DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 8/4/2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20. It rejects claims 1-20 in a manner consistent with the rejections presented to the applicant in U.S. Application Ser. No. 19/133,484 (Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP Attorney Docket No. 541082.417USPC). A Non-Final Rejection was mailed to the applicant in U.S. Application Ser. No. 19/133,484 on July 29, 2026.
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 1-20 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. The independent claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 each recite a “method of detecting a transport device” and then go on to recite “one or more transport devices”. Are these recitations relating to the same “transport device”? Claim 10 recites “the prediction” without proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjeldheim (US 2023/0166913) in view of Sun et al. (US 2017/0206431).
Fjeldheim discloses a detection system/computer-implemented method/data processing apparatus comprising circuitry for carrying out a method of detecting a transport device (201/301) in a workspace comprising a grid (see para. 0065) formed by a first set of parallel tracks extending in an X-direction (see para. 0065) and a second set of parallel tracks extending in a Y-direction (see para. 0065), transverse to the first set in a substantially horizontal plane, the grid comprising a plurality of grid spaces (see at least Fig. 7), wherein one or more transport devices (201/301) are arranged to selectively move in at least one of the X- direction or Y-direction on the tracks, and to handle a container (106) stacked beneath the tracks within a footprint of a single grid space, the method comprising: obtaining image data representative of an image of at least part of the workspace (see at least para. 0077); processing the image data with an object detection model trained to detect instances of transport devices on the grid (see at least para. 0074); determining, based on the processing, whether the image includes a transport device of the one or more transport devices (see at least para. 0076). Fjeldheim additionally discloses that the object detection model is trained to detect instances of transport devices that have a warning signal engaged, and processing the image data with the object detection model to determine, based on the processing, whether the image includes a transport device with the warning signal engaged (see at least para. 0048) and provide an alert that the image includes the transport device with the warning signal engaged (see at least para. 0039).
Fjeldheim discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose, in response to determining that the image includes the transport device, outputting annotation data indicating the transport device in the image; generating the annotation data including a bounding box; outputting an updated version of the image including the annotation data; or that the object detection model comprises a convolutional neural network. Fjeldheim is silent regarding how it determines the location of a transport device is in the image.
However, Sun discloses a similar method which includes, in response to determining that the image includes a transport device, outputting annotation data indicating the transport device in the image (see at least paras 0043-0049 and 0064-0037); generating the annotation data including a bounding box (see at least paras 0043-0049 and 0064-0037); outputting an updated version of the image including the annotation data (see at least paras 0043-0049 and 0064-0037); and that the object detection model comprises a convolutional neural network (see at least paras 0043-0049 and 0064-0037) for the purpose of determining the location of a transport device in the image. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to include, in response to determining that the image includes the transport device, outputting annotation data indicating the transport device in the image; generating the annotation data including a bounding box; outputting an updated version of the image including the annotation data; and have the object detection model comprise a convolutional neural network, as disclosed by Sun, for the purpose of determining the location of a transport device in the image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
