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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed8/11/2025. Claims 1-30 were Cancelled. Claims 31, 47, 54 were amended. Claims 61-62 are new. Claims 31-62 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2025 and 8/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/11/2025, with respect to claims 31-62 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Turning to Step 2A-Prong One, Applicant disagrees that the claims are directed to methods of organizing human activity similar to those identified by the courts or the Patent Office. Contrary to statements in the Office Action, the claims are not directed to an “abstract idea.” The Examiner has distilled these non-abstract features of the claims to the most abstract idea within them and used this rationale for asserting that the claims are abstract. Applicant notes that there are more details present that distinguish the claims to more than just an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims are directed to complicated methods and systems operated by computing devices. In particular, the claims set forth a single system that provides for complex computing processes and relationships between computer systems. The methods and systems integrate one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data of one or more shipping containers, wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more image sensors configured to generate container image data of the one or more shipping containers, and a server in communication with the one or more image sensors. The server includes one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions comprising one or more algorithms that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform steps including generating a database associated with the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data, and identifying each container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the “abstract idea” does not fall under a judicially recognized exception and the claims are directed to patentable subject matter. Moreover, with regard to Step 2A-Prong Two, the present specification provides multiple examples of how the currently claimed system is an improvement to at least another technology or technical field… Turning to Step 2B, even if the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea (they are not), and the alleged abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application (it is), the claims include “significantly more” than an abstract idea and therefore do not merely cover the abstract idea under step 2(B) of the Alice test. In this case, the claims recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The instant claims as drafted require sophisticated interactions between container image data generated by one or more image sensors and processors to identify each container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data. To this end, at least FIGS. 1-4 and 13 highlight features of this sophisticated interaction, as recited in claims 31, 47, and 54. Therefore, the claims recite limitations that are significantly more than merely applying any potential abstract idea alleged in the Office Action. As such, it is clear that the claims add “significantly more” to any potential abstract idea”, (see remarks, pg. 1-6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for providing container visibility, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine asset location for an individual, package or an entity, additionally the computing elements presented in the claims are merely utilized to apply the abstract idea of locating the container. The computing elements such as “sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 31; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 47; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 54; control system, tags, sensors, image sensors, vehicle, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, engine, OCR, machine learning models in claim 61” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 31-62 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. For example, “without requiring one or more tags on the one or more shipping containers”, does not have support in Applicant’s specification to show any definition or examples for containers not having any tags/sensors to be identified. Applicant, should clarify where support may be found in the specification to support the addition of “without requiring one or more tags on the one or more shipping containers” in claims 31, 47, 54 and 61.
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.
Claims 31-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for identifying and tracking shipping containers.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 31, 47, 54 and 61 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “identifying and tracking shipping containers, comprising: generate data of one or more shipping containers, configured to generate container image data of the one or more shipping containers; generating with the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data; and identifying each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 31; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 47; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 54; control system, tags, sensors, image sensors, vehicle, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, engine, OCR, machine learning models in claim 61) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 31-62 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 31; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 47; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 54; control system, tags, sensors, image sensors, vehicle, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, engine, OCR, machine learning models in claim 61). The sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 31; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 47; sensors, image sensors, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, database in claim 54; control system, tags, sensors, image sensors, vehicle, server, processors, computer-readable storage medium, algorithms, engine, OCR, machine learning models in claim 61, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 32-46, 48-53, 55-60 and 62 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the image sensors in claims 44-46; server in claims 34, 41-43, 48-53 and 57; database in claim 38 and 41; OCR in claims 32-33, 48-49 and 55-56; machine learning in claims 35-36, 51-52, 58-49; convolutional neural network and recurrent neural network in claims 36, 52 and 59; stencil recognition model, brand recognition model, vehicle type recognition model, color recognition model in claims 39; data fusion operation in claim 41; user interface in claim 41-42; control system, user interface and server in claim 62, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 31, 40-47 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20090015400 - hereinafter Breed) in view of Burch et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20160239790 - hereinafter Burch).
Re. claim 31, Breed teaches:
A control system for identifying and tracking shipping containers without requiring one or more tags on the one or more shipping containers, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data of one or more shipping containers, wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more image sensors configured to generate container image data of the one or more shipping containers; and [Breed; ¶23-¶24 shows sensors within the container taking images of the interior of the container].
generating a database associated with the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data; and [Breed; ¶180 shows container information stored in a database].
identifying each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data. [Breed; ¶180-¶181 shows information relative to the container stored within the database].
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
a server in communication with the one or more image sensors, the server including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions comprising one or more algorithms that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform steps including: [Burch; Fig. 1 shows server in communication with the managing nodes which communicate with the scanning sensor nodes inside the containers].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Burch in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 40, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes at least one of: identifying at least one of a front or a rear, or a combination thereof, of a vehicle loaded with the shipping container based on the container image data; or identifying a direction of travel of the vehicle loaded with the shipping container based on the container image data, or a combination thereof. [Breed; ¶134 shows identifying packages going in at the rear of the vehicle as there’s a door sensor placed at the opening of the truck for where the packages are loaded, and each package is detected upon passing by the sensor at door opening].
Re. claim 41, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
wherein the server is further configured to: perform data fusion operations on the container image data to provide a snapshot of the one or more shipping containers; or provide a user interface to access the database; or a combination thereof. [Burch; ¶13 shows interface displaying information to the operator]. Please see motivation to combine Breed in view of Burch presented in claim 31 above.
Re. claim 42, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 41.
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
wherein the server is further configured to display, via the user interface, a bounding box surrounding the container. [Burch; ¶12 shows images of the containers within the trailer are presented in map like as it presents the depth for the containers within the trailer]. Please see motivation to combine Breed in view of Burch presented in claim 31 above.
Re. claim 43, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
wherein the server is further configured to perform steps including tracking a movement of each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers from a first location to a second location based upon the container image data. [Burch; ¶94 shows one example of tracking location and when it is detected that a container moves, logistics personnel is notified in case the container contains a hazardous product]. Please see motivation to combine Breed in view of Burch presented in claim 31 above.
Re. claim 44, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed teaches:
wherein the image sensor is mounted in a fixed location. [Breed; ¶140 and Fig. 1 shows camera “489” mounted such as “more sophisticated system can make use of one or more imagers (for example cameras) 489 mounted near the ceiling of the container, for example. Such imagers can be provided with a strobe flash and then commanded to make an image of the trailer interior at appropriate times. The output from such an imager 489 can also be analyzed by a pattern recognition system such as a neural network or equivalent”].
Re. claim 45, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed teaches:
wherein the image sensor is onboard a vehicle. [Breed; ¶84].
Re. claim 46, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed teaches:
A system for identifying and tracking shipping assets in an intermodal yard, the system comprising the control system. [Breed; ¶63 shows a remote facility to control the operation].
Re. claim 47,
Server of claim 47 substantially mirrors the system of claim 31.
Re. claim 54,
Method of claim 54 substantially mirrors the system of claim 31.
Claims 32-34, 37, 48-50, 53, 55-57, 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Burch in view of Al Dhaheri et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200265377 - hereinafter Al).
Re. claim 32, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Al teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the container image data. [Al; ¶106]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Al in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 33, Breed in view of Burch in view of Al teaches control system of Claim 32.
Breed doesn’t teach, Al teaches:
wherein the performing the optical character recognition (OCR) further comprises at least one of:
generating a text string for each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers, determining a color of each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers, or generating logo image data associated with a logo carried by each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers, or a combination of two or more thereof. [Al; ¶106 converts the image to a text string].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Al in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 34, Breed in view of Burch in view of Al teaches control system of Claim 33.
Breed teaches:
wherein the server is configured to track at least one of a location or a movement of each container, or a combination thereof, from a first location to a second location based on at least one of the generated text string for each container, the determined color of each container, or the generated logo image data for each container, or a combination of two or more thereof. [Breed; ¶21-¶22 shows the ability to track the container such as “communications device is coupled to the interior sensor system and transmits the information about the contents of the container to the remote facility, e.g., with the door status. As such, a communication to the remote facility might be that the door is open with a list of contents or that the door is closed and list of contents. In the latter case, the facility could track the contents of the container and determine whether an item of cargo has been removed and where it was removed. The door status sensor may be coupled to the interior sensor system so that the interior sensor system is directed to obtain information about contents in the interior of the container based on the opening and closing of the door(s) as monitored by the door status sensor. The interior sensor system may obtain information about contents in the interior of the container only upon detection of closure of the door(s) after opening thereof”].
Re. claim 37, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Al teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes, for each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers, at least one of: identifying a shipping container type value based upon the container image data, identifying a container logo image based upon the container image data, or identifying a vehicle classification value of a vehicle loaded with the container based upon the container image data, or a combination of two or more thereof. [Al; ¶106 identifies text from the image taken]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Al in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 48,
Server of claim 48 substantially mirrors the system of claim 32.
Re. claim 49,
Server of claim 49 substantially mirrors the system of claim 32.
Re. claim 50,
Server of claim 50 substantially mirrors the system of claim 33.
Re. claim 53,
Server of claim 53 substantially mirrors the system of claim 36.
Re. claim 54,
Method of claim 54 substantially mirrors the system of claim 31.
Re. claim 55,
Method of claim 55 substantially mirrors the system of claim 32.
Re. claim 56,
Method of claim 56 substantially mirrors the system of claim 33.
Re. claim 57,
Method of claim 57 substantially mirrors the system of claim 34.
Re. claim 60,
Method of claim 60 substantially mirrors the system of claim 37.
Re. claim 61, Breed teaches:
A control system for identifying and tracking one or more shipping containers without requiring one or more tags on the one or more shipping containers, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data of the one or more shipping containers, wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more image sensors configured to generate container image data of the one or more shipping containers, wherein the one or more image sensors is mounted in a fixed location that is remote from the shipping container, or is mounted onboard a vehicle that is remote from the shipping container, or a combination thereof; and [Breed; ¶23-¶24 shows sensors within the container taking images of the interior of the container. ¶140 shows the imager camera mounted near ceiling of the container].
identifying each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data, [Breed; ¶180-¶181 shows information relative to the container stored within the database].
tracking at least one of a location of the shipping container or a movement of the shipping container, or a combination thereof, from at least a first location to at least a second location based on at least one of the location of the text sequence or the sequence of characters in the text sequence or the combination thereof, the predicted shipper brand of the shipping container, the predicted type of vehicle loaded with the shipping container, the predicted slot classification of the shipping container, the predicted color of the face of the shipping container, or the predicted logo of the shipping container, or the combination of two or more thereof. [Breed; ¶169 shows tracking of the container].
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
a server in communication with the one or more image sensors, the server including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions comprising one or more algorithms that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform steps including: [Burch; Fig. 1 shows server in communication with the managing nodes which communicate with the scanning sensor nodes inside the containers].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Burch in the system of Breed, 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.
Breed doesn’t teach, Al teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes at least one or more of:
processing the container image data with a stencil recognition engine comprising one or more machine learning models with optical character recognition (OCR) to predict at least one of a location of a text sequence or a sequence of characters in the text sequence, or a combination thereof, having at least one of horizontally or vertically oriented text, or a combination thereof, on a face of the shipping container; [Al; ¶106].
processing the container image data with a brand recognition engine comprising one or more machine learning models to predict a shipper brand of the shipping container of the one or more shipping containers;
processing the container image data with an asset type recognition engine comprising one or more machine learning models to predict a type of asset loaded with the shipping container of the one or more shipping containers;
processing the container image data with a slot classification engine comprising one or more machine learning models to predict a slot classification of the shipping container of the one or more shipping containers;
processing the container image data with a color recognition engine comprising one or more machine learning models to predict a color of a face of the shipping container of the one or more shipping containers;
processing the container image data with a logo recognition engine comprising one or more machine learning models to predict a logo carried by the shipping container of the one or more shipping containers; or
a combination of two or more thereof; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Al in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 62, Breed in view of Burch in view of Al teaches control system of Claim 61.
Breed doesn’t teach, Burch teaches:
further comprising:
a user interface, [Burch; ¶13 shows interface displaying information to the operator].
wherein the server is further configured to:
perform data fusion operations on the container image data to provide a snapshot of the one or more shipping containers, and display, via the user interface, the snapshot, or display, via the user interface, a bounding box surrounding the shipping container, or a combination thereof. [Burch; ¶12 shows images of the containers within the trailer are presented in map like as it presents the depth for the containers within the trailer. ¶13 shows interface displaying information to the operator].
Claim 35, 51 and 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Burch in view of Engedal et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210056497 - hereinafter Engedal).
Re. claim 35, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Engedal teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes performing machine learning on the container image data. [Engedal; ¶190 teaches machine learning is used to identify image data on container such as “Certain objects of known size can be detected using image analysis with known features, such as containers can be identified using rectangle detection. Furthermore, Deep Neural Network (DNN) algorithms may be used for initial cargo and people detection”]..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Engedal in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 51,
Server of claim 51 substantially mirrors the system of claim 35.
Re. claim 58,
Method of claim 58 substantially mirrors the system of claim 35.
Claim 36, 52 and 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Burch in view of Engedal in view of Dean et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190392231 - hereinafter Dean).
Re. claim 36, Breed in view of Burch in view of Engedal teaches control system of Claim 35.
Breed doesn’t teach, Dean teaches:
wherein the step of the performing machine learning includes at least one of: executing a first machine learning model comprising a neural network trained to predict a location of text sequences in the container image data; or executing a second machine learning model comprising a neural network for scanning the text sequences and predicting a sequence of missing characters, or a combination thereof. [Dean; ¶5 shows neural network utilizing image data to determine location of text in an image such as “the method also includes processing the image using the phrase recognition model in order to determine a location of the text on the image, processing the image using a pattern recognition model in order to determine contextual information based on the location of the text, and the determined contextual information is further used to control the vehicle”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dean in the system of Breed, 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.
Re. claim 52,
Server of claim 52 substantially mirrors the system of claim 36.
Re. claim 59,
Method of claim 59 substantially mirrors the system of claim 36.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Burch in view of Bateman et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170154347 - hereinafter Bateman).
Re. claim 38, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Bateman teaches:
wherein the step of generating the database includes classifying each shipping container with a vehicle type of a vehicle loaded with the shipping container or a container type, or a combination thereof. [Bateman; ¶22 and ¶38 shows vehicle types recorded in the database].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bateman in the system of Breed, 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 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Burch in view of Nagshiineh et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20080086393 - hereinafter Nag).
Re. claim 39, Breed in view of Burch teaches control system of Claim 31.
Breed doesn’t teach, Nag teaches:
wherein the step of identifying includes one or more of: performing a stencil recognition model with optical character recognition (OCR) based on the container image data to predict at least one of a location of a text sequence or a sequence of characters in the text sequence, or a combination thereof, having at least one of horizontally or vertically oriented text, or a combination thereof, on a face of the container; performing a brand recognition model based on the container image data to predict a shipper brand of the container; performing a vehicle type recognition model based on the container image data to predict a type of vehicle loaded with the container; or performing a color recognition model based on the container image data to predict a color of a face of the container, or a combination of two or more thereof. [Nag; ¶48-¶49 shows classifying packages by color].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Nag in the system of Breed, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628