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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 1- P. 2, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but are not found convincing. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 10/31/2025 has NOT been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of SUZUKI et al. (JP2019177850A)
Regarding claims 1 and 10 for 101 rejection, applicant states the following: “the camera is installed “on the top surface of the cargo-compartment and in a position where the camera can capture an image of a cargo- compartment door provided on a rear surface of the cargo-compartment and an upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment”, and the image processing is performed to “recognizes a door-corresponding part that is a part corresponding to the cargo-compartment door and the upper edge in the image; and calculates, as an opening angle of the cargo- compartment door, an angle formed between the door-corresponding part and the upper edge as a reference part in the image” as reasons for overcoming the 101 abstract idea rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifying where a camera locates and what the camera captures does not add significantly more to the inventive concept. The camera is a generic computer component and the action of taking a photo is insignificant ore-solution extra activity of generating information.
As for further specifying “upper edge” in the rest of the limitations, examiner believes that a person can look at a picture and determine the upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-component.
For the above reasons, examiner does not find the amendment and argument of claims 1 and 10 to be convincing and the 101 abstract idea rejection is NOT withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-10 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(s) 1 and 10 recite(s) an apparatus for calculating angle of a cargo door and estimate how loaded a cargo is. 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 claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to an apparatus for calculating angle of cargo door and load estimation of cargo.
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 claims 1 and 10 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(s) 1 and 10, the limitations recite:
recognizes a door-corresponding part that is a part corresponding to the cargo-compartment door and the upper edge in the image (The step of recognizing a cargo door and the upper edge of the cargo compartment falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because recognizing a cargo door and the upper edge of the cargo compartment 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.);
calculates, as an opening angle of the cargo-compartment door, and angle formed between the door-corresponding part and the upper edge as a reference part in the image (The step of calculating an opening angle of the cargo door falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because calculating an opening angle of the cargo door can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can use pen and paper, and at most a protractor, to measure and estimate the angle of opening of a door.).
Regarding independent claim(s) 10, the limitations recite:
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 (The step of determining that the door is closed when the angle is less than a threshold falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining that the door is closed when the angle is less than a threshold can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine that a door is closed when the angle of opening is 0 degree.).
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 cargo door and the upper edge of the cargo compartment, determine its opening angle, and determine that the door is closed if the angle is less than a threshold. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by an apparatus 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 claims 1 and 10 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 10 discloses a recognition section that acquires an image of a captured portion of a cargo-compartment door in an open state, which is insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data 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 10 discloses a sensing apparatus and a loading rate estimation apparatus, 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 10 discloses a sensing apparatus and a loading rate estimation apparatus, 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 10 recites: “estimates a loading rate of the vehicle when the cargo-compartment door is detected to be in the closed state by the sensing apparatus” which 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.
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(s) 1 and 10 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 claims 1 and 10 are: (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 claims 1 and 10 are 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 4: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
wherein, the cargo-compartment door is partly given a predetermined color merely adds definition to previous limitation that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and
wherein, the hardware processor recognizes the door-corresponding part by performing, on the image, filtering based on the predetermined color, detects a line segment along a longitudinal direction of the door-corresponding part, and calculates, as the opening angle, an angle formed by the line segment and a straight line serving as the reference part 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 claim 6: 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 an upward and downward direction about an axis in a horizontal 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 a vehicle equipped with the cargo-compartment door 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (CN 111723706 A, hereinafter Zou) in view of SUZUKI et al. (JP2019177850A, hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses
A sensing apparatus for use in a vehicle equipped with a cargo- compartment and a camera,…, the sensing apparatus comprising: a recognition section that acquires an image of a captured portion of a cargo-compartment door in an open state (Fig. 9, P. 5 Para. 3: “acquiring images of the freight car from the outside and acquiring the characteristics of the freight car door through image processing”), and
recognizes a door-corresponding part that is a part corresponding to the cargo-compartment door and the upper edge in the image (Fig. 11, P. 5 Para. 3: “In order to extract the contour line of the carriage door from the image with rich and complex information, the characteristics of the carriage door area need to be intercepted firstly, the invention adopts two differential images to respectively obtain the upper boundary line and the lower boundary line of the carriage door area according to the characteristics of an application occasion, and extracts two long ridge lines of the carriage top according to the characteristics of a carriage, thereby obtaining the upper frame of the carriage door”); and
calculates, as an opening angle of the cargo-compartment door, and angle formed between the door-corresponding part and the upper edge as a reference part in the image (Figs. 11-15, P. 5 Para. 3: “obtaining a binary edge image through image processing, screening the upper edges of the carriage doors on two sides according to a heuristic rule summarized from the image characteristics based on Hough transform, and calculating the opening degree of the carriage doors according to the upper edges”).
However Zou does not explicitly disclose
the camera being installed on the top surface of the cargo- compartment and in a position where the camera can capture an image of a cargo- compartment door provided on a rear surface of the cargo-compartment and an upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment.
Suzuki teaches
the camera being installed on the top surface of the cargo- compartment and in a position where the camera can capture an image of a cargo- compartment door provided on a rear surface of the cargo-compartment and an upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment (Fig. 3 and 7, P. 5 Para. 7: “Each of the first camera 110 and the second camera 120 may be a small camera installed in the own vehicle, and is preferably equipped with a wide-angle lens. The first camera 110 captures the rear of the vehicle, and the second camera 120 captures a predetermined monitoring area of the vehicle. The “monitoring area” mentioned here is an area to be monitored by the driver, and is typically the cargo compartment in the case of a van body truck, the vicinity of an entrance / exit in the case of a bus, and the vicinity of a rear door in the case of a taxi.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou with mounting a camera at the top of the cargo compartment of the vehicle to observe the rear of vehicle of Suzuki to effectively increase the safety of the driver.
Regarding claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 1. Zou further discloses
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 (P. 7 Para. 2: “the main processing module calculates the running speed V of the truck according to the triggering time difference of the distance sensing unit, and when the speed V is greater than a set value and the opening degree alpha of the car door is greater than the set value, an alarm signal is sent to the vehicle-mounted alarm and the acousto-optic unit through the output module, and/or a brake falling instruction is sent to the gateway controller”, P. 8 Para. 11: “otherwise, defining the opening degree of the compartment door to be 0”; The alarm only sounds when the door is opened to greater than a certain angle alpha. This is basically checking if the door is closed or not. Based on the equations in Para [0055], [0058], [0061] or the original specification, it can be understood that alpha is determined based on the measured angle of the door).
Regarding claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 1. Zou further discloses
the cargo-compartment door is partly given a predetermined color (Fig. 14-15; The interior of the cargo is the black part and the outline of the door can be determined based the outline of the cargo interior. Under BRI, the door is partly given the color black), and wherein,
the hardware processor recognizes the door-corresponding part by performing, on the image, filtering based on the predetermined color, detects a line segment along a longitudinal direction of the door-corresponding part (Fig. 12-15; The image is filtered into black and white, then only the interior, then only two lines, where one of the line is along the longitudinal direction of the cargo door), and
calculates, as the opening angle, an angle formed by the line segment and a straight line serving as the reference part (Fig. 13-15. P. 15 Para. 10: “the door opening angle a shown in fig. 15 is calculated to be 41.966 degrees. Under a world coordinate system, measurement and technology are carried out through a measuring tape, and the real opening degree of the compartment door is 42.27 degrees. The error of 0.304 degree exists between the calculation result and the actual value, the visible detection error is very small, the engineering application requirement is met, and the accurate detection of the opening of the freight car is realized”; The upper horizontal line is the reference part, and the other line that is longitudinal to the cargo door is the upper edge of the cargo door).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (CN 111723706 A, hereinafter Zou) in view of SUZUKI et al. (JP2019177850A, hereinafter Suzuki) and Zhang et al. (CN 104918017 B, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 2. Zou further discloses
the hardware processor recognizes in real time the door-corresponding part (Fig. 4-7, P. 12 Para. 6: “Based on the acquired image information, the raspberry-based van body door opening monitoring controller extracts the image characteristics of the van body door and monitors the opening of the van body door”, P. 12 Para. 7: “Referring to fig. 4, 5, 6 and 7, in order to monitor the truck door, the present invention obtains an image of the truck tail through an overhead camera 722, and then extracts the features of interest through processing the obtained image, so as to obtain the opening degree of the truck door. In order to alarm the truck in time when the abnormal state is monitored”; It is implied that the system works in real time, otherwise a warning system would not function properly),
calculates in real time the opening angle based on the door-corresponding part (Fig. 4-7, P. 5 Para. 3: “obtaining a binary edge image through image processing, screening the upper edges of the carriage doors on two sides according to a heuristic rule summarized from the image characteristics based on Hough transform, and calculating the opening degree of the carriage doors according to the upper edges”, P. 12 Para. 7: “Referring to fig. 4, 5, 6 and 7, in order to monitor the truck door, the present invention obtains an image of the truck tail through an overhead camera 722, and then extracts the features of interest through processing the obtained image, so as to obtain the opening degree of the truck door. In order to alarm the truck in time when the abnormal state is monitored”; As mentioned in the previous limitation, a warning system would not work if it is not in real time. Since angle of the door is one of the aspect essential to the warning system, it can be understood that the calculation is also in real time.).
However Zou in view of Suzuki does not explicitly teach
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.
Zhang teaches
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 (Fig. 1, P. 8 Para. 19 - P. 9 Para. 2: “s120: recording a first parameter of the feature point in a video frame i relative to an initial state of a door; s130: recording a second parameter of the video frame i +1 of the feature point after the door moves relative to the initial state of the door, wherein i is a natural number greater than 0”, P. 9 Para. 14-15: “when delta theta is larger than 0, the door is in a moving state of opening; when Δ θ < 0, it indicates that the door is in a moving state of being closed”, P. 12 Para. 4: “In this embodiment, the state of the door when closed is the initial state (as shown in fig. 6), that is, δis 0, in practice, the video frame i has a rotation angle ß (i) relative to the initial state, the video frame i +1 also has a rotation angle ß (i +1) relative to the initial state, and the process of determining whether the door is opened or closed is determined by determining the change of the door angle according to Δ θ = ß (i +1) – ß(i)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou in view of Suzuki with determining if a door is opening or closing based on the change of angle of opening of the door between frames of video of Zhang to effectively increase the accuracy of determining the movement of the door.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (CN 111723706 A, hereinafter Zou) in view of SUZUKI et al. (JP2019177850A, hereinafter Suzuki) and Isono et al. (JP 2006-342576 A, hereinafter Isono).
Regarding claim 6, dependent upon claim 1, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However Zou in view of Suzuki does not explicitly teach
the cargo-compartment door is a door that rotates in an upward and downward direction about an axis in a horizontal direction.
Isono teaches
the cargo-compartment door is a door that rotates in an upward and downward direction about an axis in a horizontal direction. (Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou in view of Suzuki with horizontal opening of cargo door and other aspects of Isono to effectively increase the safety when operating the truck and its cargo.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (CN 111723706 A, hereinafter Zou) in view of SUZUKI et al. (JP2019177850A, hereinafter Suzuki) and Uchimura et al. (US 2022/0003872 A1, hereinafter Uchimura).
Regarding claim 8, dependent upon claim 2, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 2.
However Zou in view of Suzuki does not teach
the hardware processor further estimates a loading rate of a vehicle equipped with the cargo-compartment door when the cargo-compartment door is determined as in a closed state.
Uchimura teaches
the hardware processor further estimates a loading rate of a vehicle equipped with the cargo-compartment door when the cargo-compartment door is determined as in a closed state (Para [0038]: “The vehicle 40 has a cargo space 42 that is a box-shaped load-carrying platform loaded with the load G, for example”, Para [0061]: “The loading rate acquisition system 2 according to the present example embodiment acquires the loading rate of the loads G in the cargo space 42 that is a load-carrying platform of the vehicle 40 based on distance distribution information acquired by the ranging apparatus 100”, Para [0064]: “The control unit 220 of the loading rate acquisition system 2 determines whether or not an acquisition instruction that provides an instruction to acquire a loading rate in the cargo space 42 of the vehicle 40 is input (step S102) and stands by until the acquisition instruction is input (step S102, NO). The control unit 220 can wait for switch input made by a driver, a loading worker, or the like or input of a door closure signal indicating that the door of the cargo space 42 has been closed, for example, as the acquisition instruction to acquire a loading rate”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou in view of Suzuki with controlling and acquiring loading rate of a cargo truck of Uchimura to effectively increase the accuracy when acquiring the loading rate of a cargo.
Regarding claim 9, dependent upon claim 2, Zou in view of Suzuki teaches everything regarding claim 2.
However Zou does not disclose
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..
Uchimura teaches
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. (Para [0064]: “The control unit 220 of the loading rate acquisition system 2 determines whether or not an acquisition instruction that provides an instruction to acquire a loading rate in the cargo space 42 of the vehicle 40 is input (step S102) and stands by until the acquisition instruction is input (step S102, NO). The control unit 220 can wait for switch input made by a driver, a loading worker, or the like or input of a door closure signal indicating that the door of the cargo space 42 has been closed, for example, as the acquisition instruction to acquire a loading rate”, Para [0065]: “If the control unit 220 determines that an acquisition instruction to acquire a loading rate is input (step S102, YES), the control unit 220 controls the ranging apparatus 100 and causes the ranging apparatus 100 to acquire distance distribution information (step S104). The ranging apparatus 100 acquires distance distribution information indicating a distribution of distances from the ranging apparatus 100 to the loads G or the floor surface 42a across the reference surface, as described above in accordance with the control of the control unit 220.”).
Regarding claim 10, Zou discloses
A loading rate estimation system for use in a vehicle equipped with a cargo-compartment and a camera,…,the loading rate estimation system comprising: a sensing apparatus including, a hardware processor recognition section that acquires an image of a captured portion of a cargo-compartment door in an open state from the camera (Fig. 9, P. 5 Para. 3: “acquiring images of the freight car from the outside and acquiring the characteristics of the freight car door through image processing”);
that recognizes a door-corresponding part that is a part corresponding to the cargo-compartment door and the upper edge in the image (Fig. 11, P. 5 Para. 3: “In order to extract the contour line of the carriage door from the image with rich and complex information, the characteristics of the carriage door area need to be intercepted firstly, the invention adopts two differential images to respectively obtain the upper boundary line and the lower boundary line of the carriage door area according to the characteristics of an application occasion, and extracts two long ridge lines of the carriage top according to the characteristics of a carriage, thereby obtaining the upper frame of the carriage door”),
that calculates, as an opening angle of the cargo- compartment door, an angle formed between the door-corresponding part and the upper edge serving as a reference part in the image (Fig. 11-15, P. 5 Para. 3: “obtaining a binary edge image through image processing, screening the upper edges of the carriage doors on two sides according to a heuristic rule summarized from the image characteristics based on Hough transform, and calculating the opening degree of the carriage doors according to the upper edges”); and
that determines that the cargo-compartment door is in a closed state when the opening angle is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold (Fig. 9, P. 7 Para. 2: “the main processing module calculates the running speed V of the truck according to the triggering time difference of the distance sensing unit, and when the speed V is greater than a set value and the opening degree alpha of the car door is greater than the set value, an alarm signal is sent to the vehicle-mounted alarm and the acousto-optic unit through the output module, and/or a brake falling instruction is sent to the gateway controller”, P. 8 Para. 11: “otherwise, defining the opening degree of the compartment door to be 0”; The alarm only sounds when the door is opened to greater than a certain angle alpha. This is basically checking if the door is closed or not. Based on the equations in Para [0055], [0058], [0061] or the original specification, it can be understood that alpha is determined based on the measured angle of the door).
However, Zou does not disclose
the camera being installed on the top surface of the cargo-compartment and in a position where the camera can capture an image of a cargo- compartment door provided on a rear surface of the cargo-compartment and an upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment;
a loading rate estimation apparatus that estimates a loading rate of a-the vehicle when the cargo-compartment door is detected to be in the closed state by the sensing apparatus.
Suzuki teaches
the camera being installed on the top surface of the cargo-compartment and in a position where the camera can capture an image of a cargo- compartment door provided on a rear surface of the cargo-compartment and an upper edge of the rear surface of the cargo-compartment (Fig. 3 and 7, P. 5 Para. 7: “Each of the first camera 110 and the second camera 120 may be a small camera installed in the own vehicle, and is preferably equipped with a wide-angle lens. The first camera 110 captures the rear of the vehicle, and the second camera 120 captures a predetermined monitoring area of the vehicle. The “monitoring area” mentioned here is an area to be monitored by the driver, and is typically the cargo compartment in the case of a van body truck, the vicinity of an entrance / exit in the case of a bus, and the vicinity of a rear door in the case of a taxi.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou with mounting a camera at the top of the cargo compartment of the vehicle to observe the rear of vehicle of Suzuki to effectively increase the safety of the driver.
However Zou in view of Suzuki does not explicitly teach
a loading rate estimation apparatus that estimates a loading rate of a-the vehicle when the cargo-compartment door is detected to be in the closed state by the sensing apparatus.
Uchimura teaches
a loading rate estimation apparatus that estimates a loading rate of a-the vehicle when the cargo-compartment door is detected to be in the closed state by the sensing apparatus (Para [0038]: “The vehicle 40 has a cargo space 42 that is a box-shaped load-carrying platform loaded with the load G, for example”, Para [0061]: “The loading rate acquisition system 2 according to the present example embodiment acquires the loading rate of the loads G in the cargo space 42 that is a load-carrying platform of the vehicle 40 based on distance distribution information acquired by the ranging apparatus 100”, Para [0064]: “The control unit 220 of the loading rate acquisition system 2 determines whether or not an acquisition instruction that provides an instruction to acquire a loading rate in the cargo space 42 of the vehicle 40 is input (step S102) and stands by until the acquisition instruction is input (step S102, NO). The control unit 220 can wait for switch input made by a driver, a loading worker, or the like or input of a door closure signal indicating that the door of the cargo space 42 has been closed, for example, as the acquisition instruction to acquire a loading rate”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou in view of Suzuki with controlling and acquiring loading rate of a cargo truck of Uchimura to effectively increase the accuracy when acquiring the loading rate of a cargo.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
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
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 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