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 .
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 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of copending Application No. 18/902,216 (Brown et al) in view of Gizatov, US 2021/0216955.
Brown discloses all the limitations of pending claim 1, except “assigning the first label a first indicator denoting the determined location of the first label and that the first label has been processed”.
However, Gizatov discloses the method comprises reading an indicator assigned to the container with an electronic device, retrieving, by accessing a server with the indicator, the identity of the container, information of packages loaded inside the container, and positions of the respective packages, providing on the electronic device the list of the packages loaded inside the container (para 0011).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Brown and Gizatov as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method comprises reading an indicator assigned to the container with an electronic device, retrieving, by accessing a server with the indicator, the identity of the container, information of packages loaded inside the container, and positions of the respective packages, providing on the electronic device the list of the packages loaded inside the container as taught by Gizatov into the invention of Brown for the benefit of searching packages inside trucks or containers. (Gizatov: para 0001).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11, 15, 20-21, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gizatov, US 2021/0216955.
Regarding claim 1, Gizatov discloses a method (Abstract; a method of loading a package inside a container), comprising:
receiving, by a device, information of an area (para 0076; the images obtained by the second imaging device 1020 before and after the package 100 is loaded. In this example, it is assumed that the second imaging device 1020 is able to image the whole area of the interior of the container 1000), the information being indicative of a type of the area and a map of the area (para 0011; retrieving, by accessing a server with the indicator, the identity of the container, information of packages loaded inside the container, and positions of the respective packages);
capturing, by the device (para 0008; imaging device), a first image of one or more objects within the area (para 0009; obtaining a first image before the package is loaded into the container, obtaining a second image after the package is loaded into the container);
deriving a first location and a first orientation of the device during capture of the first image based on the information and first data of at least one sensor of the device (para 0044; The images of the interior of the container 1000, as captured by at least the first and second imaging devices 1010, 1020, may be transmitted to the electronic device 200. The images may be processed by the electronic device 200 to obtain a position information of the package 100, relative to the space envelope of the container 1000 as a whole. For example, the electronic device 200 may include software configured to triangulate the location of the package 100 inside the container 1000 using the images provided by at least the first and second image capture devices 1010, 1020);
detecting a first label associated with a first object (para 0035; the package 100, to be loaded into the container 1000, may contain a first machine-readable indicator 110 attached and displayed on the outer surface of the package 100 such that the first indicator 110 is accessible without opening the package 100), the first label having one or more identifiers (para 0035; The first indicator 110 may include or be encoded to include information concerning the package 100 such as a package identification number, a brief description or categorisation of the content of the package, any special information for handling, and the addresses of the origin and/or the destination);
processing the first label associated with the first object (para 0037; The first indicator 110 may contain, or be encoded to contain the information associated with the package 100 and can be read by the electronic device 200);
determining a location of the first label associated with the first object within the area based on the derived first location and first orientation of the device (para 0004 and 0066; identifying, after the package is loaded inside the container, the position of the package in the container by controlling a first imaging device and a second imaging device arranged to image the internal space of the container transmitting the position of the package to the server, and generating a second indicator containing information of the package, the position of the package and the identification of the container. the package 100 may be identified by identifying the position of this predetermined tag); and
assigning the first label a first indicator denoting the determined location of the first label and that the first label has been processed (para 0011; The method comprises reading an indicator assigned to the container with an electronic device, retrieving, by accessing a server with the indicator, the identity of the container, information of packages loaded inside the container, and positions of the respective packages, providing on the electronic device the list of the packages loaded inside the container).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, Gizatov discloses wherein
the area is an interior of a container (para 0004), and
the container is one of
a storage unit affixed to or stored in a vehicle including a box affixed to a box truck, a trailer affixed to a platform having one or more sets of wheels and a hitch assembly for towing by the vehicle, or a unit loading device (ULD) stored in an aircraft (para 0033), or
a storage area integrated in at least a portion of a vehicle including a sports utility vehicle (SUV), a van, a cargo van, a commercial van, a sprinter van, or a step van (para 0033).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1, Gizatov discloses further comprising transmitting an indication indicative of the determined location of the first label to a user associated with the area (para 0045).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 5 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 10 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gizatov, US 2021/0216955 in view of Davies et al., US 2023/0110148.
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, Gizatov discloses wherein the device is one of a mobile computer, a heads up display, a tablet, a smartphone, or a wearable computing device (para 0036).
Gizatov discloses claim 6 as enumerated above, but Gizatov does not explicitly disclose the at least one sensor is one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or a proximity sensor as claimed.
However, Davies discloses sensors may include temperature sensors, humidity sensors, light sensors, image sensors, spatial, motion, acceleration, orientation and relational position sensors such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, altimeter and wireless and location sensors (para 0077).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Gizatov and Davies as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sensors may include temperature sensors, humidity sensors, light sensors, image sensors, spatial, motion, acceleration, orientation and relational position sensors such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, altimeter and wireless and location sensors as taught by Davies into the invention of Gizatov for the benefit of providing package delivery vehicles with varying onboard processing and networking capabilities (Davies: para 0011).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 6 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gizatov, US 2021/0216955 in view of Raghavan et al., US 11,176,628.
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, Gizatov does not explicitly disclose wherein processing the first label associated with the first object comprises: determining whether the one or more identifiers are indicative of a barcode; responsive to determining the one or more identifiers are indicative of a barcode, decoding the one or more identifiers; and selecting a decoded identifier corresponding to a predetermined symbology and/or barcode data structure as claimed.
However, Raghavan discloses the computer vision system 215 identifies the barcode 235 in the label 230, the computer vision system 215 passes the barcode to the barcode reader 220 which then decodes the barcode 235 to determine the data encoded by the barcode 235. In the feedback system 200, the barcode reader 220 is communicatively coupled to the inventory management system 240 that tracks the packages 140 (col. 5, lines 18-25).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Gizatov and Raghavan as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate discloses the computer vision system 215 identifies the barcode 235 in the label 230, the computer vision system 215 passes the barcode to the barcode reader 220 which then decodes the barcode 235 to determine the data encoded by the barcode 235. In the feedback system 200, the barcode reader 220 is communicatively coupled to the inventory management system 240 that tracks the packages 140 as taught by Raghavan into the invention of Gizatov for the benefit of providing visual feedback when stowing packages, and more specifically, to using an overhead computer vision system to identify packages and then determine whether the packages are being stowed in the correct container (Raghavan: col. 1, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 7 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 25, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 7 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 12-14, 18-19, 22-24, and 26-27 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.
Kulkarni et al., US 2021/0192780 discloses a method for identifying a position of an object in a cargo space includes identifying a region of interest (ROI) from a field of view of the cargo space being captured by a camera.
Zhu et al., US 2023/0002205 discloses a system includes an article supply location, wherein the article supply location includes a plurality of articles to be sorted, first and second transport vehicles, each having a first position in which an article is stowed about the vehicle and a second position in which the article is deposited into a proximal container.
Choi et al., US 2024/0005263 discloses providing analytics indicative of object detection or fill-level detection at or near real-time based on video data captured during an unloading or loading process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights