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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (“Hill”)(US 11,983,663) in view of Kalouche (US 2021/0387808) and Olshansky (US 2020/0311953).
Hill teaches a cargo-space-management system for a cargo space of a vehicle comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) at least one camera system (fig. 1 showing optical system comprising plurality of cameras 118-1 to 118-4 and optical scanner 124 configured to track packages within a tracking area 112, e.g., delivery bay of a truck; col. 5, ln. 8-68 teaching optical system enabling real-time package tracking, wherein number of optical sensors and mounting position within and around cargo area may be configured by system designer),
a control device (122) having an object identification mechanism and a locating mechanism (fig. 3; col. 5, ln. 55-col. 6, ln. 25; col. 7, ln. 40-col. 9 teaching controller 122 performing image analysis enabling real-time object tracking including verifying object identity and location, e.g., exact location of object within delivery vehicle is available within vehicle map and identity is verified by comparing image data with previously scanned barcode data), and
at least one human-machine interface (col. 9, ln. 48-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching that operator may interface with system via a tablet),
the camera system having at least a plurality of cameras (fig. 1), and least one of the cameras being configured to acquire depth information of an object within the cargo space (fig. 6 and col. 5, ln. 55+ teaching acquiring depth information),
the control device being coupled at least to the camera system and the human-machine interface (col. 5, ln. 65-col. 6, ln. 30 and col. 9, ln. 48-col. 10, ln. 20),
the object identification mechanism of the control device being configured to determine an identity of objects within the cargo space, on the basis of at least one object property (col. 5, ln. 55-col. 6, ln. 25; col. 7, ln. 40-col. 9 teaching that identity is verified by comparing image data with previously scanned barcode data)
the locating mechanism of the control device being configured to determine a position of an object within the cargo space (Id. teaching that exact location of object within delivery vehicle is available within vehicle map),
the control device being configured to determine an object identifier of a specific object, and to output the object identifier to the human-machine interface, the object identifier including at least the identity and the position of the specific object (col. 9, ln. 12-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching controller being configured to determine and send object information that includes location and identification data to a mobile device, e.g., image of vehicle map sent to tablet can be marked with information—such as “box around the live view of the package with text stating package name, identifier, intended addressee or most efficient package identifier”; see also col. 11-12 teaching other package identification methods, such as blinking lights or changing colors, the direct deliver person to a specific object position);
(re: claim 5) wherein the object identification mechanism of the control device is configured to be at least partially executable as a cloud server mechanism, the control device being able to be coupled to a cloud server (fig. 2; col. 7, ln. 40-60);
(re: claim 6) wherein the locating mechanism of the control device is configured to divide the cargo space into sections, and to determine in which specific section an object is positioned, and the control device being configured to assign the specific section to the object identifier (col. 9, ln. 12-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching that package location data is stored as part of object identifier, wherein each object location can be regarded as a specific section);
(re: claim 17) a shelving system disposed within the cargo space and configured to receive objects thereon (fig. 1 and col. 5, ln. 8-18 teaching a plurality of shelves 114-1, 114-n in cargo bay of delivery truck and packages 116-1, 116-n thereon).
Hill further teaches
(re: certain elements of claim 8) a vehicle having a cargo-space-management system and a cargo space according to certain elements of claim 1 (fig. 2 and col. 7, ln. 40-60).
Hill teaches a method for loading objects into a cargo space comprising the following steps:
(re: certain elements of claim 9) positioning a specific object in the cargo space (fig. 3 step 308),
determining an identity of the specific object on the basis of the object identification mechanism and a position of the specific object on the basis of the locating mechanism of the control device (fig. 3 steps 308 to 314 and col. 4, ln. 58-col. 5, ln 65.; col. 7, ln. 40-col. 9 teaching controller 122 performing image analysis enabling real-time object tracking including determining object identity and exact location of object within cargo vehicle, wherein identity is verified by comparing image data with previously scanned barcode data),
determining of an object identifier of the specific object by the control device, the object identifier including at least the identify and the position of the specific object (col. 9, ln. 12-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching controller being configured to determine and send object information that includes location and identification data to a mobile device, e.g., image of vehicle map sent to tablet can be marked with information—such as “box around the live view of the package with text stating package name, identifier, intended addressee or most efficient package identifier”);
and
outputting the object identifier to the human-machine interface or storing the object identifier in a memory device assigned to the control device, or outputting the object identifier at a communication interface of the control device (Id. teaching that controller stores exact location information within memory and sends object identifier information to mobile device).
Hill teaches a method for unloading objects from a cargo space comprising the following steps:
(re: certain elements of claim 10) receiving, by the control device, of a notification regarding a specific object to be unloaded, and an object identifier thereof (col. 9, ln. 12-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching that system automatically displays object identifier information, e.g., location marking and/or package identifier, on an operator mobile screen of the object intended for delivery);
scanning of the cargo space by the camera system with respect to a specified position, determined by the object identifier, of the specific object to be unloaded (Id. teaching continuously monitoring and tracking of objects),
outputting of the object identifier by the control device via the human-machine interface if the specific object to be unloaded is identified at the specified position on the basis of the object identification mechanism of the control device, or scanning the entire cargo space until the specific object to be unloaded is identified at another current position on the basis of the object identification mechanism and the locating mechanism of the control device (col. 9, ln. 12-col. 10, ln. 20 teaching controller sends object information that includes location and identification data to a mobile device, e.g., image of vehicle map sent to tablet can be marked with information—such as “box around the live view of the package with text stating package name, identifier, intended addressee or most efficient package identifier”); and
outputting of an updated object identifier by the control device via the human-machine interface, the updated object identifier including the current position of the specific object to be unloaded, or outputting an error message (col. 12, ln. 1-col. 14, ln. 19 teaching system continuously tracks objects and updates object positions during transport, wherein system may generate errors when objects are not located).
Hill as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 8) a first rail device arranged substantially horizontally within the cargo space;
a second rail device arranged substantially vertically within the cargo space;
the plurality of cameras comprising a first camera mounted to the first rail device via a first mounting device configured to allow the first camera to be horizontally displaced along the first rail device; and
a second camera mounted to the second rail device via a second mounting device configured to allow the second camera to be vertically displaced along the second rail device;
(re: claim 2) wherein the cargo space has a length, a width, and a height, wherein the first rail device extends along the length of the cargo space, and wherein the second rail device extends along the height of the cargo space;
(re: claim 3) the cargo space is defined by a bottom wall, a top wall, a pair of sidewalls, and a pair of end walls, wherein the first rail device extends along the top wall, and wherein the second rail device extends along one of the end walls;
(re: certain elements of claims 9, 10 ) said method for loading or unloading objects by means of the cargo-space management system according to claim 1.
Olshansky, however, teaches that it is well known in the optical sensing arts
(re: claims 1-3 and 8)
- to configure a camera system by mounting the cameras on both vertical and horizontal rails on walls defining a space to gather more complete image information of an object at different angles (fig. 1 showing adjustable camera elements mounted on both vertical and horizontal rails within a confined space; para. 102-104 teaching automatically adjusting camera elements based on object dimensions and position).
Kalouche further teaches that it is well-known in the automated loading and unloading arts
(re: claims 1, 2 and 8)
- to integrate a camera sensor on a movable gripper element within a cargo vehicle to assist with identifying objects during automated fulfillment tasks (fig. 2A showing camera sensor 63 mounted on rail elements 46, 48 near gripper 54; para. 34-38 teaching that camera sensor can utilize AR tags and barcodes to align the gripper elements and further use object image information for inventory and selection purposes).
Kalouche and Olshansky as cited above all teach that it is well-known in the automated material handling arts
(re: certain elements of claims 9, 10)
- to implement loading and unloading methods by configuring camera sensor elements on a movable gripper element within a cargo vehicle to assist with identifying objects during automated fulfillment tasks, wherein a camera can be mounted to any system component, e.g., vertical and horizontal rails, at different angles and include a moveable and/or rotational and/or swivel connection to allow the camera to capture a variety of object angles and orientations while moving to gather more complete image information (supra).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., rail and mounting elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hill for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 7, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Kalouche and Olshansky (“Hill et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and in further in view of De Geeter et al. (“Geeter”)(US 2015/0296105), D’Amelio (US 12,576,532) and legal precedent.
Hill et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 7) wherein the first mounting device is configured to allow the first camera to be swiveled relative to the first rail device, and
wherein the second mounting device is configured to allow the second camera to be swiveled relative to the second rail device;
(re: claim 11) wherein the first mounting device is configured to allow the first camera to be horizontally displaced along the first rail device such that the first camera is configured to scan the length of the cargo space;
(re: claim 12) wherein the second mounting device is configured to allow the second camera to be vertically displaced along the second rail device such that the second camera is configured to scan the height of the cargo space;
(re: claim 13) a first drive device configured to horizontally displace the first camera along the first rail device;
(re: claim 14) wherein the first drive device is further configured to pivot the first camera relative to the first rail device;
(re: claim 15) a second drive device configured to vertically displace the second camera along the second rail device;
(re: claim 16) wherein the second drive device is further configured to pivot the second camera relative to the second rail device;
(re: claim 18) wherein the shelving system has a length and a height, wherein the first mounting device is configured to allow the first camera to be horizontally displaced along the length of the shelving system, and wherein the second mounting device is configured to allow the second camera to be displaced along the height of the shelving system;
(re: claim 19) wherein the first rail device is disposed above the shelving system; and
(re: claim 20) wherein the second rail device is disposed along an end of the shelving system.
Geeter, however, teaches that it is well known in the object handling and scanning arts
(re: claims 7, 11-16)
to use mounting devices that allow a camera to be displaced along respective horizontal and vertical rails as well as be rotatable and tiltable/pivotable to allow more flexibility when performing a complete cargo scan (fig. 3A-3C showing movable camera units 311, 321, 331; para. 31-32, 36, 91 teaching that movable cameras allow greater cargo heights and widths to be scanned and that rails mounts are sturdier and require less maintenance than cables or movable arms; fig. 8 and para. 48-50, 96-97 teaching rotatable and tiltable camera can be integrated to allow greater flexibility in cargo scanning; fig. 5 and para. 93 teaching control unit configured to control camera movement, i.e., driving and pivoting of cameras).
D’Amelio further teaches that it is well-known in the object handling and scanning arts
(re: claims 7, 13-16)
-to mount a multiplicity of cameras, wherein a camera can be mounted to any system component and include a moveable and/or rotational and/or swivel connection to allow the camera to capture a variety of object angles and orientations while moving (fig. 2E; col. 69, ln, 52-col. 70, ln. 55 teaching that camera can be mounted with moveable and/or rotational connection to any system component—e.g., gripper arm 30, positioning element 22 on vertical rail and moveable gantry 70 that includes vertical and horizontal rails, wherein drive devices are inherent in camera movement).
(re: claims 18-20)
Further, the claimed features relating to the placement of known features, i.e., rail and mounting devices, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the vision arts as Hill expressly teaches that the “exact position and number of cameras 118 is within the discretion of the system designer”. (col. 5, ln. 38-64 teaching positioning of cameras to enable real-time tracking of packages within cargo bay, wherein cameras have complete field of view). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the object handling and scanning arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hill et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Kalouche and Olshansky (“Hill et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of what is well known in the art.
Hill et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein the object identification mechanism of the control device has a machine learning algorithm, identities of objects being able to be determined on the basis of the algorithm.
This feature, however, is well-known in the automated material handling arts and Examiner takes Official Notice of such. It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the automated material handling arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hill et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach amended the claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection as set forth above. With respect to Applicant’s argument that Olshansky is not applicable, Examiner disagrees. This issue at hand is scanning of objects, thus the teachings of Olshansky and Geeter—that clearly show and teach the mounting of cameras to rails to allow for more flexible and complete scanning—are entirely applicable. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders Applicant’s claimed invention obvious, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights