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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-9 are pending in the present application.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
No prior art rejection is currently applied to claims 1-3, 5, and 8-9.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 1, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not found convincing. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 10/31/2025 and 03/10/2026 has NOT been withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 abstract idea rejection, the argument of “physical adaptation of the vehicle”, “preprocessing of the image data at the physical level”, “single frame using low-computational-load hardware processing”, and “practical application” all does not move the claim away from abstract idea. Physically painting the door and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment door makes the tasks of recognizing the parts and calculating the angle formed by the parts easier for a person to perform. Keeping the process single frame also makes the task easier for a person as there is only one image to look at. Finally, a practical application does not mean that a process cannot be considered as an abstract idea, or in this case, mental process
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 10/31/2025 and 03/10/2026 has NOT been withdrawn.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, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim 1 recite(s) a system for calculating the angle of opening of a vehicle’s cargo door in an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim 1are directed to a system for calculating the angle of opening of a vehicle’s cargo door in an image.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitations recite:
recognize a door-corresponding part that is a part corresponding to the cargo- compartment door in the one image and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo- compartment by performing filtering based on the specific color on the one image (The step of recognizing a door and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment based on recognizing a specific color falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because recognizing a door and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment based on recognizing a specific color can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can recognize the door part and the upper edge of the door frame of a cargo in an image, especially if they are painted with a specific color.);
calculate the opening angle of the cargo-compartment door based on an angle formed between the door-corresponding part and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo- compartment as a reference part (The step of calculating the opening angle of the cargo-compartment door falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because calculating the opening angle of the cargo-compartment door can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can estimate the angle formed by two lines using one’s fingers, or at most, use a protractor to measure the angle.).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. 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).
As such, a person could mentally recognize a door and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment painted with specific color and calculate an angle formed by the parts. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 discloses a vehicle comprising a cargo-compartment, installing the camera on a top surface of the cargo-compartment and a specific position, and applying a specific color to the cargo-compartment door and the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment door, which are mere definition to the apparatus that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Independent claim 1 discloses a camera and a sensing apparatus with a processor, which are generic computer components that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Independent claim 1 discloses acquiring one image in which a part of the cargo-compartment door in an open state is captured from the camera which is insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering information that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim 1 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s):
the hardware processor further determines that the cargo-compartment door is in a closed state when the opening angle is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
the hardware processor recognizes in real time the door-corresponding part,
calculates in real time the opening angle based on the door-corresponding part, and
determines that the cargo-compartment door is being opened when the opening angle increases with time, and determines that the cargo- compartment door is being closed when the opening angle decreases with time falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 5: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
the cargo-compartment door is a door that rotates in a left and right direction about an axis in a vertical direction merely adds definition to previous limitation that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s)
the hardware processor further estimates a loading rate of the vehicle when the cargo-compartment door is determined as in a closed state is insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Regarding claims 9: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s)
the hardware processor transmits information indicating that the cargo-compartment door is in the closed state to a loading rate estimation apparatus that estimates a loading rate of the vehicle is insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
ZOU et al. (CN 111723706 A, hereinafter Zou) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Zou discloses a raspberry-based van body door opening monitoring device and a system, wherein a raspberry group is used as a processing platform, the image acquisition is carried out on the tail part of a van, the upper and lower boundary lines of a van door area are respectively obtained through twice differential processing, the intercepted van door area image is subjected to edge extraction and morphological processing to obtain a binary image, the Hough transform is used for screening the upper edges of van doors on two sides according to heuristic rules summarized from the image characteristics, and the opening of the van doors is calculated according to the upper edges. And judging the state of the truck based on the calculated opening degree of the carriage door and the detected running speed, giving alarm feedback when a potential risk exists, and carrying out arresting management on the truck with the carriage door not closed at the outlet.
SUZUKI et al. (JP 2019-177850 A, hereinafter Suzuki) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Suzuki discloses a driving support system that allows a driver to monitor a predetermined area when a predetermined door is open, such as when a vehicle is stopped and work is being performed. A first camera for photographing a rear side of a vehicle, a second camera for photographing a predetermined monitoring area of the vehicle, a door open / close detecting unit for detecting an open / closed state of a first door of the vehicle, a display unit, and a processing unit that causes the display unit to display an image taken by the first camera when the first door is closed, and displays the second camera on the display unit when the first door is open.
ZHANG et al. (CN 104918017 B, hereinafter Zhang) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Zhang discloses a kind of monitoring method and system based on door motion state, and wherein method includes: it is detected on the door using OpenCV, obtains the characteristic point of door; the characteristic point is recorded in first parameters of the video frame i with respect to door original start; the characteristic point is recorded in second parameters of the door post exercise video frame i+1 with respect to door original state; first parameter described in comparative analysis and second parameter, determine the position motion state for repeating the above steps, judging door interior in predetermined time interval of door.
ISONO et al. (JP 2006-342576 A, hereinafter Isono) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Isono discloses an automatic opening/closing means for automatically opening/closing a vehicle door, automatic locking/unlocking means for automatically locking/unlocking the vehicle door, automatic opening/closing means, and automatic locking/unlocking, door opening/closing management means for managing the operation of the means, permission information sending means for sending permission information relating to loading/unloading of load; and permission information acquiring means for obtaining permission information. Only when a predetermined permission condition is established, the unlocking/opening permission of the vehicle door is performed.
UCHIMURA et al. (US 2022/0003872 A1, hereinafter Uchimura) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Uchimura discloses an information processing system includes: a ranging unit that acquires a distribution of distances to a load loaded on a load-carrying platform of a vehicle or to a floor surface of the load-carrying platform; and a loading rate acquisition unit that acquires a loading rate of the load on the load-carrying platform based on the distribution of the distances.
Chennakeshu et al. (US 10,551,407 B2, hereinafter Chennakeshu) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Chennakeshu discloses a sensor device mounted to a barrier pivotable between an open position and a closed position, the barrier being on a moveable platform. The sensor device includes an accelerometer to measure acceleration data and a rotation sensor to measure rotation about an axis. The sensor device includes at least one processor configured to determine an open/close status of the barrier based on the acceleration data and the rotation data, and an orientation of the moveable platform.
Urano et al. (US 11,158,147 B2, hereinafter Urano) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Urano discloses A cargo area door control system for a vehicle. The vehicle includes at least one cargo area and at least one cargo area door configured to be movable to enable physical access to the at least one cargo area, and movable to block physical access to the at least one cargo area. The control system includes one or more processors and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors. The memory stores a cargo area door control module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to determine if the vehicle currently resides at a selected destination and, responsive to a determination that the vehicle currently resides at the selected destination, operate a cargo area door unlocking mechanism to unlock the at least one cargo area door.
Mishima et al. (US 2006/0161345 A1, hereinafter Mishima) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Mishima discloses a vehicle load control system, in which information on the cargo loading condition of a moving vehicle is obtained through communication between the moving vehicle and a control center via a communication network to provide centralized control of efficient cargo loading operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm 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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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./ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights