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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 27, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on July 27, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Please note that some claims do not currently have prior art claim rejections.
The Claim Interpretation section, from the previous Office action, has been revised, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/fourth paragraph, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Please note that some 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
101 Note: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 101 claim rejections of claims 6, 10-11, and 13-14, from the previous Office action, under the following reasoning: The independent claims 6 and 13, from which 10-11 and 14 depend, have each been amended to incorporate the feature of projecting a visual cue onto the identified package/object. Examiner does not believe that a projector used in this way can be fairly characterized as a generic computing component. The feature weighs toward eligibility under the particular machine 101 consideration. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Furthermore, the feature represents a technological improvement in terms of locating objects in a space in a more efficient way. See MPEP 2106.05(a). For at least the above reasons, these claims are eligible via integration of any abstract idea into a practical application and/or amounting to significantly more than any abstract idea.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation section from the previous Office action. Applicant first argues that the specification provides adequate corresponding structure for the claim limitation of “mobile or wearable device”. Applicant discusses the term “user device”, but “user device” is a different term from “mobile or wearable device”. Applicant also references “augmented reality glasses”, which is a type of wearable device, but it does not appear that the specification limits “mobile or wearable devices” to “augmented reality glasses”. Upon a search of Applicant’s specification for mobile devices and wearable devices, Examiner could not find language, such an explicit definition, that limits the scope of these terms to sufficient particular structure for performing their functions in the claims. Therefore, Examiner does not find these Applicant arguments to be persuasive.
Regarding the 101 claim rejection of claim 2, Applicant argues that image processing in this claim which detects objects, determines the objects’ locations, and identifies objects as packages renders claim 2 as comparable to USPTO 101 Example 39. Examiner believes the two cases are distinguishable. Example 39 was a method for training a neural network for facial detection. In the example’s analysis, a conclusion of eligibility was reached because no judicial exception was found. In contrast, for Applicant’s claim 2, Examiner has found an abstract idea/judicial exception in terms of “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” via (1) the claim encompassing commercial shipping activity, and (2) the claim encompasses directing human activity by providing an indicator for retrieval of the identified package. See the 101 rejection.
Applicant next argues that such image processing are inherently computational operations that require machine-based image analysis. In response, note that simply performing computations on generic computing components, without more, is not enough to render eligibility to an abstract-idea claim, under USPTO 101 guidance. It should also be noted that the image processing in claim 2 is currently recited at quite a high level. For example, consider the step of “processing the image information to detect one or more objects in the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area”. This limitation does not state specifically how the objects are detected in the image data, or how the object locations are determined, such as what algorithms might be used. The limitation is kept as a broad concept. This makes it difficult to argue that there is, for example, a technological advancement in object detection via image processing being recited in the claim. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that claim 2 represents a technological improvement over mere barcode tracking of packages. It is true that claim 2 allows for image verification, to some extent, of what packages are actually present before the camera(s). There are at least two arguments against this rendering eligibility by invoking the technological/computing improvement 101 consideration. First, as explained in more detail in the 101 rejection, the information processing that actually carries out the image verification is all part of the abstract idea. Under the technological/computing 101 consideration, the improvement cannot be in the judicial exception alone. See MPEP 2106.05(a), which states: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” Second, and relatedly, to invoke the improvement consideration, there must be some meaningful contribution to the improvement from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. For claim 2, the additional elements are all generic computing components (determining information from a scannable medium; acquiring image information of the area in real-time using at least one optical sensor). Essentially, the additional elements simply add scanning and imaging for the data collection, which are generic computing component activities. Thus, they do not meaningfully contribute to any alleged improvement in the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 2 is analogous to USPTO 101 Example 40, claim 1. Examiner believes these two cases are distinguishable. Example claim 1 featured a particular way of monitoring network data which produced some benefits. The example analysis found the claim eligible as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application via an improvement to network monitoring, presumably being treated as a technological/computing improvement. Applicant would have a better argument here if the image processing were not recited at such a high level, and if Applicant could make a case that there is a technological/computing improvement via an advancement in how image processing is performed. However, as discussed earlier, the relatively simple and high-level recitation of the image processing in claim 2 currently works against any possible argument in that direction. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the amendments to claim 2 recite specific technological operations that transform raw image data into actionable package identification and location information. In response, see the above discussion. The current version of claim 2 still amounts to abstract idea performed on generic computing components. The image processing is currently too simple and high-level to get past being mere data processing that is part of the abstract idea, and does not invoke the computing/technological improvement consideration, as discussed above.
Applicant next argues against Examiner’s characterization of the claims as mere generic computing components performing an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the recited image processing operations are not simple generic computing functions but may instead be carried out by various specific image-processing techniques in a technological context. In response, first, we cannot read various more complex techniques into the claims if they are not recited there, except for situations where required such as due to definitions of claim terms in the specification. Second, although limitations such as “processing the image information” may seem less generic than “adding amounts A and B” (for example), processing information for object detection may ultimately be a series of simpler operations, such as calculations, comparisons, and if-then statements. Therefore, high-level recited image processing can indeed be viewed as generic data processing operations when performed on generic computing components. Thus, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that an alleged improvement is not to the abstract idea itself but to the technology of package tracking. Examiner understands why Applicant is arguing that there is an improvement in monitoring packages with image confirmation versus, for example, simple barcode scanning alone. However, the reason that Examiner is arguing that any alleged improvement would be to the abstract idea itself is that the elements that put into effect the alleged improvement are the data processing steps that are all part of the abstract idea. Again, to invoke the technological/computing improvement consideration under 101 analysis, there must be meaningful contribution from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea, for either Step 2A, Prong 2, or Step 2B. For example, see the use of the term “additional elements” in the MPEP charts at MPEP 2106(III) and MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). As Examiner explained above, the “additional elements beyond the abstract idea” in claim 2 are all generic computing components that do not appear to have been improved themselves or otherwise meaningfully contribute to the alleged improvement. Finally, package tracking is not a technological field, but rather a business or organizational process; therefore, the 101 technological/computing improvement consideration would not apply to a package tracking field improvement, for that reason.
Applicant argues that claim 3 should be eligible based on the projected visual cue, but note that that limitation is not required to be given weight if the audio cue is performed instead. An audio cue can be a simple piece of information output from a generic computer’s speaker, and thus would just be a further generic computing component in that situation. Therefore, claim 3, in its current form, does not provide eligibility.
The prior art rejections have largely been withdrawn, except for those of claim 6 and some of claim 6’s dependent claims. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the new claim 6 limitations of “process…” and “identify…”. Examiner has added the Edwards reference to disclose “process the captured image data to detect one or more objects within the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area”. Examiner used the Lundahl reference to disclose “identify the package by matching the stored package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the captured image data”. Lundahl, paragraph [0013], states: “Mail pieces without postage may be compared with images stored in the shipper application database and a matching image may be found.” Lundahl, paragraph [0039], states that a “shipper” in Lundahl may be a carrier, and that a ”mail piece” in Lundahl may be a parcel. Lundahl, paragraph [0050], states that the shipper/carrier may image a mail piece, and also states: “Many different software packages, methods and algorithms are available to process imagery and compare it with images stored in a database, and more are anticipated in the future.” Thus, if we view the parcel image in the database in Lundahl as “package identification information”, then Lundahl discloses “identify the package by matching the stored package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the captured image data”.
Applicant argues that Or-Bach should not be used to disclose projecting the visual cues onto packages because Or-Bach uses a different method of determining the locations of the packages than Applicant’s claims. Examiner disagrees. The claimed image-based package location determinations are disclosed via the other references in the 103 combinations. There does not appear to be any reason why the projector of Or-Bach cannot be used to point to locations that are determined some other way than Or-Bach’s way.
Therefore, Examiner does not find Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, and 13-22 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that Applicant has included USPTO Office action(s) on Applicant’s recent information disclosures statement(s). Please note that any references cited in such USPTO Office action(s) have not necessarily been considered unless separately cited on an information disclosure statement.
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: “user device” in claim 8; “mobile or wearable device” in claims 12 and 21; and “mobile device” in claim 19.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 22 has been amended to add that the determining a location in the area for the placement of the package is also based on the respective locations of the detected one or more objects. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed and could not find support for this amendment. As part of this review, Examiner performed text-string searches of Applicant’s specification for “locat”, “position”, “where”, “plac”, “drop”, “leav”, and “left”. The closest feature that Examiner found to providing support for the amendment at issue is as in Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0011], which discloses determining a location in the area for placement of the package based on the package identification information and the 3D image information. Note that determining the placement location based on the 3D image information does not necessarily mean that the location of an object in the 3D image information is considered; for example, the 3D image information may identify empty spaces to place the package, and that information may be used to determine the package placement location. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, each of these claims fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. For example, in claim 12, the indicator may comprise simply a visual cue projected onto the package. This feature already is recited in claim 6, from which claim 12 depends. Claim 21 has a similar issue. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 2, Claim(s) 2 recite(s):
- determining a package identification information associated with a package;
- processing the image information to detect one or more objects in the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area;
- identifying the package within the area by matching the package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the acquired image information;
- providing an indicator for retrieval of the identified package.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps a user retrieve a package.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- determining information from a scannable medium; acquiring image information of the area in real-time using at least one optical sensor: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3-5 and 18, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- audio cue (claims 3 and 18).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 4 merely describes types of information on the medium.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 18 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes, US 7689465 B1, in view of Edwards, US 20120257061 A1, in further view of Lundahl, US 20140317024 A1, in further view of Or-Bach, US 6988079 B1.
As per Claim 6, Shakes discloses:
- a package tracking system for use with a delivery vehicle (column 5, lines 44-62 (“Alternatively, the customer may receive one or more still images, each showing an aspect of order processing, such as picking an individual item out of inventory, packing items into a package or shipping box, weighing the package, addressing the package, and/or loading the package onto a delivery vehicle.”); column 8, line 58, through column 9, line 26 (“Additionally, verification data may be captured throughout various stages of inventory control, management, and/or tracking of inventory items. For example, in one embodiment, data may be captured that tracks an item from receiving, through inventory and order processing, to shipping.”); column 12, lines 17-30 (“In one embodiment, control system 300 may capture images of the finished, sealed, addressed order being loaded on delivery vehicle 360.”));
- memory storing package identification information relating to a package that is to be loaded on the delivery vehicle (column 5, lines 44-62 (“Alternatively, the customer may receive one or more still images, each showing an aspect of order processing, such as picking an individual item out of inventory, packing items into a package or shipping box, weighing the package, addressing the package, and/or loading the package onto a delivery vehicle.”); column 7, line 57, through column 8, line 17 (ID code); column 13, lines 28-43 (identification codes); column 14, lines 45-67 (“receive the identification code data and use it to match captured images with the correct order”); column 17, lines 39-50 (image database));
- at least two optical sensing devices positioned in the delivery vehicle to view an area of the delivery vehicle, the at least two optical sensing devices configured to capture image data of the area (column 5, lines 44-62 (“Alternatively, the customer may receive one or more still images, each showing an aspect of order processing, such as picking an individual item out of inventory, packing items into a package or shipping box, weighing the package, addressing the package, and/or loading the package onto a delivery vehicle.”); column 7, lines 5-31 (various stations); column 8, line 58, through column 9, line 26 (“Additionally, verification data may be captured throughout various stages of inventory control, management, and/or tracking of inventory items. For example, in one embodiment, data may be captured that tracks an item from receiving, through inventory and order processing, to shipping.”); column 12, lines 17-30 (“In one embodiment, control system 300 may capture images of the finished, sealed, addressed order being loaded on delivery vehicle 360.”); column 12, lines 31-38 (multiple cameras); column 13, line 57, through column 14, line 5 (various stations); column 14, lines 6-31 (“In response, control system 300 may communicate with one or more image capture devices, such as camera(s) 310, to start and stop image capture, in one embodiment.”); column 14, lines 32-44 (whole paragraph); column 14, lines 45-67 (“In other embodiments, however, all cameras in packing station 60 may be continually capturing images (or video) and control system 300 may utilize signals from motion detector(s) 500 to monitor an order being processed and match up (or associate) the captured images with the correct order.”));
- an image processor in communication with the at least two optical sensing devices, the image processor being configured (column 5, lines 44-62 (“Alternatively, the customer may receive one or more still images, each showing an aspect of order processing, such as picking an individual item out of inventory, packing items into a package or shipping box, weighing the package, addressing the package, and/or loading the package onto a delivery vehicle.”); column 7, line 57, through column 8, line 17 (ID code); column 8, line 58, through column 9, line 26 (“Additionally, verification data may be captured throughout various stages of inventory control, management, and/or tracking of inventory items. For example, in one embodiment, data may be captured that tracks an item from receiving, through inventory and order processing, to shipping.”); column 12, lines 17-30 (“In one embodiment, control system 300 may capture images of the finished, sealed, addressed order being loaded on delivery vehicle 360.”); column 12, lines 31-38 (multiple cameras); column 13, lines 28-43 (identification codes); column 14, lines 6-31 (“In response, control system 300 may communicate with one or more image capture devices, such as camera(s) 310, to start and stop image capture, in one embodiment.”); column 14, lines 32-44 (“In one embodiment, control system 300 may initiate image capturing on a camera by camera basis, while in another embodiment, control system 300 may instruct all the cameras in the packing area to capture images concurrently.”); column 14, lines 45-67 (“In other embodiments, however, all cameras in packing station 60 may be continually capturing images (or video) and control system 300 may utilize signals from motion detector(s) 500 to monitor an order being processed and match up (or associate) the captured images with the correct order.”); column 17, lines 39-50 (image database)).
Shakes fails to disclose process the captured image data to detect one or more objects within the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area. Edwards discloses process the captured image data to detect one or more objects within the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area (paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0027] (“As an optional sixth step, the cameras 32 may continuously collect video images. One or more motion detection algorithms on a motion detection processor 40, 42 within the cameras 32 can be used to detect and allow a tracking processor 40, 42 within the server 38 to follow a moving object through the neighborhood. In this case, the motion processors 40, 42 may analyze video from more than one camera 32 to detect moving objects and the tracking processor may correlate the movement of the detected object among cameras 32.”); paragraph [0030] (“The capability of tracking moving objects based upon identifying characteristics can be very important for tracking the activities of moving objects in general throughout the neighborhood.”; “Alternatively, police personnel may download a particular characteristic (e.g., a license number) to the server 38 and allow a reporting processor 40, 42 within the server 38 to report any incident of detection and locations and times of detection.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shakes such that the invention processes the captured image data to detect one or more objects within the area and determine respective locations of the detected one or more objects within the area, as disclosed by Edwards, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Shakes fails to disclose identify the package by matching the stored package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the captured image data; detect a presence and location of the identified package within the area based on the captured image data. Lundahl discloses identify the package by matching the stored package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the captured image data (paragraph [0013] (mail piece images matched to images in database); paragraph [0039] (“In the context of this description, the "shipper" can be the USPS, UPS, Federal Express, or any other standard or express mail organization, and the word "mail piece" means anything that is shipped from one location to another, from a pallet load or crate, to a parcel or single letter.”); paragraph [0050] (imaging during shipping procedure); as part of mail piece image matching, the location of the mail piece in the image of the area would necessarily be identified); detect a presence and location of the identified package within the area based on the captured image data (paragraph [0013] (mail piece images matched to images in database); paragraph [0039] (“In the context of this description, the "shipper" can be the USPS, UPS, Federal Express, or any other standard or express mail organization, and the word "mail piece" means anything that is shipped from one location to another, from a pallet load or crate, to a parcel or single letter.”); paragraph [0050] (imaging during shipping procedure); as part of mail piece image matching, the location of the mail piece in the image of the area would necessarily be identified). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Shakes such that the invention identifies the package by matching the stored package identification information with one of the detected one or more objects based on the captured image data; and the invention detects a presence and location of the identified package within the area based on the captured image data, as disclosed by Lundahl, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Shakes fails to disclose provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified package, wherein the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue onto the identified package based on the determined location. Or-Bach discloses provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified package, wherein the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue onto the identified package based on the determined location (column 2, lines 1-14 (“A receiving mechanism within the vehicle determines the location of the queried RFID in response to the reply signal, and identifies the location of the RFID (and hence the location of the package that the RFID is affixed to or contained within). A mechanism such as one or more light pointers or other location identifying structure indicates where within the vehicle that package is located.”); column 7, line 58, through column 8, line 26 (“Alternatively, by measuring the difference in the strength of the signal received by antenna 502a vs. 502b, or by measuring echoes of signal 531, or by a similar technique, the location of package 510i can be determined. The location of package 510 is then indicated to a user by adjusting one or more light beam sources 503a-n so that their light beams 520a-n (provided by sources 503a-n) point to the package.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Shakes such that the invention provides an indicator for retrieval of the identified package, wherein the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue onto the identified package based on the determined location, as disclosed by Or-Bach, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9, the modified Shakes fails to disclose a light projector operative to project light, and wherein the processor is further configured to direct the light projector to shine light on or near the package before or after the package is loaded onto the delivery truck. Or-Bach further discloses a light projector operative to project light, and wherein the processor is further configured to direct the light projector to shine light on or near the package before or after the package is loaded onto the delivery truck (column 2, lines 1-14; column 7, line 58, through column 8, line 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Shakes such that the invention includes a light projector operative to project light, and wherein the processor is further configured to direct the light projector to shine light on or near the package before or after the package is loaded onto the delivery truck, as disclosed by Or-Bach, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 10, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the image processor is configured to track movement of the object within the area. Edwards further discloses wherein the image processor is configured to track movement of the object within the area (paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Shakes such that the image processor is configured to track movement of the object within the area, as disclosed by Edwards, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the package. Or-Bach further discloses wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the package (column 2, lines 1-14; column 7, line 58, through column 8, line 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Shakes such that the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the package, as disclosed by Or-Bach, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are allowed.
Claims 7-8, 11, 17, and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dearing, US 20140270356 A1 (systems, methods and devices for item processing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights