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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are currently subject to non-statutory double patent rejections, but are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer, these claims would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 2, this claim recites the same patentable features as were found allowable in parent application 18/511,203 which issued as United States Patent No. 12,033,410 on 09 July 2024. This claim is allowable for the same reasons as were presented in the parent application.
With regards to claims 3-5, these claims depend from claim 2 and therefore incorporate the features of that claim that were found allowable.
With regards to claim 6, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Zaidi et al (US Patent No. 11,562,583) which discloses an ID estimation circuit that estimates whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string at 7:18-8:61, 10:29-46 (“In this example, the second effort by the AI system 150 30 can include a review of the number against known trailer number formats and/or actual trailer numbers”). However, Zaidi does not disclose the attribute is a position where the character string is written, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that the character string is the trailer ID when the character string is written at a corner of the trailer.
With regards to claim 7, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Zaidi et al (US Patent No. 11,562,583) which discloses an ID estimation circuit that estimates whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string at 7:18-8:61, 10:29-46 (“In this example, the second effort by the AI system 150 30 can include a review of the number against known trailer number formats and/or actual trailer numbers”). However, Zaidi does not disclose the attribute is a type of characters included in the character string, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that a possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the character string includes both of a character and a number than when the character string includes only the character or only the number.
With regards to claim 8, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Zaidi et al (US Patent No. 11,562,583) which discloses an ID estimation circuit that estimates whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string at 7:18-8:61, 10:29-46 (“In this example, the second effort by the AI system 150 30 can include a review of the number against known trailer number formats and/or actual trailer numbers”). However, Zaidi does not disclose the attribute is a number of characters in the character string, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that a possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the number of characters in the character string is within a predetermined range than when the number of characters in the character string is out of the predetermined range.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “circuit” that are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “recognition circuit” and “ID estimation circuit” in claims 1-9. Courts have found the term "circuit” to be a structural term that does not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. See Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332 (the court found the recitation of "aesthetic correction circuitry" sufficient to avoid pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, treatment because the term circuit, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 1
A character recognition device, comprising:
A character recognition device comprising:
a recognition circuit that recognizes at least one character string from an image, the image including a trailer and being captured by an imaging device; and
a recognizer that recognizes at least one character string from an image including a trailer captured by an imaging device; and
an ID estimation circuit that estimates whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string.
an ID estimator that estimates a possibility that the character string is a trailer ID is higher when a writing manner of the character string is vertical writing than when the writing manner of the character string is horizontal writing.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 2
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 1
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute is a writing manner of the character string, and the ID estimation circuit estimates a possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the writing manner of the character string is vertical writing than when the writing manner of the character string is horizontal writing.
A character recognition device comprising:
* * *
an ID estimator that estimates a possibility that the character string is a trailer ID is higher when a writing manner of the character string is vertical writing than when the writing manner of the character string is horizontal writing.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 2
The character recognition device according to claim 2, wherein the ID estimation circuit estimates that the character string is the trailer ID when the writing manner of the character string is vertical writing and a content indicated by the character string is not a container ID according to a predetermined specification.
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the ID estimator estimates that the character string is the trailer ID when the writing manner of the character string is the vertical writing and a content indicated by the character string is not a container ID according to a predetermined specification.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 3
The character recognition device according to claim 3, wherein the container ID is a container ID regulated by 1S06346.
The character recognition device according to claim 2, wherein the container ID is a container ID regulated by ISO6346.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 4
The character recognition device according to claim 3, wherein the ID estimation circuit estimates that the character string is not the trailer ID when the character string is the container ID according to the predetermined specification.
The character recognition device according to claim 2, wherein the ID estimator estimates that the character string is not the trailer ID when the character string is the container ID according to the predetermined specification.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 5
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute is a position where the character string is written, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that the character string is the trailer ID when the character string is written at a corner of the trailer.
The character recognition device according to claim 4, wherein the ID estimator estimates that the character string is the trailer ID when the writing manner of the character string is the vertical writing and the character string is written at a corner of the trailer.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 6
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute is a type of characters included in the character string, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that a possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the character string includes both of a character and a number than when the character string includes only the character or only the number.
The character recognition device according to claim 5, wherein the ID estimator estimates that the possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the character string includes both of a character and a number than when the character string includes only the character or only the number.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 7
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute is a number of characters in the character string, and the ID estimation circuit estimates that a possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when the number of characters in the character string is within a predetermined range than when the number of characters in the character string is out of the predetermined range.
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the ID estimator estimates that the possibility that the character string is the trailer ID is higher when a number of characters in the character string is within a predetermined range than when the number of characters in the character string is out of the predetermined range.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 8
9. The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the ID estimation circuit outputs a determination result to a display device.
The character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the ID estimator outputs a determination result to a display device.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 12,033,410
Claim 9
A character recognition method comprising:
A character recognition method comprising:
recognizing at least one character string from an image, the image including a trailer and being captured by an imaging device; and
recognizing at least one character string from an image including a trailer captured by an imaging device; and
estimating whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string.
estimating a possibility that the character string is a trailer ID is higher when a writing manner of the character string is vertical writing than when the writing manner of the character string is horizontal writing.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zaidi et al (US Patent No. 11,562,583).
With regards to claim 1, Zaidi discloses a recognition circuit that recognizes at least one character string from an image, the image including a trailer and being captured by an imaging device at 5:34-6:19 and FIG. 2; 6:58-67 and FIG. 4B.
Zaidi discloses an ID estimation circuit that estimates whether the character string is a trailer ID based on an attribute of the character string at 7:18-8:61, 10:29-46 (“In this example, the second effort by the AI system 150 30 can include a review of the number against known trailer number formats and/or actual trailer numbers”)
With regards to claim 9, Zaidi discloses the ID estimation circuit outputs a determination result to a display device at 5:27-33; 12:34-38.
With regards to claim 10, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Zaidi for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673