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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the claims filed 05/25/2026, the amended limitations recite additional mental process steps. Therefore, the independent claims are wholly considered to be directed to the judicial exception. Applicant’s cited improvements to the functioning of a computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Examiner notes that the neural network cited in Applicant’s arguments is not present in the claims, nor any limitations clarifying how improvement relates to the neural network.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/25/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a method, device, and non-transitory storage medium, respectively, for truck load identification. Therefore, the independent claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous independent claims, claims 11 and 20, are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A truck load identification method, comprising:
obtaining a to-be-identified image;
in response to a truck being identified in the to-be-identified image, identifying a plurality of key points of a cargo area of the truck in the to-be-identified image;
obtaining a cargo area map comprising only the cargo area based on the plurality of key points;
obtaining a cargo attribute of the cargo area by identifying the cargo area map, wherein the cargo attribute of the cargo area comprises: Unloading, Striped texture, Regular block texture, and Irregular block texture;
and in response to determining that a current state of the truck is a preset state based on the cargo attribute of the cargo area, conducting a warning prompt;
characterized in that the cargo area comprises a plurality of level sub-areas, and the cargo area map comprises a plurality of level sub-area maps;
the obtaining the cargo area map comprising only the cargo area based on the plurality of key points comprises:
obtaining the plurality of level sub-area maps each of which comprises only one corresponding level sub-area based on the plurality of key points; wherein the plurality of level sub-areas comprises at least three level sub-areas; the level sub- area maps comprise at least three level sub-area maps; for each level sub-area map of the at least three level sub-area maps, the level sub-area map comprises a corresponding level sub-area, and the level sub-area map has a cargo attribute of the corresponding level sub-area; wherein the cargo attribute of the corresponding level sub-area comprises: Unloading, Striped texture, Regular block texture, Irregular block texture.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps of identifying a truck, identifying a plurality of key points, obtaining a cargo area map, obtaining a cargo attribute, determining a current state of the truck, and obtaining the plurality of level sub-area maps in the context of this claim encompass a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. The additional bolded limitations are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A truck load identification method, comprising:
obtaining a to-be-identified image;
in response to a truck being identified in the to-be-identified image, identifying a plurality of key points of a cargo area of the truck in the to-be-identified image;
obtaining a cargo area map comprising only the cargo area based on the plurality of key points;
obtaining a cargo attribute of the cargo area by identifying the cargo area map, wherein the cargo attribute of the cargo area comprises: Unloading, Striped texture, Regular block texture, and Irregular block texture;
and in response to determining that a current state of the truck is a preset state based on the cargo attribute of the cargo area, conducting a warning prompt;
characterized in that the cargo area comprises a plurality of level sub-areas, and the cargo area map comprises a plurality of level sub-area maps;
the obtaining the cargo area map comprising only the cargo area based on the plurality of key points comprises:
obtaining the plurality of level sub-area maps each of which comprises only one corresponding level sub-area based on the plurality of key points; wherein the plurality of level sub-areas comprises at least three level sub-areas; the level sub- area maps comprise at least three level sub-area maps; for each level sub-area map of the at least three level sub-area maps, the level sub-area map comprises a corresponding level sub-area, and the level sub-area map has a cargo attribute of the corresponding level sub-area; wherein the cargo attribute of the corresponding level sub-area comprises: Unloading, Striped texture, Regular block texture, Irregular block texture.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the step of obtaining an image is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of conducting a warning prompt is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 11, and 20 further recite an electronic device, a processor, a memory, a communication circuit, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining an image and conducting a warning prompt are well-understood, routine and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the image is anything other than conventional image data, nor that the warning prompt is anything other than conventional output means. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the abstract idea (mental processes or mathematical concepts) and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights