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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/398733, filed on 02/08/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite “the at least one character strings”, which Examiner suggests amending to “the at least one character string”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “character recognition device” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "selects the at least one character string from among the character strings recognized by the recognizer" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of character strings recognized by the recognizer, only that the recognizer recognizes at least one character string (which is the at least one character string that is selected by the selector). Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be where the selector selects character strings from among the at least one character string recognized by the recognizer and suggests amending the limitation to clarify what is meant.
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 2 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of recognizing at least one character string from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer and selecting the at least one character string as the trailer ID/container ID based on the at least one character string having a similarity to a master data of a previously held trailer ID/container ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing an image and identifying at least one character string in the image of the trailer and mentally observing and comparing the at least one character string and a previously held trailer ID/container ID to see how many characters are the same, where if the number of characters that are the same is larger than a predetermined value, determining that the at least one character string is the trailer ID/container ID. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of capturing an image of a trailer amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a processor, a character recognition device, and at least one imaging device are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and camera.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, a character recognition device, and at least one imaging device are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generic camera component. The additional element of capturing an image of a trailer is recited at a high level of generality that amounts to obtaining and receiving data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 6, and 7 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-5 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-5 are also not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With regards to claim 1, it is met by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 2, it is met by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 3, it is met by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 4, it is met by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 5, it is met by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 6, it is met by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
With regards to claim 7, it is met by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,064.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee et al. (US 2009/0180683) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2024/0169750) and Luo (CN 109615910, see translated version).
The applied reference Matsumoto et al. (US 2024/0169750) has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With regards to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a character recognition device comprising a processor (Para. 0030 lines 24-29, "processor") configured to implement:
a recognizer that recognizes at least one character string in an image including a container handler captured by an imaging device (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, 0037 lines 1-17, "capture images" "container"); and
a selector that selects one of the at least one character string as the trailer ID / container ID based on a master data of a held trailer ID / container ID (Para. 0036 lines 43-46, "compares" "manifest list" "result").
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach recognizing the at least one character string from a plurality of character strings and the image including a trailer.
However, Matsumoto et al. discloses the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer (Para. 0018 lines 1-5, 0027 lines1-2, 0032 lines 1-5, 0033 lines 1-7, "detects character strings" "image of a trailer") in order to accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various characters not necessarily the ID related to the identification of the container (Para. 0004 lines 1-17, "not necessarily the ID"). In addition, while Lee et al. discloses recognizing a container ID from an image including a container handler, Matsumoto et al. discloses recognizing a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer. In both cases, a container ID is recognized from an image of some type of vehicle carrying the container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee et al. to replace the technique of recognizing a character string in an image including a container handler with recognizing a character string from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer as taught by Matsumoto et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to recognize a character string and more accurately identify a container ID from an image including a vehicle carrying a container.
The combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. does not explicitly teach selecting one of the at least one character string based on the at least one character string having a similarity to a master data of a previously held trailer ID / container ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously registered or stored vehicle ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "in advance" "database" "match successfully" "greater than"). While the combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. discloses selecting one of the container IDs by comparing to master data of a held container ID and storing the results, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously held vehicle ID larger than a predetermined threshold value. In both cases, a vehicle ID is selected by comparing to master data of a held vehicle ID.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. to replace the technique of selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID with selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a previously held container ID, where the container ID has a similarity to the master data of the previously held container ID larger than a predetermined threshold value as taught by Luo since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to select a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Lee et al., Matsumoto et al., and Luo discloses the character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the selector calculates the similarity based on a Levenshtein distance between the at least one character strings and the master data (Luo: Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "edit distance algorithm").
With regards to claim 6, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 6.
With regards to claim 7, Lee et al. discloses a character recognition system comprising:
at least one imaging device that captures an image of a container handler (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, “camera”); and
a processor (Para. 0030 lines 24-29, "processor") configured to implement:
a recognizer that recognizes at least one character string in the image of the container handler captured by the at least one imaging device (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, 0037 lines 1-17, "capture images" "container"); and
a selector that selects one of the at least one character string as the trailer ID / container ID based on a master data of a held trailer ID / container ID (Para. 0036 lines 43-46, "compares" "manifest list" "result").
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach recognizing the at least one character string from a plurality of character strings and the image including a trailer.
However, Matsumoto et al. discloses the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer (Para. 0018 lines 1-5, 0027 lines1-2, 0032 lines 1-5, 0033 lines 1-7, "detects character strings" "image of a trailer") in order to accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various characters not necessarily the ID related to the identification of the container (Para. 0004 lines 1-17, "not necessarily the ID"). In addition, while Lee et al. discloses recognizing a container ID from an image including a container handler, Matsumoto et al. discloses recognizing a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer. In both cases, a container ID is recognized from an image of some type of vehicle carrying the container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee et al. to replace the technique of recognizing a character string in an image including a container handler with recognizing a character string from a plurality of character strings in an image including a trailer as taught by Matsumoto et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to recognize a character string and more accurately identify a container ID from an image including a vehicle carrying a container.
The combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. does not explicitly teach selecting one of the at least one character string based on the at least one character string having a similarity to a master data of a previously held trailer ID / container ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously registered or stored vehicle ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "in advance" "database" "match successfully" "greater than"). While the combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. discloses selecting one of the container IDs by comparing to master data of a held container ID and storing the results, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously held vehicle ID larger than a predetermined threshold value. In both cases, a vehicle ID is selected by comparing to master data of a held vehicle ID.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee et al. and Matsumoto et al. to replace the technique of selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID with selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a previously held container ID, where the container ID has a similarity to the master data of the previously held container ID larger than a predetermined threshold value as taught by Luo since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to select a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0180683) in view of Zhu (CN 110942073, see translated version), Guo et al. (CN 113496212, see translated version), and Luo (CN 109615910, see translated version).
With regards to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a character recognition device comprising a processor (Para. 0030 lines 24-29, "processor") configured to implement:
a recognizer that recognizes at least one character string in an image including a container handler captured by an imaging device (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, 0037 lines 1-17, "capture images" "container"); and
a selector that selects one of the at least one character string as the trailer ID / container ID based on a master data of a held trailer ID / container ID (Para. 0036 lines 43-46, "compares" "manifest list" "result").
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach the image including a trailer.
However, Zhu discloses identifying at least one character string of a container ID from an image including a trailer (Para. 0008 lines 1-2, 0010 lines 1-2, 0013 line 1, "image" "container trailer"). While Lee et al. discloses identifying a container ID from an image including a container handler, Zhu discloses identifying a container ID from an image including a trailer. In both cases, a container ID is determined from an image of some type of vehicle carrying the container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee et al. to replace the technique of identifying a container ID from an image including a container handler with identifying a container ID from an image including a trailer as taught by Zhu since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to recognize a character string and identify a container ID from an image including a vehicle carrying a container.
The combination of Lee et al. and Zhu does not explicitly teach recognizing the at least one character string from a plurality of character strings in an image.
However, Guo et al. discloses the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image in order to accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various character strings (Para. n0117 lines 1-12, "field areas" "lines of text").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image as taught by Guo et al. into the character recognition device of the combination of Lee et al. and Zhu. The motivation for this would be to more accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various character strings.
The combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. does not explicitly teach selecting one of the at least one character string based on the at least one character string having a similarity to a master data of a previously held trailer ID / container ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously registered or stored vehicle ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "in advance" "database" "match successfully" "greater than"). While the combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. discloses selecting one of the container IDs by comparing to master data of a held container ID and storing the results, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously held vehicle ID larger than a predetermined threshold value. In both cases, a vehicle ID is selected by comparing to master data of a held vehicle ID.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. to replace the technique of selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID with selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a previously held container ID, where the container ID has a similarity to the master data of the previously held container ID larger than a predetermined threshold value as taught by Luo since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to select a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Lee et al., Zhu, Guo et al., and Luo discloses the character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the selector calculates the similarity based on a Levenshtein distance between the at least one character strings and the master data (Luo: Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "edit distance algorithm").
With regards to claim 6, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 6.
With regards to claim 7, Lee et al. discloses a character recognition system comprising:
at least one imaging device that captures an image of a container handler (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, “camera”); and
a processor (Para. 0030 lines 24-29, "processor") configured to implement:
a recognizer that recognizes at least one character string in the image of the container handler captured by the at least one imaging device (Para. 0027 lines 1-6, 0035 lines 19-25, 0036 lines 28-39, 0037 lines 1-17, "capture images" "container"); and
a selector that selects one of the at least one character string as the trailer ID / container ID based on a master data of a held trailer ID / container ID (Para. 0036 lines 43-46, "compares" "manifest list" "result").
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach the image including a trailer.
However, Zhu discloses identifying at least one character string of a container ID from an image including a trailer (Para. 0008 lines 1-2, 0010 lines 1-2, 0013 line 1, "image" "container trailer"). While Lee et al. discloses identifying a container ID from an image including a container handler, Zhu discloses identifying a container ID from an image including a trailer. In both cases, a container ID is determined from an image of some type of vehicle carrying the container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee et al. to replace the technique of identifying a container ID from an image including a container handler with identifying a container ID from an image including a trailer as taught by Zhu since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to recognize a character string and identify a container ID from an image including a vehicle carrying a container.
The combination of Lee et al. and Zhu does not explicitly teach recognizing the at least one character string from a plurality of character strings in an image.
However, Guo et al. discloses the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image in order to accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various character strings (Para. n0117 lines 1-12, "field areas" "lines of text").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of recognizing at least one character string of a container ID from a plurality of character strings in an image as taught by Guo et al. into the character recognition device of the combination of Lee et al. and Zhu. The motivation for this would be to more accurately recognize the container ID since the image may include various character strings.
The combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. does not explicitly teach selecting one of the at least one character string based on the at least one character string having a similarity to a master data of a previously held trailer ID / container ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously registered or stored vehicle ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (Para. 0101 lines 1-9, 0103 lines 1-3, "in advance" "database" "match successfully" "greater than"). While the combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. discloses selecting one of the container IDs by comparing to master data of a held container ID and storing the results, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously held vehicle ID larger than a predetermined threshold value. In both cases, a vehicle ID is selected by comparing to master data of a held vehicle ID.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee et al., Zhu, and Guo et al. to replace the technique of selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID with selecting a container ID by comparing to master data of a previously held container ID, where the container ID has a similarity to the master data of the previously held container ID larger than a predetermined threshold value as taught by Luo since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to select a container ID by comparing to master data of a held container ID.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 2, Luo discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle ID based on the vehicle ID having a similarity to master data of a previously registered or stored vehicle ID equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, however, there is no mention of selecting one of the candidates of the trailer ID/container ID as the trailer ID/container ID based on the candidates (plural) of the trailer ID/container ID having a similarity to the master data equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value. Kang (KR 20170084463) discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle number based on the vehicle number having a similarity to master data of a previously held or registered vehicle number equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, however, there is no mention of selecting the vehicle number based on candidates of the vehicle number having a similarity to the master data. Matsumoto et al. (US 2024/0169750) discloses selecting a character string from among character strings recognized by the recognizer as candidates of the trailer ID/container ID, however, there is no mention of selecting one of the candidates of the trailer ID / container ID as the trailer ID / container ID based on the candidates of the trailer ID / container ID having a similarity to the master data equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value. Guo et al. (CN 113496212)
With regards to claims 3 and 4, they are dependent on claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (KR 20170084463) discloses the concept of selecting a vehicle number based on the vehicle number having a similarity to master data of a previously held or registered vehicle number equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
Peach et al. (US 2005/0201592) discloses the concept of selecting a truck ID based on matching with master data of a previously held ID in a database.
Applicants are also directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights