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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under § 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a user equipment” in claims 1 and 11 and “a vehicle system” in claims 1 and 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification for performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under § 112(f), the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under § 112(f).
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.
Claim limitations “a user equipment” and “a vehicle system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, claim 1 recites, in part, “obtaining, from a user equipment (UE) associated with the user, first information associated with an object”. The corresponding structure of the user equipment for obtaining first information associated with an object is not disclosed in the specification. Similarly, claim 1 recites, in part, “obtaining, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle”. The corresponding structure of the vehicle system for obtaining second information associated with the vehicle is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under § 112(b) as well as claims 2-10 which depend therefrom.
For the aforementioned reasons, independent claim 11 is rejected under § 112(b) as well as claims 12-20 which depend therefrom.
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-10 are rejected under § 101, because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed towards a method, one of the four statutory patent subject matter eligible categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Independent claim 1 is on a method and recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and c) mental processes. Specifically, claim 1 recites as follows:
1. A method, performed by at least one processor of a server, for providing at least one loading recommendation a user, the method comprises: obtaining, from a user equipment (UE) associated with the user, first information associated with an object; determining, based on the first information, a size of the object; obtaining, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second information, a free space in the vehicle; determining, based on the size of the object and the free space in the vehicle, the at least one loading recommendation; and providing, to the UE, the at least one loading recommendation. (Emphasis added.)
The claim constitutes a mental process, because the highlighted text covers method steps capable of being performed in the human mind. The step “determining, based on the first information, a size of the object” amounts to mere mental determination. The step “determining, based on the second information, a free space in the vehicle” is another example of mental determination. The step “determining, based on the size of the object and the free space in the vehicle, the at least one loading recommendation” amounts to a judgement call or decision making. Thus, claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. As stated, claim 1 recites as follows:
1. A method, performed by at least one processor of a server, for providing at least one loading recommendation a user, the method comprises: obtaining, from a user equipment (UE) associated with the user, first information associated with an object; determining, based on the first information, a size of the object; obtaining, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second information, a free space in the vehicle; determining, based on the size of the object and the free space in the vehicle, the at least one loading recommendation; and providing, to the UE, the at least one loading recommendation. (Emphasis added.)
Neither the step “obtaining first information associated with an object” amounts to mere observation and information gathering nor the step “obtaining, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle” impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Rather, both “obtaining” steps are tantamount to routine information gathering and merely use a computer to implement the abstract idea. When looking at the additional elements as a whole, there is no indication that the additional elements reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, much less use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
Analysis – Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, either individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons above. Moreover, each additional element (the “obtaining” steps) is no more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field as data collection in a merely generic manner is in fact a well‐understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible subject matter.
Similarly, claims 2-4 and 6, which depend from claim 1, are patent ineligible for the same reasons above.
For the aforementioned reasons, independent claim 11 is not patent eligible subject matter.
Additionally, claims 12-14 and 16, which depend from claim 11, are patent ineligible for the same reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2021/0174058 to Uchibori (Uchibori). For claim 1, Uchibori discloses a method, performed by at least one processor (16) of a server, for providing at least one loading recommendation [to] a user, the method comprises:
obtaining, from a user equipment (UE) (12) associated with the user, first information associated with an object (see ¶¶ [0053] & [0063] for providing a luggage image acquisition section for acquiring image data of the luggage to be loaded);
determining, based on the first information, a size of the object (see ¶¶ [0055] & [0064] for providing a luggage dimension computation section for computing the dimensions of the luggage based on the image data of the luggage);
obtaining, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle (see ¶¶ [0050] & [0062] for providing a loading space dimension acquisition section for acquiring the dimensions of a loading space in a vehicle);
determining, based on the second information, a free space in the vehicle (see ¶ [0056] & [0065] for providing a determination section for comparing the dimensions of the loading space acquired by the loading space dimension acquisition section against the dimensions of the luggage computed by the luggage dimension computation section in order to determine whether or not it is possible to load the luggage into the loading space);
determining, based on the size of the object and the free space in the vehicle, the at least one loading recommendation (see ¶ [0067] for determining the loading location and loading orientation of the luggage in the vehicle); and
providing, to the UE, the at least one loading recommendation (see ¶ [0067] for displaying image data of the luggage on a display screen of a portable user terminal).
Claim 11 is rejected under § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchibori, supra. For claim 11, Uchibori disclose a system implemented in a server for providing at least one loading recommendation to a user, the system comprising:
a memory (18) storage storing computer-executable instructions (see ¶ [0040]); and
at least one processor (16) communicatively coupled to the memory storage (see ¶ [0040]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, from a user equipment (UE) associated with the user, first information associated with an object (see ¶¶ [0053] & [0063] for providing a luggage image acquisition section for acquiring image data of the luggage to be loaded);
determine, based on the first information, a size of the object (see ¶¶ [0055] & [0064] for providing a luggage dimension computation section for computing the dimensions of the luggage based on the image data of the luggage);
obtain, from a vehicle system implemented in a vehicle, second information associated with the vehicle (see ¶¶ [0050] & [0062] for providing a loading space dimension acquisition section for acquiring the dimensions of a loading space in a vehicle);
determine, based on the second information, a free space in the vehicle (see ¶ [0056] & [0065] for providing a determination section for comparing the dimensions of the loading space acquired by the loading space dimension acquisition section against the dimensions of the luggage computed by the luggage dimension computation section in order to determine whether or not it is possible to load the luggage into the loading space);
determine, based on the size of the object and the free space in the vehicle, the at least one loading recommendation (see ¶ [0067] for determining the loading location and loading orientation of the luggage in the vehicle); and
provide, to the UE, the at least one loading recommendation (see ¶ [0067] for displaying image data of the luggage on a display screen of a portable user terminal).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Uchibori, supra, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0279501 to Schimmel et al. (Schimmel). For claims 5 and 15, Uchibori further discloses that the first information comprises at least one image of the object. See ¶ [0053] (capturing, via a camera, images of luggage in order to determine luggage size).
Although Uchibori does not explicitly disclose the specific technique for determining object size as recited in the claim, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Schimmel teaches automated item measuring system wherein determining the size of the object comprises: processing the at least one image to calibrate a relationship between pixels in the at least one image and the object; calculating the size of the object in pixels; and converting the size of the object into a measurement unit. See ¶ [0012] (determining the dimensions of an item in pixels captured in an image and then converting the pixels to standard unit of length).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Uchibori with the image processing technique of Schimmel in order to help facilitate the automated determination of the size of luggage.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Uchibori, supra, as applied to claims 1, 6, 6, 1, 11, 16, 16, and 11 respectively, in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0256821 to Cha et al. (Cha). For claims 6 and 16, Uchibori all limitations of the claimed invention but for first information in the form of object attributes.
Although Uchibori does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Cha teaches a system and method for guiding item arrangement in a vehicle wherein the first information comprises a description of the object. See ¶¶ [0118-0120] (receiving identification information on an item corresponding to first information on a plurality of items, the first information comprising a quantity, type, size, weight, and priority of each item).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Uchibori with the data gathering and compilation technique of Cha in order to help facilitate the automated determination of the size of luggage.
In regards to claims 7 and 17, Cha further discloses that the determining the size of the object comprises: obtaining, from a database based on the description, information associated with the size of the object. See ¶¶ [0118-0120].
In regards to claims 8 and 18, Cha further discloses that the determining the size of the object comprises: processing the description with a large language model (LLM) to extract information associated with the size of the object. See ¶ [0037].
In regards to claims 9 and 19, Cha further discloses that the second information comprises one or more of: at least one image of a vehicle trunk and at least one image of a vehicle cabin, and wherein the second information is obtained by the vehicle system upon detecting a change in an ignition state of the vehicle. See Fig. 6 (depicting an image of a vehicle trunk as the target of the loading determination system).
Claim 10 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Uchibori in view of Cha, supra, as applied to claims 9 and 19, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0155185 to Christensen et al. (Christensen). For claims 10 and 20, Uchibori in view of Cha discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for temperature sensitive loading determinations.
Although Uchibori in view of Cha does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Christensen teaches a system and method for adjusting the interior configuration of a vehicle based on contents wherein the second information comprises a temperature in the vehicle cabin, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the first information, whether or not the object is temperature-sensitive; and based on determining that the object is temperature-sensitive, determining, based on the second information, whether or not the temperature in the vehicle cabin is suitable for loading the object. See ¶ [0117] (collecting data representing one or more transportable articles in a vehicle, transmitting such data to a processor which in turn determines whether an object is temperature sensitive, determining the temperature within the vehicle, and adjusting the temperature within the vehicle in order to reduce the risk of spoiling the article during transport).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Uchibori in view of Cha with temperature control feature of Christensen in order to protect temperature sensitive objects from spoiling during transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 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.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2020/0394746 to Krishnamurthy et al. discloses techniques and examples pertaining to baggage transportation in a vehicle-sharing environment. An automotive vehicle may have a plurality of baggage compartments each respectively having a size capacity and a weight capacity. The vehicle may also have a plurality of sensors capable of monitoring a loading situation of the plurality of baggage compartments. The vehicle may further have a memory element capable of storing capacity data representing the loading situation, as well as a processor capable of updating the capacity data in an event that the loading situation is changed due to a baggage having been loaded to, or unloaded from, a baggage compartment of the plurality of the baggage compartment.
US Pub. No. 2021/0073726 to Okodo et al. discloses a delivery support system including: an available space detection unit that detects an available space that is a space in which a package can be loaded based on an output signal of a package sensor that is attached to a package compartment provided in a delivery vehicle and that detects a three-dimensional region in which there is a package loaded in the package compartment; a determination unit that determines whether a package to be added can be loaded in the available space based on dimensions of the package to be added; and an output unit that outputs a determination result of whether a package can be loaded.
US Pub. No. 2021/0188287 to Taveira et al. discloses a system and method for determining whether to initiate a configuration change protocol to implement a configuration change for modifying the arrangement of the vehicle internal structure in response to a planned or predicted future operating mode, event or environment. Also, determining whether an occupancy status of the vehicle conflicts with an occupancy status allowed for in a configuration called for by a configuration change input or indication. Further, modifying an arrangement of the vehicle internal structure in accordance with the configuration change input or indication in response to determining that the occupancy status of the vehicle does not conflict with the occupancy status allowed for in the configuration called for by the configuration change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights