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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 5 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 5 and 6 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 5, 6 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
An assistance method performed by an assistance apparatus, the assistance method comprising: a) determining a type of luggage that a user brings into a vehicle based on an acquired camera image;
b) measuring a dimension of the luggage; and c) presenting a predetermined luggage storage space to the user in a case in which the determined type of the luggage is predetermined luggage or in a case in which the measured dimension of the luggage is larger than a threshold.
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps a b and c can be performed mentally. For example, a person could look at an image of luggage and determine what type of luggage it is, measure a dimension of the luggage in their mind and decide whether to place the luggage in a carry on compartment or in the trunk.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are a camera and a controller (claim 1).
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of acquiring a camera image captured by the camera amount to data gathering which is insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element (controler) amounts to merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchibori US 2021/0174058 in view of Nakamura et al. US 12,263,839 (hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Uchibori discloses an assistance apparatus (see paragraph 0005, load determination system determining whether it is possible or not to load luggage, see also figure 8 where assistance is given from the device in how to load the vehicle or giving advice s216 and s212)
PNG
media_image1.png
68
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising: an input interface including a camera (see figure 5 which includes a cell phone capturing an image of luggage)
PNG
media_image3.png
466
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and a controller configured to: acquire a camera image captured by the camera (see figure 8 where images are acquired as seen in figure 5, s202, s206) ; present a predetermined luggage storage space to the user in a case in which the determined type of the luggage is predetermined luggage or in a case in which the measured dimension of the luggage is larger than a threshold (the claim language contains the optional “or” thus the italics part is taught by Uchibori, see step s210 of figure 8 where it is determined if the luggage can be loaded or not by comparing the dimensions of the luggage with the dimensions of the loading space [the loading space is interpreted thus as a threshold], see paragraph 0091, and further as can be seen in figure 11 if the size of the storage space is larger than the trunk but able to fit with the seats put down then a suggestion is given to fold down the seats thus presenting a storage space if the threshold is larger than the trunk capacity with the seats up)
PNG
media_image4.png
228
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
406
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Uchibori does not explicitly disclose determine a type of luggage that a user brings into a vehicle based on the acquired camera image.
Nakamura discloses determining the size or type of luggage from a captured image and comparing that to a threshold range wherein if the type or size is larger than a predetermined range the storage location is recommended as the trunk instead of a boarding space (see col 4 lines 40-57)
PNG
media_image6.png
250
338
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Uchibori and Nakamura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of imaging luggage to determine how to store it.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Uchibori and Nakamura to determine the type of luggage from the image in order to make a suggestion as to where to store it, such as if it is a carry on bag store it under a seat. The motivation would be to take into account smaller luggage and save the trunk storage for larger items.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses a boarding space of a vehicle for storing smaller items and a trunk for larger items. While Nakamura does not explicitly mention a luggage rack, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a luggage rack as the boarding space as this is a common item encountered on buses and trains. Nakamura in the part cited above does disclose predetermined ranges thus covering the first and second threshold and determining where to store the luggage based on its size, and as discussed above Uchibori discloses
Regarding claim 3, Uchibori discloses an output interface including a speaker and a display, wherein the controller is configured to present the predetermined luggage storage space to the user by audio output from the speaker, text and video displayed on the display, or both of the audio and the text and video (see paragraph 0094 which discloses audio and a display as well as figure 11 which discloses text).
PNG
media_image7.png
198
382
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Uchibori discloses wherein the controller is configured to measure the dimension of the luggage, which is included in the acquired camera image, using a measurement application (see s208 of figure 8).
Claim 5 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights