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 .
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 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 are directed to detecting and determining information and granting entry based on the information, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 18) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method comprising:
detecting a vehicle at an entry location of a facility based at least in part on first sensor data associated with the entry location;
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of the vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on second sensor data associated with a document presented at the entry location, a status of the document;
determining, based at least in part on third sensor data associated with an asset associated with the vehicle, a status of the asset; and
granting, based at least in part on the identity of the vehicle, the status of the document, and the status of the asset, entry to the facility.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. Nothing (the vehicle is not currently recited as performing any function) in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, “detecting a vehicle at an entry location of a facility based at least in part on first sensor data associated with the entry location; determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of the vehicle; determining, based at least in part on second sensor data associated with a document presented at the entry location, a status of the document; determining, based at least in part on third sensor data associated with an asset associated with the vehicle, a status of the asset” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “granting, based at least in part on the identity of the vehicle, the status of the document, and the status of the asset, entry to the facility” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite six additional elements – “a third party system” (claims 4 and 13), “machine learned models” (claims 6 and 14), “a display” (claim 9), “one or more processors” (claims 12 and 18), “one or more sensors” (claim 18) and “one or more image devices” (claim 19). The “third party system”, “machine learned models”, “display”, “one or more processors”, “one or more sensors” and “one or more image devices” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does 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 abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “third party system”, “machine learned models”, “display”, “one or more processors”, “one or more sensors” and “one or more image devices” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “third party system”, “machine learned models”, “display”, “one or more processors”, “one or more sensors” and “one or more image devices” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0073434 A1 to Arquette et al. (“Arquette”) in view of United States Patent No. 5,664,113 to Worger et al. (“Worger”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130417 A1 to Watt et al. (“Watt”).
As per claim 1, 12 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette includes:
A method comprising (Arquette: Abstract):
detecting a vehicle at an entry location of a facility based at least in part on first sensor data associated with the entry location (Arquette: ¶¶ 0042, 0088-0089 and 0119);
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an identity of the vehicle (Arquette: ¶¶ 0054 and 0089);
determining, based at least in part on second sensor data associated with a document presented at the entry location, a status of the document (Arquette: ¶¶ 0089 and 0113);
determining, based at least in part on third sensor data associated with an asset associated with the vehicle, a status of the asset (Arquette: ¶¶ 0089 and 0113); and
granting, based at least in part on the identity of the vehicle, the status of the document, and the status of the asset, entry (Arquette: ¶¶ 0089-0090).
Arquette fails to specifically teach 1.) status of the document, 2.) status of the asset and 3.) granting entry to the facility. The Examiner provides Worger to teach and disclose claimed features 2-3.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Worger includes:
determining, based at least in part on third sensor data associated with an asset associated with the vehicle, a status of the asset (Worger: column 12, lines 20-45); and
granting, based at least in part on the identity of the vehicle, the status of the document, and the status of the asset, entry to the facility (Worger: column 12, lines 46-67).
Arquette teaches a system and method for checking documentations and granting access. Worger teaches a comparable system and method for checking documentations and granting access that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Worger offers the embodiment of status of the asset and granting entry to the facility. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of determining the status of the asset and granting access to the facility as disclosed by Worger to the systems and methods for checking documentations and granting access as taught by Arquette for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for checking documentations and granting access. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
While Arquette does teach checking for proper documentation, Arquette and Worger fail to specifically teach 1.) status of the document. The Examiner provides Watt to teach and disclose claimed feature 1.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Watt includes:
determining, based at least in part on second sensor data associated with a document presented, a status of the document (Watt: ¶ 0079)
Arquette and Worger teach systems and methods for checking documentations. Watt teaches a comparable system and method for checking documentations that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Watt offers the embodiment of determining a status of the document. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of determining the status of the document as disclosed by Watt to the systems and methods for checking documentations as taught by Arquette and Worger for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for checking documentations. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a status of the vehicle; and wherein granting entry to the facility is based at least in part on the status of the vehicle (Arquette: ¶¶ 0019, 0043-0044 and 0061).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
further comprising: responsive to granting entry to the vehicle, updating a chain of custody associated with the asset to indicate custody by the facility or an entity associated with the facility (Watt: ¶¶ 0014 and 0015).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4 and 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
receiving verification data from a third party system; and wherein granting entry to the facility is based at least in part on the verification data (Watt: ¶¶ 0038 and 0058-0059).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 5 and 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
wherein granting entry to the facility further comprises sending a control signal to operate a gate associated with the entry location (Worger: column 5, lines 23-29).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 6 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
wherein determining the identity of the vehicle further comprise inputting the first sensor data into one or more machine learned models, the one or more machine learned models trained on image data of vehicles and receiving as an output of the one or more machine learned models the identity of the vehicle (Watt: ¶ 0055).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
further comprising directing the vehicle to at least one of an unloading area or a waiting area (Worger: column 5, lines 13-22 and column 11, lines 20-32).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
determining, based at least in part on the status of the asset, the identity of the vehicle, verification data, or status of the document, to direct the vehicle to a secondary check-in area (Worger: column 5, lines 13-22 and column 11, lines 20-32).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
presenting instructions on a display associated with the entry location, the instructions including direction to at least one of an unloading area, a waiting area, a trial delivery area, or a secondary check-in area (Worger: column 5, lines 13-22 and column 11, lines 20-32).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 10 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
detecting the vehicle at an exit location of the facility based at least in part on fourth sensor data associated with the exit location; confirming, based at least in part on the fourth sensor data, the identity of the vehicle; determining, based at least in part on fifth sensor data associated with an additional asset associated with the vehicle, a second status of the additional asset; and granting, based at least in part on the identity of the vehicle and the status of the additional asset, exit from the facility (Worger: column 12, lines 20-45).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 11 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
responsive to granting exit from the facility to the vehicle, updating a chain of custody associated with the additional asset (Worger: column 11, lines 40-50).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
wherein the one or more sensors including one or more image devices (Arquette: ¶ 0087).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 18, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Arquette, Worger and Watt includes:
wherein granting, based at least in part on the status of the vehicle, the status of the document, or the status of the asset, entry to the facility (Arquette: ¶¶ 0089-0090 and Worger: column 12, lines 20-67).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Arquette, Worger and Watt are discussed in the rejection of claim 18, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights