DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 26, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 12, 16, and 21-23. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 26, 2026 have been with respect to pending have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope and contents; therefore, the grounds of rejection are modified accordingly.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “identify a feature section of the cargo with the feature section comprising a base of the cargo and a limited number of vertical rows of pixels upward from the base with the feature section being smaller than and contained completely within the cargo section; and determine a type of cargo based on the feature section” in lines 9-13 of the claim. The aforementioned claimed subject matter has no antecedent basis the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “identify a feature section of the cargo with the feature section comprising a base of the cargo and a limited number of vertical rows of pixels upward from the base with the feature section being smaller than and contained completely within the cargo section; and determine a type of cargo based on the feature section” in lines 9-13 of the claim.
Par. [0042-53] of the specification of this application indicate “identify a feature 201 of the cargo 200… Different features 201 can be identified, including but not limited to a shape of the cargo, a base of the cargo, a mesh, and a belt. The computing device 50 then identifies the type of cargo 200 based on the feature… The cargo 200 is identified based on the identification of one or more features 201. Various features 201 of the cargo 200 can be identified. One example of a feature is an overall shape of the cargo 200… A feature can also include a shape of section of the cargo 200, such as a shape of the bottom”.
However, the examiner was not able to clearly ascertain where support was found in the original disclosure for the claimed “identify a feature section of the cargo with the feature section comprising a base of the cargo and a limited number of vertical rows of pixels upward from the base with the feature section being smaller than and contained completely within the cargo section; and determine a type of cargo based on the feature section”” limitation recited in lines 9-13 of the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-11 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 14-15, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 now recites the limitation “determine a type of the cargo” in line 18 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “determine a type of the cargo” recited in line 18 of the claim is determined based on previously recited processing steps of the claim, or if the claimed “determine a type of the cargo” recited in line 18 of the claim is determined independent from previously recited processing steps of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes the claimed “determine a type of the cargo” recited in line 18 of the claim will be interpreted as “determine a type of the cargo based on the identified cargo and the determined one or more dimensions of the cargo”.
Claims 14-15 and 22 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 12.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “one of the images in which the cargo fills a bounding box” in line 2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “bounding box” recited in line 2 of claim 20 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “bounding box” now recited in line 8 of claim 12, or if the claimed “bounding box” recited in line 2 of claim 20 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “bounding box” different from the claimed “bounding box” now recited in line 8 of claim 12, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes the claimed “one of the images in which the cargo fills a bounding box” recited in line 2 of claim 20 will be interpreted as “one of the images in which the cargo fills the bounding box”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph, respectively, set forth in this Office action. The examiner was not able to find prior art that teaches all claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 12, respectively, as now claimed by applicant’s invention.
Claims 16-17, 19, and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the following limitations as claimed:
In view of claim 16 in its entirety, the further limitations of “… receiving images of the cargo while the cargo is positioned within the vehicle;
applying a bounding box to the images with the bounding box being statically positioned at a fixed reference point in the images and with a statically defined shape and fixed dimensions;
for each of the images, performing a coarse detection by identifying the cargo within the bounding box;
deleting sections of the images that are outside of the bounding box;
performing a fine detection on the images that comprise at least a section of the cargo within the bounding box by identifying a feature comprising a base of the cargo and a limited number of vertical rows of pixels at the base; and
identifying the cargo based on the feature” as now recited in claim 16.
The examiner was not able to find prior art that teaches all claim limitations of independent claim 16, as now claimed by applicant’s invention.
Claims 17, 19, and 23 are dependent upon allowed claim 16.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights