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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 1, 5 and 6 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” In the case of figures 1, 5, and 6, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “The method according to one of Claims 1” should read “the method according to Claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-15 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.
Regarding claim 5-9, it is recited “…the system is configured to generate a reference image dataset of a package, comprising…” in the preamble of claim 5, but does not disclose structure needed to carry out the functions/steps claimed in the body. Furthermore, the dependent claims 6-9 further add functions/steps without any supporting structure. Thus, it is unclear how the system is intended to perform the claimed functions/steps without any supporting structure to do so.
Regarding claims 10-15, it is recited “A vehicle, comprising…” in the preamble of claim 10. However, within the body of the claim it recites “the delivery vehicle”, dependent claim 11 then recites “the delivery vehicle” as well, but dependent claim 15 recites “the vehicle”. Because of the conflicting language present throughout the multiple claims, it is unclear whether “the delivery vehicle” is the same or different from “the vehicle”.
Furthermore, claim 10 recites “the system” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim since “a system” was not previously disclosed in any preceding claims.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et all (US 20230030356 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hill ‘356.
Regarding claim 10, Hill ‘356 discloses a vehicle (Hill ‘356 teaches delivery vehicle 202 see Fig. 2), comprising
one or more processors (Hill ‘356 teaches image processor 122 see Fig. 2)
memory storing executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the one or more processors (Hill ‘356 teaches “…can be stored on memory associated with the image processing CPU 122” Paragraph [0050]), cause the system to
generate a reference image dataset of a package (Hill ‘356 teaches “A package barcode is scanned in conjunction with it being moved into the holding area.” Paragraph [0027] “When a package is identified, the image processor determines if the package corresponds to the package data derived from the package barcode.” Paragraph [0028]. Examiner notes scanning provides a “scannable image” as noted in Paragraph [0011])
analyze the reference image dataset to determine an ident dataset for the package (Hill teaches a barcode which includes package identification information about the package and comes from scanning the package. Paragraph [0027], [0031], and [0046]) and temporarily storing the ident dataset (Hill ‘356 teaches “…memory storing package identification information relating to a package that is to be loaded on the delivery vehicle” Paragraph [0013])
generate a partial image dataset of the package in the delivery vehicle (Hill ‘356 teaches “…cameras simultaneously provide images to the CPU 122” [0047])
determine a spatial location dataset that is indicative of a spatial location of the package (Hill ‘356 teaches “Small delivery (and other delivery modes, like airfreight, cargo containers) may use of UWB or RF (radio frequency) to improve positional accuracy tracking for when and where packages are scanned.” Paragraph [0099]-[0100])
analyze the partial image dataset using the spatial location dataset to determine an allocation dataset for the package (Hill ‘356 teaches “Referring back to FIG. 3, if the data captured by the barcode scanner matches (within a predetermined threshold) the package image data captured by the camera 118, a match occurs.” Paragraph [0050] and “..In such situations, UWB tracking may augment optical tracking [corresponding to the allocation dataset]” Paragraph [0099]-[0100] )
compare the allocation dataset with the ident dataset to reidentify the package (Hill ‘356 teaches further using the UWB augmented optical image data to re-register via dimension data inside the delivery vehicle by the cameras. Paragraph [0099]-[0100]).
Although different embodiments of Hill ‘356 have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hill ‘356 by combining Hill ‘356’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Hill ‘356, Paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 11, Hill ‘356 discloses the vehicle according to Claim 10, wherein the system is configured, once the package has been identified, to generate a position dataset relating to the current position of the package in the delivery vehicle (Hill ‘356 teaches “…but also the exact location of the package 116-1 in the vehicle may be made continuously available to the central server 204, loader, driver or anyone else with access to the system 200” Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Hill ‘356 discloses the vehicle according to Claim 10, wherein the ident dataset and the allocation dataset are based on image data (Hill ‘356 teaches “…package identification information from a scannable image associated with a package” Paragraph [0011]; “…the package image data captured by the camera 118” Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Hill ‘356 discloses the vehicle according to Claim 10, wherein symbol data is additionally determined and analyzed by analysis of the reference image dataset and of the partial image dataset (Hill ‘356 teaches “…the dimensions according to the barcode data” Paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Hill ‘356 teaches the vehicle of Claim 10, further comprising transmitting the spatial location of the package to a handset associated with the vehicle (Hill ‘356 teaches “Instead, the driver carries a view screen (often in the form of a handheld tablet, smartphone, or scanner) that displays a stream of one of the cameras 118 in the cargo bay of the vehicle” Paragraph [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claims 1-8, the rational provided in the rejection of claim 10-13 is incorporated herein. In addition, the vehicle of claims 10-13 corresponds to the method of claims 1-4, in addition to the system of claims 5-8, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim 9 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill ‘356
in view of Hill (2023022435) hereinafter referred to as Hill ‘435.
Regarding claim 14, Hill ‘356 fails to disclose where Hill ‘435, does disclose the vehicle according to Claim 10, where the reference image dataset includes an image of each side of the package (Hill ‘435 teaches “Captured video or images of each side of the package…” Paragraph [0129])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hill ‘356 to incorporate the teachings of Hill ‘435 by having the reference image dataset include images of every side to further assess a package’s visible characteristics, such as damage, to further aid in reidentifying it or determine when damage to the package occurred during tracking (See Hill ‘435 Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 9, the rational provided in the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. In addition, the vehicle of claim 14 corresponds to the system of claim 9 and preforms the steps disclosed herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0283. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 a.m. 6 p.m. ET..
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/M. Ali Khan/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights