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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 3/14/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 9/15/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202141041657 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6 recite ‘detect the motion of the vehicle by a motion detection module’, but lacks antecedent basis for “the motion” and “the vehicle”. Examiner treats as ‘detect a motion of a vehicle by a motion detection module’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7-8 recite ‘the one or more consecutive frames’, but lacks antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘one or more consecutive frames’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 recites ‘a motion detection module’, where line 6 already recites ‘a motion detection module’. Examiner treats line 8 as ‘the motion detection module’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 recites ‘the pre-processing module’, but lacks antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a pre-processing module’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 16 recites ‘the one or more lock images’, but lacks antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘one or more lock images’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 16 recites ‘the seal classification module’, but lacks antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a seal classification module’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 32 recites ‘the seal detection module’, but lacks antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a seal detection module’. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “seal detection module”, “pre-processing module”, “motion detection module”, “lock detection module”, “visual object detection module”, “seal classification module” and “post-processing module” in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, set forth in this Office action and/or objections for lacking antecedent basis.
Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, as no art rejection has been indicated. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hofman (US-2015/0063634) in view of Weinstein et al. (US-2020/0049632), Li et al. (US-2022/0214243) and further in view of the prior art searched and/or cited does not teach nor render obvious the combination of limitations including “A system for detecting presence and intactness of one or more seals on a container, comprising: a first camera, a second camera, and a third camera configured to detect motion of a vehicle and enable to capture a first camera feed, a second camera feed, and a third camera feed, and deliver the first camera feed, the second camera feed and the third camera feed to a computing device over a network, whereby the computing device comprising a seal detection module configured to detect presence and intactness of one or more seals on a container using an activation map; a pre-processing module comprising a motion detection module configured to receive the third camera feed as an input to detect the motion of a vehicle, the motion detection module configured to compare a selected region of interest from the one or more consecutive frames of the third camera to detect motion of the vehicle using a frame difference, the pre-processing module configured to save one or more consecutive frames from the first camera and the second camera when the vehicle starts crossing the third camera, whereby the frame difference is computed using one or more computer vision methods, the third camera configured to detect motion of the vehicle, the third camera is positioned perpendicular to the container passing through a vehicle lane, the first camera is positioned front side to the container passing through the vehicle lane and the second camera is positioned rear side to the container passing through the vehicle lane; a lock detection module comprising a visual object detection module configured to receive the one or more saved frames from the pre-processing module as the input and detect one or more locks present in the one or more saved frames of the first camera and the second camera, the lock detection module configured to detect the presence of the one or more locks and transmit the one or more lock images to a seal classification module; whereby the seal classification module configured to receive the one or more lock images from the lock detection module as the input and classify the one or more lock images to identify whether the one or more locks are sealed, the seal classification module configured to determine a color of the one or more container seals by extracting an attention region and observing one or more pixel values in the extracted region using the activation map of a classification model and histograms, the seal classification module configured to determine intactness of the one or more container seals by extracting an attention region and observing one or more pixel values in the extracted region, the seal classification module configured to determine the color and the seal intactness from the one or more lock images by generating one or more attention maps, the one or more attention maps are used to obtain better localization of the seal, the seal classification module comprising a computer vision and neural network methods configured to determine the color and the seal intactness on obtaining the exact location of the seal; the seal classification module configured to pass seal information to a post- processing module as a JavaScript Object Notation (json) file with a frame number; the post-processing module configured to receive the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) files corresponding to the container and tracks at least one seal separately using a DeepSort tracking model thereby generating a final output by considering an averaged result over the one or more lock images; and a cloud server configured to receive a final output from the seal detection module over the network and updates the final output obtained by the seal detection module on the cloud server, the final output comprising number of seals identified on the one or more locks of the container” as recited in independent claim 1; and
“A method for detecting presence and intactness of one or more seals on a container, comprising: enabling a first camera, a second camera, and a third camera to capture a first camera feed, a second camera feed, and a third camera feed; receiving the third camera feed as an input to detect the motion of the vehicle by a motion detection module on a computing device; comparing a selected region of interest from the one or more consecutive frames by a motion detection module to detect motion of the vehicle using a frame difference; saving one or more consecutive frames from the first camera and the second camera by the pre-processing module when the vehicle starts crossing the third camera; receiving the one or more saved frames by a lock detection module from the pre-processing module as an input and detecting one or more locks present in the one or more saved frames of the first camera and the second camera; receiving the one or more lock images by the seal classification module from the lock detection module as an input and classifying the one or more lock images to identify whether the one or more locks are sealed; determining a color of the one or more seals by extracting an attention region and observing one or more pixel values in the extracted region by the seal classification module; determining intactness of the one or more seals by extracting an attention region and observing one or more pixel values in the extracted region by the seal classification module; passing the seal information to a post-processing module as a JavaScript Object Notation (json) file with a frame number; receiving the JavaScript Object Notation (json) files corresponding to the container by the post-processing module and tracking each seal separately using a DeepSort tracking model; generating a final output by considering an averaged result over the one or more lock images; and updating the final output obtained by the seal detection module on a cloud server over a network, the final output comprising number of seals identified on the one or more locks of the container” as recited in independent claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681