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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fourth information acquisition section” and “a fifth information acquisition section” are not preceded by first, second, or third acquisition sections in independent claim 5. Although first, second, or third acquisition sections appear in the claim set of independent claim 1, independent claim 5 does not depend from claim 1, and therefore Examiner recommends the fourth and fifth information acquisition sections of claim 5 are changed to first and second information acquisition sections or equivalent for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, the claim falls under a statutory category as it recites a system comprising a hardware processor, etc.
Step 2a) Prong One: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception. The claim recites:
“acquiring first information indicating a state outside the luggage compartment;
… acquiring… second information indicating the state outside the luggage compartment; and
determin[ing] whether or not the state outside the luggage compartment is abnormal, and… acquir[ing] the second information as additional information relative to the first information when the state outside the luggage compartment is determined to be abnormal.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites an element of acquiring information. The step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Other than reciting a first and second acquisition section and a hardware processor, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the general computer hardware and sensor language, the claim encompasses acquiring data and making a determination, which is understood to be a simple judgment as the acquiring and determining are recited at a high level of generality. The mere recitation of information acquisition sections and a hardware processor to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2b: Claim 1 is ineligible, as the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The steps of acquiring data are not considered to be more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicates that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claimed element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar reasoning is applied to independent claim 5 which contains corresponding subject matter. The dependent claims 3-4 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea, and merely recite additional abstract steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that claim 2 recites “moving the second information acquisition section to the predetermined position when the state outside the luggage compartment is determined to be abnormal” which the Examiner understands to be subject matter that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore, claim 2 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan (US 2021/0256472 A1), in view of Ghannam (US 2024/0312043 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Javidan discloses a monitoring system, comprising:
a first information acquisition section disposed outside a luggage compartment of a vehicle and capable of acquiring first information indicating a state outside the luggage compartment (In paragraph [0034], Javidan discloses that delivery vehicle 100 may include sensors 104, installed within view of but outside of the lockers 102 on the delivery vehicle 100, which may be activated to detect and capture images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker 102, where sensors 104 may include, for example, cameras, motion sensors, lidar sensors, radar sensors, sonar sensors, combinations or assemblies of any or all of these or other sensor modalities, and may be installed with field(s) of vision that cover both the lockers 102 and the area in the proximity of the delivery vehicle 100 to detect approaching users, for instance, sensors 104 may include cameras used to capture images of users interacting with the lockers 102, and to identify or authenticate the users as valid recipients, and where each sensor 104 shown in FIG. 1 may represent an assembly comprised of multiple cameras and multiple lidar sensors oriented at different angels to provide coverage of an area surrounding a body of the vehicle);
a second information acquisition section capable of acquiring, at a predetermined position inside the luggage compartment, second information indicating the state of the luggage compartment (In paragraph [0039], Javidan discloses that lockers 102 may include one or more sensors 206A, 206B, 206C, and 206D (collectively “sensor(s) 206”) in some examples, which may be installed on the interior of the locker 102, where sensors 206, such as motion sensors and/or cameras may be installed within a locker 102 to detect and capture images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker 102); and
a hardware processor that determines whether or not the state outside the luggage compartment is abnormal, and that controls the second information acquisition section to acquire the second information as additional information relative to the first information when the state outside the luggage compartment is determined to be abnormal (In paragraphs [0106-0107], Javidan discloses that the delivery vehicle 608 may be configured to receive requests for locker access from users and/or to provide locker access to users, where in some examples, the delivery vehicle 608 also may use cameras and/or sensors 104 to perform user authentication based on facial recognition, voice recognition, iris recognition, fingerprint analysis, and the like; in paragraph [0112], Javidan discloses that if the delivery vehicle 608 successfully authorizes the locker access request, then the delivery vehicle 608 may determine an appropriate locker associated with the request and may unlock/open the locker to provide the recipient with access to the interior of the locker, where the delivery vehicle 608 also may activate cameras and other sensors to confirm successful delivery (or return) of the items).
Although the Examiner understands that the camera of Javidan is likely to capture sensor data indicating at least some of the state “outside” the luggage compartment (See Fig. 2 where Javidan depicts the internal camera possibly positioned on the interior surface of the compartment 206A-D which may capture the state outside the compartment above when in an opened state such as in Fig. 1), Javidan does not explicitly disclose second information indicating the state outside the luggage compartment.
However, Ghannam teaches a second information acquisition section capable of acquiring, at a predetermined position inside the luggage compartment, second information indicating the state outside the luggage compartment (In Fig. 1A and paragraph [0053] for example, Ghannam teaches the LiDAR modules 22 are configured with a field of view 30 that covers the rear space of the vehicle 12, as well as the region exterior 20 to the vehicle 12, including a LiDAR module 22 depicted as being mounted to the ceiling of the storage compartment of the vehicle 12 with a view range that extends to the exterior rear of the vehicle; see Fig. 1A below, and also Fig. 6 which similarly depicts capturing of exterior surrounding data by interior mounted sensors when a door of the vehicle is open).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A of Ghannam (US 2024/0312043 A1)
Ghannam is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to obtaining data on the state outside the luggage compartment by a sensor inside the luggage compartment. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ghannam with the system as disclosed by Javidan, where doing so may provide additional data which may be relevant to the use of the luggage compartment, for example, such as improving the accuracy of detecting and capturing images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker as disclosed by Javidan. Further improvements may include space management as suggested by Ghannam in paragraph [0096], or loading recommendations based on objects in an exterior region in paragraph [0076].
Regarding claim 5, Javidan discloses a monitoring system, comprising:
a fourth information acquisition section disposed outside a vehicle cabin of a vehicle and capable of acquiring fourth information indicating a state outside the vehicle cabin (In paragraph [0034], Javidan discloses that delivery vehicle 100 may include sensors 104, installed within view of but outside of the lockers 102 on the delivery vehicle 100, which may be activated to detect and capture images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker 102, where sensors 104 may include, for example, cameras, motion sensors, lidar sensors, radar sensors, sonar sensors, combinations or assemblies of any or all of these or other sensor modalities, and may be installed with field(s) of vision that cover both the lockers 102 and the area in the proximity of the delivery vehicle 100 to detect approaching users, for instance, sensors 104 may include cameras used to capture images of users interacting with the lockers 102, and to identify or authenticate the users as valid recipients, and where each sensor 104 shown in FIG. 1 may represent an assembly comprised of multiple cameras and multiple lidar sensors oriented at different angels to provide coverage of an area surrounding a body of the vehicle);
a fifth information acquisition section capable of acquiring, at a predetermined position inside the vehicle cabin, fifth information indicating the state of the vehicle cabin (In paragraph [0039], Javidan discloses that lockers 102 may include one or more sensors 206A, 206B, 206C, and 206D (collectively “sensor(s) 206”) in some examples, which may be installed on the interior of the locker 102, where sensors 206, such as motion sensors and/or cameras may be installed within a locker 102 to detect and capture images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker 102); and
a hardware processor that determines whether or not the state outside the vehicle cabin is abnormal, and that controls the fifth information acquisition section to acquire the fifth information as additional information relative to the fourth information when the state outside the vehicle cabin is determined to be abnormal (In paragraphs [0106-0107], Javidan discloses that the delivery vehicle 608 may be configured to receive requests for locker access from users and/or to provide locker access to users, where in some examples, the delivery vehicle 608 also may use cameras and/or sensors 104 to perform user authentication based on facial recognition, voice recognition, iris recognition, fingerprint analysis, and the like; in paragraph [0112], Javidan discloses that if the delivery vehicle 608 successfully authorizes the locker access request, then the delivery vehicle 608 may determine an appropriate locker associated with the request and may unlock/open the locker to provide the recipient with access to the interior of the locker, where the delivery vehicle 608 also may activate cameras and other sensors to confirm successful delivery (or return) of the items).
Although the Examiner understands that the camera of Javidan is likely to capture sensor data indicating at least some of the state “outside” the vehicle cabin (See Fig. 2 where Javidan depicts the internal camera possibly positioned on the interior surface of the compartment 206A-D which may capture the state outside the compartment above when in an opened state such as in Fig. 1), Javidan does not explicitly disclose second information indicating the state outside the vehicle cabin.
However, Ghannam teaches a second information acquisition section capable of acquiring, at a predetermined position inside the vehicle cabin, second information indicating the state outside the vehicle cabin (In Fig. 1A and paragraph [0053] for example, Ghannam teaches the LiDAR modules 22 are configured with a field of view 30 that covers the rear space of the vehicle 12, as well as the region exterior 20 to the vehicle 12, including a LiDAR module 22 depicted as being mounted to the ceiling of the storage compartment of the vehicle 12 with a view range that extends to the exterior rear of the vehicle; see Fig. 1A above, and also Fig. 6 which similarly depicts capturing of exterior surrounding data by interior mounted sensors when a door of the vehicle is open).
Ghannam is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to obtaining data on the state outside the vehicle cabin by a sensor inside the vehicle cabin. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ghannam with the system as disclosed by Javidan, where doing so may provide additional data which may be relevant to the use of the vehicle cabin, for example, such as improving the accuracy of detecting and capturing images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker as disclosed by Javidan. Further improvements may include space management as suggested by Ghannam in paragraph [0096], or loading recommendations based on objects in an exterior region in paragraph [0076].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan (US 2021/0256472 A1) and Ghannam (US 2024/0312043 A1), in view of Anand (US 2019/0061939 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Javidan and Ghannam does not explicitly disclose wherein
the hardware processor calculates a predicted value of abnormality based on the first information, and when the calculated predicted value is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the hardware processor determines that the state outside the luggage compartment is abnormal.
However, Anand teaches wherein
the hardware processor calculates a predicted value of abnormality based on the first information, and when the calculated predicted value is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the hardware processor determines that the state outside the luggage compartment is abnormal (In paragraph [0033], Anand teaches that facial recognition processing may be used to determine whether the detected individual is the requester or predetermined authorized recipient, and for example, the robotic vehicle may determine whether facial features of the detected individual match facial features within the stored images of the requester and/or authorized recipient(s) within a threshold value or level of similarity).
Anand is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining a state outside the luggage compartment based on a determination meeting some threshold. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Anand with the system as disclosed by the combination of Javidan and Ghannam, where the use of a threshold in facial recognition ensures a certain level of operational accuracy is met, for example, decreasing the likelihood of improper access to the lockers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan (US 2021/0256472 A1) and Ghannam (US 2024/0312043 A1), in view of Breed (US 2009/0143923 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Javidan further discloses wherein:
the second information acquisition section is further configured to be capable of acquiring third information indicating a state inside the luggage compartment (In paragraph [0039], Javidan discloses that lockers 102 may include one or more sensors 206A, 206B, 206C, and 206D (collectively “sensor(s) 206”) in some examples, which may be installed on the interior of the locker 102, where sensors 206, such as motion sensors and/or cameras may be installed within a locker 102 to detect and capture images/video of items being removed from and inserted into the locker 102).
The combination of Javidan and Ghannam does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the hardware processor further determines whether or not the state inside the luggage compartment is abnormal; and
the hardware processor further controls the first information acquisition section to acquire the first information as additional information relative to the third information when the state inside the luggage compartment is determined to be abnormal.
However, Breed teaches wherein:
the hardware processor further determines whether or not the state inside the luggage compartment is abnormal (In paragraph [0361], Breed teaches that if the container is idle, there may not be the need to frequently monitor the status of the container exterior until some event happens, and thus, all monitoring systems on the container can be placed in the sleep mode until some event such as a motion or vibration of the container, the opening of the doors, or the sensing of light or a change in the interior temperature of the container above a reference level, for example, takes place); and
the hardware processor further controls the first information acquisition section to acquire the first information as additional information relative to the third information when the state inside the luggage compartment is determined to be abnormal (In paragraph [0361], Breed teaches that if the container is idle, there may not be the need to frequently monitor the status of the container exterior until some event happens, and thus, all monitoring systems on the container can be placed in the sleep mode until some event such as a motion or vibration of the container, the opening of the doors, or the sensing of light or a change in the interior temperature of the container above a reference level, for example, takes place).
Breed is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to obtaining first information when an abnormality is detected inside the luggage compartment. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Breed with the system as disclosed by the combination of Javidan and Ghannam, where doing so may advantageously increase efficiency of the system, for example, by eliminating processing resources spent on comparatively less useful determinations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Meng (US 2023/0410033 A1) teaches a system for monitoring and predicting water damage in shipping containers.
Nagata (US 2020/0320309 A1) teaches a camera system to detect unusual activities, where one or more external cameras may include multiple cameras positioned within the vehicle but directed outward to capture different views of the surrounding environment outside the vehicle, and when the detection system detects the unusual object and/or action using one or more external cameras, the detection system may activate the one or more internal cameras.
Giles (US 10,537,195 B1) teaches a secured package holder device, where the monitoring server may communicate the received alarm condition data to one or more other control units from neighboring properties, and the control units of each of the one or more neighboring properties may prompt external cameras to begin capturing video and image data in the hopes of capturing video evidence of a thief holding the package and or the package holder device.
Uenoyama (US 2019/0176760 A1) teaches a vehicle interior monitoring system, storage apparatus, and vehicle, where when a person standing outside the vehicle loads an article into a luggage space, the position sensor initially detects the article and subsequently detects the body of the person when a person standing outside the vehicle loads an article into a luggage space, the position sensor initially detects the article and subsequently detects the body of the person.
Siddiqui (US 10,137,857 B1) teaches vehicle unlocking systems, devices, and methods, where upon detection of a person outside the vehicle, the vehicle may activate a camera located inside the vehicle, positioned such that the field of view includes the head of the person.
Kindo (US 2016/0313738 A1) teaches an automatic driving vehicle system, where in the case where two sensors capable of detecting the same object are included in the external sensor and the internal sensor, the vehicle state recognition unit may compare the detection results of the two sensors.
Drazan (US 2016/0297361 A1) teaches a camera array system and method to detect a load status of a semi- trailer truck.
Tsutsui (US 2012/0092493 A1) teaches a monitoring system where two rails are provided on the ceiling of the railroad vehicle in the longitudinal direction so as to allow the monitoring camera to move in the longitudinal direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights