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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 22 December 2023 has been accepted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14, 16, and 18 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 16, there is no antecedent basis for “the side-inspection device” in claim 1. This term finds antecedent basis in claims 4 or 9 (or their corresponding dependent claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wighton (AU 2013237637 A1, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Wighton discloses: a computer-implemented method (using a data processing apparatus, page 9, lines 21-25) for inspecting cargo in an open-topped vehicle (method for obtaining a 3D profile of train wagons used for transporting ore, page 2, lines 3-4), comprising: obtaining data from a top-observation device, the top-observation device being configured to observe a top surface of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle during a mutual movement of the open-topped vehicle and the top-observation device (14c, 14d, Fig. 2, arrow on right indicating movement of the train wagons); determining an estimate of at least one characteristic of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle, based on the obtained data (calculation of a load profile, page 16, lines 5-24); comparing the determined characteristic estimate with a reference characteristic associated with the cargo in the open-topped vehicle; and determining whether the cargo in the open-topped vehicle is in conformity with the reference characteristic, based on the comparing (determination of whether wagon is overloaded or unbalanced using wagon model information compared with profile, page 15, line 28-page 16, line 4).
With respect to claim 2, Wighton discloses determining an estimate of the volume of a vehicle wherein the volume is estimated using data from a top-observation device (131, page 16, line 30-page 17, line 3).
With respect to claim 3, Wighton discloses the claimed method herein determining the volume estimate comprises: obtaining estimates of profiles of the top surface of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle, based on the data obtained from the top-observation device (via height map array, page 13, lines 19-27); obtaining an estimate of a height of the cargo under the top surface of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle (using target points measured with cameras, page 13, lines 19-27); determining the volume estimate, based on the obtained profile estimates and the obtained height estimate (target points are mapped onto profile point map in order to provide a plan view profile of the wagon, page 13, lines 19-27; dynamically varying load profile is used to calculate volume, page 16, lines 25-28).
With respect to claim 17, Wighton discloses that the vehicle is an open-topped gondola-type wagon (train wagons, abstract).
With respect to claim 18, Wighton discloses that the vehicle comprises a load of metal ore (page 6, lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 19, Wighton discloses determining one or more mutual positions of the vehicle and the top-observation device along an axis of the mutual movement of the open-topped vehicle and the top-observation device (page 13, line 28-page 14, line 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and/or to overcome any relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 4-5 and 13-14, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest: determining a mass estimate, comprising: obtaining inspection data measured by a side-inspection device configured to inspect the cargo using ionizing radiation during a mutual movement of the open-topped vehicle and the side-inspection device, the inspection data being measured after transmission of the ionizing radiation through an upper part of the vehicle, including an upper part of the cargo, obtaining first mass equivalence data associated with the irradiated upper part of the vehicle not including the cargo, the first mass equivalence data being with respect to a reference material, based on the obtained inspection data, obtaining second mass equivalence data associated with the irradiated upper part of the vehicle, including the upper part of the cargo, the second mass equivalence data being with respect to the reference material, based on the obtained inspection data, obtaining third mass equivalence data associated with the irradiated upper part of the cargo, based on the obtained first mass equivalence data and the obtained second mass equivalence data, obtaining one or more estimates of profiles of a top surface of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle, based on the data obtained from the top-observation device, determining the mass of the upper part to the cargo, based on the obtained third mass equivalence data and the obtained one or more estimates of profiles, determining the mass estimate of the cargo, based on the determined mass of the upper part to the cargo and the determined volume estimate for the cargo in the open- topped vehicle.
With respect to claims 6-12, the cited prior art does not specify the claimed method steps wherein determining the estimate of at least one characteristic of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle further comprises obtaining an estimate of the density of the cargo in the open-topped vehicle, in addition to all of the other claimed elements.
With respect to claim 15, the cited prior art is silent with regard to the use of a millimeter-wave scanner or a Lidar scanner.
With respect to claim 16, the cited prior art does not disclose a side-inspection device comprising an ionizing radiation scanner mounted fixed with respect to the ground.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 29 October 2025