, and the optical code is a cargo tag).
Regarding claim 10, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations claim 1. Kirmani further discloses wherein the sensors and the computing device are mounted on a vehicle (para. 0116, wherein the holding area containing the sensors is mobile, and may be placed within a method of transportation, such as within a delivery truck).
Regarding claim 11, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claim 1. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is configured to determine a storage position of the cargo based on an image of the cargo (paras. 0023-0025, wherein the plurality of cameras are disclosed within a cargo area and paras. 0069-0073 and 0095-0098, wherein paras. 0069-0073 describe an initial “matching” process between the image processing system and barcode scanning to determine an initial position, and paras. 0095-0098 describe augmented loading techniques, wherein position and extended location of the package might be further tracked using marking or light-based techniques for directing loading location).
Kirmani fails to disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a description for the storage position from a loading instructions report; and determine one of the initial identifications of the cargo as the description.
However, Burch discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a description for the storage position from a loading instructions report and utilizing the description to inform identification and handling of the cargo (paras. 0164-0166, wherein a screen includes specific item identification, location, loading instructions, and placement instructions of a specified cargo item, with specific placement and control instructions for transporting specialized goods (live animals, hazardous materials, etc.) and wherein the ordinarily skilled artisan would know to follow those instructions to position the cargo at the specified points). Thus, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have utilized the disclosure of Burch with respect to the loading instructions report as the identification methodology of Kirmani according to the rationale of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Kirmani discloses all limitations of claim 14. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to pair an image of the cargo with a final identification (para. 0072, wherein a tracking subroutine is executed by the image processing CPU if a change between paired (time 1 vs time 2) images is observed, and wherein an image absolute difference image comparison might take place for proper package verification).
Regarding claim 16, Kirmani discloses all limitations of claim 14. Kirmani further discloses wherein the first manner comprises determining a final identification of the cargo as the first initial identification (paras. 0023-0026 and 0052 and fig. 4A, wherein the first manner being represented by the final identification, as described in 0023-0026 is conducted by ensuring that the two identification methods match, which indicates a high level of confidence that the appropriate cargo is present as per 0052 and fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 17, Kirmani discloses all limitations of claim 14. Kirmani further discloses wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the computing device are mounted on an aircraft (para. 0045, wherein the delivery vehicle 202 might be an airplane for cargo identification and tracking).
Regarding claim 22, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claim 14. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a baseline confidence value based on the first initial identification; and increase the baseline confidence when the first initial identification matches the second initial identification (paras. 0023-0032, 0048-0054 and 0068-0072, and fig. 4B, wherein the initial identification may be matching data from any initial sensor output, a mismatch between the first and second identification methods indicates a lowered level of confidence that the appropriate cargo is present (and an increase if the two methods match), and might indicate the wrong cargo was loaded, the confidence is “weighed” by the hierarchy of the sensor signals, and wherein the confidence value of the final identification of the cargo is a result of repeated increases of the overall confidence level from an initial baseline as a result of repeated registration and confirmation of different sensor signals up to the point of a match).
Regarding claim 24, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claim 14. Kirmani further discloses wherein the first sensor is a camera (paras. 0023-0025, wherein the plurality of cameras are disclosed within a cargo area).
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmani in view of Burch and Huber and in further view of Podnar et al. (US PG Pub 20180111698, hereinafter “Podnar”)
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claims 2 and 14, respectively. Kirmani in view of Burch does not disclose wherein one of the sensors comprises a RFID reader and one of the aspects is a predetermined identification that is stored in an RFID tag that is mounted on the cargo.
However, Podnar discloses wherein one of the sensors comprises a RFID reader and one of the aspects is a predetermined identification that is stored in an RFID tag that is mounted on the cargo (paras. 0024 and 0028 and fig. 4, wherein the check-in process allows RFID tags to be mounted atop the cargo, and the reader is mounted within the luggage system and hold). Specifically, Podnar discloses an intelligent baggage handling method which tags pieces of baggage with unique identifiers based on weights, sizes, and tags before generating a baggage map for intelligent loading and unloading. Therefore. both Kirmani in view of Burch and Podnar disclose methods for tracking and monitoring cargo/baggage being transported in vehicles using multiple different types of sensors to track the cargo en route. Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the RFID tag and reader disclosed by Podnar within the method of Kirmani in view of Burch as a simple substitution of a known sensor element for another (potentially the optical reader method of Kirmani in view of Burch) to yield the predictable result of non-contact-based baggage tracking through a trackable signal.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirmani inn view of Burch and further view of Huber (US Patent No. 9,162,765).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Kirmani in view of Burch discloses all limitations of claims 10 and 17, respectively. Kirmani further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a position of cargo within an alignment area (paras. 0069-0073 and 0095-0098, wherein paras. 0069-0073 describe an initial “matching” process between the image processing system and barcode scanning to determine an initial position, and paras. 0095-0098 describe augmented loading techniques, wherein position and extended location of the package might be further tracked using marking or light-based techniques for directing loading location).
Kirmani does not disclose determining a lane in which the cargo is moved based on the position within the alignment area; and determining the storage position based on the lane.
However, Huber discloses determining a lane in which the cargo is moved based on the position within the alignment area; and determining the storage position based on the lane (Col. 5 line 38- col. 6 line 13, wherein the lanes for movement are disclosed as “rows”, cargo conveying devices are responsible for moving the cargo into position, and the cargo storage positions are indexed by row). Specifically, Huber discloses a sensor-mediated method for efficient aircraft cargo loading. Therefore, both Kirmani and Huber disclose sensor-mediated methods for cargo identification and location identification within a cargo hold or bay. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the row-wise cargo loading and locating methodology of Huber within the method Kirmani as the application of a known method to a known device, in this case, the known organization method of Huber to the device of Kirmani, to yield the predictable result of more streamlined cargo organization and loading (assisted by the conveyors disclosed by Kirmani) and easier image-based location of cargo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 6PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 5712723838. 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.
/ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights