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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-5 recite receiving images inside a cargo platform space, and determining how much of the cargo platform space is filled with cargo, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-5 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-5 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite estimating how much of a cargo platform space contains cargo by viewing images of the cargo platform space, thus the organization of human activity such as surveillance of objects in a region.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving images of cargo space monitored by a camera, viewing persons, objects, or cargo in the cargo space, and estimating the amount of cargo in the cargo space is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-5 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect objects in images, and estimating the number of objects in the images. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when locating objects in images; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-5 is directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-5 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and image surveillance. The claims 1-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing images and counting objects.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
In claims 1-5, the steps of receiving images, viewing objects in the images, and estimating the number of objects in the images is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object localization. Therefore, claims 1-5 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-5 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2022/0405695) in view of Drazan et al. (US 10,311,315).
Regarding claim 1, Bowman teaches a loading rate estimation apparatus, comprising:
a recognition section that acquires at least one of a first image of a captured inside of a cargo platform or a second image of a captured range that is an outside of the cargo platform, the captured range being within a predetermined distance from a doorway of the cargo platform, recognizes and tracks a person and an object other than a cargo in the acquired at least one of first or second image, and determines whether the person and the object other than the cargo are present in the cargo platform (see para. 0021, Bowman discusses presence/motion detector to detect the presence of personnel/equipment).
Drazan teaches an estimation section that estimates a loading rate of a vehicle equipped with the cargo platform in a case where the recognition section determines that neither the person nor the object other than the cargo is present in the cargo platform (see figure 2, Drazan discusses a camera within a distance from trailer door inside the cargo platform; see figure 4, col. 10 lines 46-65, Drazan discusses set of cameras capturing images inside of a trailer, cameras are capable of capturing image of cargo inside the trailer without a person or other object), the loading rate being a ratio of a volume of cargo placed in the cargo platform to the maximum loading volume of the vehicle (see col. 1 lines 17-22, Drazan discusses cargo utilization rate well-known in cargo trailer truck industry; see claim 1, col. 10 lines 46-63, Drazan discusses determining a percent load value indicating a percentage of the cargo area of the interior cavity that contains cargo).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bowman with Drazan to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform cargo recognition.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bowman in this manner in order to improve cargo recognition and transportation by determining the cargo ratio in captured images to improve cargo transportation. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Bowman, while the teaching of Drazan continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating cargo ratio using images captured to improve cargo transportation. The Bowman and Drazan systems perform cargo detection in transportation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Bowman teaches wherein: the cargo platform is a cargo compartment, and the first image is an image captured with a camera installed inside the cargo compartment (see para. 0021, Bowman discusses detect the presence of personnel/equipment, e.g., people on foot and/or driving material handling equipment, autonomous vehicles, etc. within a trailer parked at the loading dock, loading and/or unloading cargo).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bowman with Drazan to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform cargo recognition.
Regarding claim 3, Bowman teaches wherein the second image is at least one of an image captured with an onboard camera that captures an outside of the vehicle or an image captured with a surveillance camera that is installed in a place where an operation on the cargo platform is performed (see para. 0017, 0113, Bowman discusses acquiring image data using cameras; see para. 0021, Bowman discusses camera detecting the presence of personnel/equipment, e.g., people on foot and/or driving material handling equipment, autonomous vehicles, etc. within a trailer parked at the loading dock, loading and/or unloading cargo).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bowman with Drazan to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform cargo recognition.
Regarding claim 4, Bowman teaches wherein: the person is an operator who performs an operation in or on the cargo platform, and the object other than the cargo is an operation tool that is used in the operation. (see para. 0017, 0113, Bowman discusses personnel/equipment, e.g., people on foot and/or driving material handling equipment, autonomous vehicles, etc. within a trailer parked at the loading dock, loading and/or unloading cargo).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bowman with Drazan to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform cargo recognition.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2022/0405695) in view of Drazan et al. (US 10,311,315) in view of Okada et al. (US 11,897,387).
Regarding claim 5, Bowman and Drazan do not expressly disclose wherein: the estimation section estimates the loading rate of the vehicle based on a detection result of a depth sensor disposed in the cargo platform. However, Okada teaches wherein: the estimation section estimates the loading rate of the vehicle based on a detection result of a depth sensor disposed in the cargo platform (see figure 19, figure 20, figure 21, figure 26, claim 1, col. 3 lines 28-32, col. 15 lines 57-61, Okada discusses a depth sensor to calculate cargo).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bowman and Drazan with Okada to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform cargo recognition.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bowman and Drazan in this manner in order to improve cargo recognition and transportation by determining the cargo ratio in captured images to improve cargo transportation. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Bowman and Drazan, while the teaching of Okada continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating cargo ratio using images captured to improve cargo transportation. The Bowman, Drazan, and Okada systems perform cargo detection in transportation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siris et al. (US 2010/0161170) discusses a system for determining the utilization of each trailer by calculating the total volume of the packages assigned to the trailer; and dividing the total volume by the available volume associated with the trailer to determine the percent utilization of the trailer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights