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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on December 4, 2025.
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. Note that some claims no longer have prior art rejections.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new Claim Interpretation section, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 101 claim rejections section has been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues that amending the claims, to add that they provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified package, helps with 101 by transforming the claims to providing actionable guidance for package retrieval operations. Examiner disagrees. Providing such an indicator may simply be the output of information from the abstract idea, and is also part of the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not help with 101 because it merely provides further detail to the abstract idea.
For each of the claims that has a 101 rejection below in this Office action, the issue is similar: Each claim amounts to merely an abstract idea performed on generic computing system components, without more. That type of claim is not patent-eligible under USPTO 101 guidance as mere instruction to apply a judicial exception. As generic computing components, neither do the additional elements beyond the judicial exception meaningfully contribute to an alleged technological improvement. Thus, any alleged improvement, even if present, would be to the judicial exception/abstract idea by itself, which does not invoke the technological/computing improvement consideration under 101 guidance. See the 101 rejections themselves for additional details.
Examiner believes that Applicant’s remaining arguments are not applicable, in light of the amendments to the rejections, below in this Office action.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 8 and 19-20 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.
Specifically, regarding claim 8, this claim depends from claim 7, which has a four-reference 103 rejection using Shakes, Lundahl, Or-Bach, and Michael. None of these four references, alone or in combination, disclose the element/limitation of claim 8. Examiner would thus have to add at least a fifth reference to the combination to attempt to reject claim 8 under 103. Examiner concluded that adding more references to Shakes, Lundahl, Or-Bach, and Michael here would amount to impermissible hindsight.
Specifically, regarding claim 19, this claim depends from claim 2, which has a four-reference 103 rejection using Shakes, Dearing, Patel, and Or-Bach. None of these four references, alone or in combination, disclose the element/limitation of claim 19. Examiner would thus have to add at least a fifth reference to the combination to attempt to reject claim 19 under 103. Examiner concluded that adding more references to Shakes, Dearing, Patel, and Or-Bach here would amount to impermissible hindsight.
Specifically, regarding claim 20, this claim depends from claim 2, which has a four-reference 103 rejection using Shakes, Dearing, Patel, and Or-Bach. None of these four references, alone or in combination, disclose the element/limitation of claim 20. Examiner would thus have to add at least a fifth reference to the combination to attempt to reject claim 20 under 103. Examiner concluded that adding more references to Shakes, Dearing, Patel, and Or-Bach here would amount to 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: “mobile or wearable device” in claims 12 and 21.
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 § 101
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;
- identifying the package within the area based on the package identification information and 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(s) 6 and 10-11 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) 6, Claim(s) 6 recite(s):
- a package tracking for use with a delivery vehicle;
- package identification information relating to a package that is to be loaded on the delivery vehicle;
- receive images of an area of the delivery vehicle;
- determine a presence and location of an object within the area based on the image data;
- provide 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:
- a system; memory storing; at least two optical sensing devices positioned to view, the at least two optical sensing devices configured to capture image data of the area; an image processor in communication with the at least two optical sensing devices, the image processor being configured to detect: 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) 10-11, 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:
- a 3D camera (claim 11).
The 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, claim 10 merely adds further tracking functionality to the abstract idea.
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) 6 and 10-11 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(s) 13-14 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) 13, Claim(s) 13 recite(s):
- package tracking;
- determine and identify an object entering into or leaving the field of view based on the received captured images;
- provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified object.
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:
- a system; real-time; at least one optical sensor configured to capture images continuously within a field of view of an area; an image processor in communication with the at least one optical sensor to receive therefrom captured images, the image processor being configured to detect: 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) 14, 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:
- memory storing (Claim 14);
- data storage (Claim 14);
- registering (Claim 14).
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 added portion of claim 14 merely adds package identification details to the abstract idea.
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) 13-14 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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes, US 7689465 B1, in view of Dearing, US 20140270356 A1, in further view of Patel, US 20010027995 A1, in further view of Or-Bach, US 6988079 B1.
As per Claim 2, Shakes discloses:
- a method of loading of a package into an area (claim 1 (method); 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.”));
- determining package identification information from a scannable medium associated with a package (column 13, lines 28-43 (most of this paragraph is important); column 14, lines 45-67 (“In other embodiments, however, the packing personal processing an order may utilize a scanning device to read an identification code associated with the order throughout the processing of the order and thus control system 300 may be configured to receive the identification code data and use it to match captured images with the correct order.”); column 15, lines 17-35 (“For example, after processing an order, a processing agent may use a scan code reader to read an identification code on the packed and sealed order and control system 300 may receive the identification code and information indicating the completion of order processing for that order. In some embodiments, images may be continually captured and control system 300 may analyze the captured images, or receive motion detection or manual signals, in order to determine which of the images to associate with a particular order.”));
- acquiring image information of the area using at least one optical sensor (column 7, lines 32-56 (“In yet another embodiment, one or more image capture devices may be configured to continuously capture images or video, and a control system or other software (or hardware) system may analyze the continually captured images to determine which images include views of the order being processed.”)).
Shakes fails to disclose identifying the package within the area based on the package identification information and physical information of the package. Dearing discloses identifying the package within the area based on the package identification information and physical information of the package (paragraph [0036] (“In some embodiments, the item can be, for example, a package, a letter, or any other identifiable object.”); paragraph [0064] (“In some embodiments, the testing module 116 can be configured to facilitate ascertaining information related to a scanned item. In some embodiments, this information related to a scanned item can comprise, for example, physical information relating to the scanned item such as the dimensions of the scanned item, the weight of the scanned item, the type of services requested for the scanned item, the nature and/or contents of the scanned item, and/or any other desired physical information relating to the scanned item.”); paragraph [0065] (“The testing module 116 can include features and components to facilitate the gathering of information relating to the scanned item. In some embodiments, these features and/or components can include sensors capable of detecting the desired physical properties relating to the scanned item.”); paragraph [0067] (“In the event that the information from the testing module 116 relates to physical properties of the scanned item such as, for example, the item weight and/or item dimensions, the processor 102 can compare this information from the testing module 116 with information contained in the item label to verify the correctness of the item label information.”)). 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 identifies the package within the area based on the package identification information and physical information of the package, as disclosed by Dearing. Motivation for the modification is provided by Dearing in that this verifies the correctness of the package (paragraph [0067]).
The modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the physical information is determined from the acquired image information. Patel discloses wherein the physical information is determined from the acquired image information (paragraph [0067] (“However, in the present invention, a handheld code reader is used to provide an approximation of real time or full-motion video output through the standard scanner interface.”); paragraph [0068] (“Thus, the code reader can be used in a fashion similar to a camcorder. The system can double as a code reader and a video camera, video display or video recorder, such as those used in surveillance applications.”); paragraph [0102] (“The following discussion presents the equations to obtain actual 3D dimensions from a 2D projection (image) of an object.”); paragraph [0113] (“FIGS. 11, 12(a) and 12(b) illustrate an alternative embodiment of the present invention which measures the dimensions and distance of a target object 800.”); paragraph [0118] (“While dimensioning aspects of the present invention has been described in connection with imaging code readers located on stands or in fixed positions, it will be understood that aspects of the present invention may be practiced with mobile or handheld code readers as well.”)). 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 physical information is determined from the acquired image information, as disclosed by Patel. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself -- that is in the substitution of the method of determining dimensions of Patel for the method of determining dimensions of Dearing. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The modified Shakes fails to disclose acquiring image information in real-time. Patel further discloses acquiring image information in real-time (paragraph [0067] (“The present invention employs conventional real time video compression techniques such as have been used in Internet telephony. However, in the present invention, a handheld code reader is used to provide an approximation of real time or full-motion video output through the standard scanner interface.”); paragraph [0116] (“As shown the module may be equipped with a display 822, which receives a live video signal from the imaging engine.”)). 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 acquires image information in real-time, as disclosed by Patel, 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 providing an indicator for retrieval of the identified package. Or-Bach discloses providing an indicator for retrieval of the identified package (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, 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 3, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the package confirming the package for retrieval. Or-Bach further discloses wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the package confirming the package for retrieval (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 confirming the package for retrieval, 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 4, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the scannable medium is a barcode. Dearing further discloses wherein the scannable medium is a barcode (paragraph [0049]). 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 scannable medium is a barcode, as disclosed by Dearing, 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 5, Shakes further discloses wherein the area is at a 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 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.”)).
As per Claim 17, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein providing the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue directly onto the identified package. Or-Bach further discloses wherein providing the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue directly onto the identified 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 providing the indicator comprises projecting a visual cue directly onto the identified 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.
As per Claim 18, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein providing the indicator further comprises output confirming the identified package for retrieval. Or-Bach further discloses wherein providing the indicator further comprises output confirming the identified package for retrieval (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 providing the indicator further comprises output confirming the identified package for retrieval, 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.
The modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the output communication instruction comprises an audio cue. Dearing further discloses wherein the output communication instruction comprises an audio cue (paragraph [0059]; paragraph [0062]). 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 output communication instruction comprises an audio cue, as disclosed by Dearing, 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.
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Lundahl, US 20140317024 A1, in further view of Or-Bach.
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 detect a presence and location of an object within the area based on the captured image data. Lundahl discloses detect a presence and location of an object 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 Shakes such that the invention detects a presence and location of an object 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. Or-Bach discloses provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified package (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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Lundahl in further view of Or-Bach in further view of Michael, US 6208910 B1.
As per Claim 7, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein, if the stored package identification information substantially matches the information determined about the object, the image processor is configured to determine that the package is at the location. Lundahl further discloses wherein, if the stored package identification information substantially matches the information determined about the object, the image processor is configured to determine that the package is at the location (paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0050]). 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, if the stored package identification information substantially matches the information determined about the object, the image processor is configured to determine that the package is at the location, 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 if a package is at a location, registering a location of the package at the detected location of the object in the area of the delivery vehicle. Michael discloses if a package is at a location, registering a location of the package at the detected location of the object in the area of the delivery vehicle (column 1, lines 25-67). 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, if a package is at a location, the invention registers a location of the package at the detected location of the object in the area of the delivery vehicle, as disclosed by Michael, 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Lundahl in further view of Or-Bach in further view of Patel.
As per Claim 10, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the image processor is configured to track movement of the package within the area. Patel further discloses wherein the image processor is configured to track movement of the package within the area (paragraph [0067] (“However, in the present invention, a handheld code reader is used to provide an approximation of real time or full-motion video output through the standard scanner interface.”); paragraph [0068] (“Thus, the code reader can be used in a fashion similar to a camcorder. The system can double as a code reader and a video camera, video display or video recorder, such as those used in surveillance applications.”); paragraph [0072] (“The system of the present invention is also capable of capturing multiple frames at regular intervals. Similar objects can be identified in adjacent frames resulting in a motion tracking algorithm. An object's speed can be estimated by measuring the position and time differences of the object between multiple image frames.”); paragraph [0102] (“The following discussion presents the equations to obtain actual 3D dimensions from a 2D projection (image) of an object.”); paragraph [0113] (“FIGS. 11, 12(a) and 12(b) illustrate an alternative embodiment of the present invention which measures the dimensions and distance of a target object 800.”); paragraph [0118] (“While dimensioning aspects of the present invention has been described in connection with imaging code readers located on stands or in fixed positions, it will be understood that aspects of the present invention may be practiced with mobile or handheld code readers as well.”)). 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 package within the area, as disclosed by Patel, 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Lundahl in further view of Or-Bach in further view of Lloyd, US 20150063676 A1.
As per Claim 11, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein an optical sensing device is a 3D camera. Lloyd discloses wherein an optical sensing device is a 3D camera (paragraph [0006]; paragraph [0007]; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0022]). 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 modify Shakes such that an optical sensing device is a 3D camera, as disclosed by Lloyd, 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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Patel in further view of Or-Bach.
As per Claim 13, Shakes discloses:
- a package tracking system (claim 1 (method); 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.”));
- at least one optical sensor configured to capture images continuously within a field of view of an area (column 7, lines 32-56 (“In yet another embodiment, one or more image capture devices may be configured to continuously capture images or video, and a control system or other software (or hardware) system may analyze the continually captured images to determine which images include views of the order being processed.”));
- an image processor in communication with the at least one optical sensor to receive therefrom captured images, the image processor being configured to: detect and identify an object entering into or leaving the field of view based on the received captured images (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 32-56 (“The order fulfillment center may also include one or more motion detection devices or other sensors coupled to the control system and/or image capture devices to automate the capturing of images, according to one embodiment. For example, in one embodiment, the order fulfillment center may utilize sound-activated motion detection devices, while, in other embodiments, motion detectors based on ultrasonic, infrared, microwave, and/or video activated devices, may be used.”); 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 10, lines 3-53 (“In some embodiments, electronic devices, such as motion detectors or RFIDs, may automatically trigger the capturing or collecting of data for any or all stages of a value-added service.”); 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 12, line 58, through column 14, line 67 (motion detection and image capture); 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 13, lines 28-43 (identification codes); 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); column 22, lines 24-35 (most of paragraph)).
Shakes fails to disclose wherein the package tracking is in real-time. Patel discloses wherein the package tracking is in real-time (paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0072]). 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 package tracking is in real-time, as disclosed by Patel, 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 object. Or-Bach discloses provide an indicator for retrieval of the identified object (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 object, 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 15, 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 placed into the area. 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 placed into the area (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 placed into the area, 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 16, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the light shined on or near the package operates to show where in the area the package resides. Or-Bach further discloses wherein the light shined on or near the package operates to show where in the area the package resides (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 light shined on or near the package operates to show where in the area the package resides, 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 21, the modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the object. Or-Bach further discloses wherein the indicator comprises a visual cue projected onto the object (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 object, 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Patel in further view of Or-Bach in further view of Razumov, US 20020095353 A1.
As per Claim 14, Shakes further discloses memory storing package identification information relating to a package that is to be placed into the area, and wherein the image processor is configured to: compare the stored package identification information with information determined about the object from the captured images; and determine the package as being present in the area in response to detecting a match between the object and the package based on the comparison between the stored package identification information and the information determined about the object (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 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 13, lines 28-43 (identification codes); 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)).
The modified Shakes fails to disclose wherein determining the presence of a package includes registering a location of the package at the detected location of the package. Razumov discloses wherein determining the presence of a package includes registering a location of the package at the detected location of the package (paragraph [0006]; paragraph [0007]); continuously tracking, within the area where the object was detected and the package was registered, the package to determine whether the registered package is at a different position from the location of the detected object (paragraph [0006]; paragraph [0007]; paragraph [0010] (“The tracking system may maintain a package address data stream indicating changes in location of the package formed in the storage facility until the packet is received by the customer.”); paragraph [0047] (“As described in more detail later, the central data base and control system 16 includes a tracking system 24 (FIG. 2) for tracking a product ordered by a customer from the moment the product is packed at the respective storage facility 14 until the moment the ordered product is received by the customer.”); paragraph [0054] (“As schematically illustrated in FIG. 2, the tracking system 24 includes a number of mechanisms that enable a product ordered by a customer to be tracked from the moment the product is packed at the respective storage facility 14 to the moment the ordered product is received by the customer, in order to prevent unauthorized access to the product and eliminate exposure of the product to contamination by unwanted or dangerous substances due to terrorist's activity.”); paragraph [0063] (“The tracking system 24 may keep a package address data stream representing a location of each package. The package address data stream indicates changes in locations of the package from the moment when the package is formed in the storage facility 14 until the moment when the package is received by the customer.”)). 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 determining the presence of a package includes registering a location of the package at the detected location of the package, as disclosed by Razumov, 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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakes in view of Dearing in further view of Berger, US 20150254906 A1, in further view of Sampigethaya, US 8767537 B1.
As per Claim 22, Shakes discloses:
- a method of loading of a package into an area (claim 1 (method); 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.”));
- determining package identification information from a scannable medium associated with a package (column 13, lines 28-43 (most of this paragraph is important); column 14, lines 45-67 (“In other embodiments, however, the packing personal processing an order may utilize a scanning device to read an identification code associated with the order throughout the processing of the order and thus control system 300 may be configured to receive the identification code data and use it to match captured images with the correct order.”); column 15, lines 17-35 (“For example, after processing an order, a processing agent may use a scan code reader to read an identification code on the packed and sealed order and control system 300 may receive the identification code and information indicating the completion of order processing for that order. In some embodiments, images may be continually captured and control system 300 may analyze the captured images, or receive motion detection or manual signals, in order to determine which of the images to associate with a particular order.”));
- acquiring image information of an area (column 7, lines 32-56 (“In yet another embodiment, one or more image capture devices may be configured to continuously capture images or video, and a control system or other software (or hardware) system may analyze the continually captured images to determine which images include views of the order being processed.”)).
Shakes fails to disclose wherein the image information of the area is three-dimensional (3D) image information. Dearing discloses wherein the image information of the area is three-dimensional (3D) image information (claim 20; claim 35). 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 image information of the area is three-dimensional (3D) image information, as disclosed by Dearing. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself -- that is in the substitution of the three-dimensional image information of Dearing for the image information of Shakes. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The modified Shakes fails to disclose determining a location in the area for placement of the package based on the package identification information and the image information; providing an indicator of the location in the area determined for placement of the package. Berger discloses determining a location in the area for placement of the package based on the package identification information and the image information (paragraph [0010]; paragraphs [0033]-[0034]); providing an indicator of the location in the area determined for placement of the package (paragraph [0010]; paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). 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 determines a location in the area for placement of the package based on the package identification information and the image information; and the invention provides an indicator of the location in the area determined for placement of the package, as disclosed by Berger, 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 generating a representational view of a cargo area including a determined location. Sampigethaya further discloses generating a representational view of a cargo area including a determined location (Figure 8; column 10, lines 38-51 (much of these paragraphs)). 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 generates a representational view of a cargo area including a determined location, as disclosed by Sampigethaya, 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 8 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: Edwards, US 20120257061 A1 (neighborhood camera linking system).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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