DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELOV ET AL. (US 2011/0248846) (hereinafter “BELOV”) in view of STAMATAKIS ET AL. (US 9,800,646) (hereinafter “STAMATAKIS”), BRACKMANN ET AL. (US 2010/0253519) (hereinafter “BRACKMANN”), KATES (US 7142107 B2).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, BELOV teaches a wireless sensing module and method of operation and the BRI of:
configuring
a sensor device (See, e.g., Figs. 1-3)
in accordance with
a first configuration
defining data collection for a plurality of sensors (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5)
and
defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5),
and
transmitting the collected data by the sensor device in accordance with the first configuration (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5);
a reconfiguration signal by the sensor device (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5)
comprising
a configuration change from the first configuration to a second configuration (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5);
detecting, by the sensor device, whether an event has occurred (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5),
the event including the sensor device experiencing a change in temperature or a mechanical shock (See, e.g., Para 0028, 0048, 0050),
the event being detected by using one or more of the plurality of sensors (See, e.g., Figs. 1-3),
the event being defined by data received by the sensor device over the remote network (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5);
and
in response to the event having occurred,
performing, by the sensor device, the configuration change from the first configuration to the second configuration (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5);
and
wherein
transitioning from the first configuration to the second configuration includes changing a length of a time interval at which the sensor device transmits data (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0028, 0049, 0050, 0055; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 5).
However BELOV is lacking the explicit language of:
a sensor device is coupled to an asset or good being shipped for collecting the data as the asset or good is en route to a destination;
receiving a reconfiguration signal from a remote network;
transmitting a collected data by a sensor device in accordance with a second configuration; the sensor device transmits data during both a first configuration and a second configuration.
STAMATAKIS teaches remotely configuring a sensor network/node to customize the operation of a sensor network at a monitored location to meet the needs of a sensor application and the BRI of:
receiving a reconfiguration signal from a remote network (See Col 5 Lines 41-50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include to receiving a reconfiguration signal from a remote network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely control the configuration of sensor system for convenience. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
BRACKMANN teaches a secure, auditable, and trackable smart mobile container for shipping products and the BRI of:
a sensor device is coupled to an asset or good being shipped for collecting the data as the asset or good is en route to a destination (See Figs. 12A, 12B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include a sensor device is coupled to an asset or good being shipped for collecting the data as the asset or good is en route to a destination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely monitor the conditions of a shipping container and the asset(s) within. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
KATES teaches a low cost, robust, wireless sensor that provides an extended period of operability without maintenance is described. The wireless sensors are configured to communicate with a base unit or repeater. When the sensor unit detects an anomalous ambient condition (e.g., smoke, fire, water, etc.) the sensor communicates with the base unit and provides data regarding the anomalous condition. The sensor unit receives instructions to change operating parameters and/or control external devices. and the BRI of:
transmitting a collected data by a sensor device in accordance with a second configuration; the sensor device transmits data during both a first configuration and a second configuration (See Figs. 6-7 | a continuous monitoring/transmission mode/configuration and a periodic monitoring/transmission mode/configuration)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include transmitting a collected data by a sensor device in accordance with a second configuration; the sensor device transmits data during both a first configuration and a second configuration.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to save power while still transmitting data. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
wherein the second configuration defines transmission of the collected data less frequently than the first configuration (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BRACKMANN further teaches the BRI of:
the sensor device being present at a predetermined location (See Para 0105).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include the sensor device being present at a predetermined location.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely monitor the conditions of a shipping container and the asset(s) within. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 5, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
wherein the event further comprises an entrance to a no connectivity zone (See Para 0028).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
wherein the second configuration defines collection of GPS/GNSS location points (See Para 0064).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BRACKMANN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein the predetermined location comprises a transportation hub, seaport, an airport, or a train station (See Para 0077).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include wherein the predetermined location comprises a transportation hub, seaport, an airport, or a train station.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely monitor the conditions of a shipping container and the asset(s) within. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 12, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
furthering including transitioning to a third configuration defining data collection for the plurality of sensors and defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network, wherein the third configuration defines collection and transmission of the data more frequently than the second configuration (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 13, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
furthering including transitioning to a third configuration defining data collection for the plurality of sensors and defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network, wherein the third configuration defines collection and transmission of the data more frequently than the second configuration (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 14, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
furthering including transitioning to a third configuration defining data collection for the plurality of sensors and defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network, wherein the third configuration defines collection and transmission of the data less frequently than the second configuration (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 15, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
furthering including transitioning to a third configuration defining data collection for the plurality of sensors and defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network, wherein the third configuration defines collection and transmission of the data less frequently than the second configuration (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 16, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
furthering including transitioning to a third configuration defining data collection for the plurality of sensors and defining when the collected data for the sensors is transmitted to a remote network, wherein the third configuration is defined as sensor device turning off all radio transmission functions (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
With respect to Claim(s) 18, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV further teaches the BRI of:
wherein determining whether the device should perform the configuration change to the second configuration based on the event being detected by the sensor device (See Para 0027, 0028, 0050, 0055).
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of STRATMOEN ET AL. (US 2004/0041706) (hereinafter “STRATMOEN”).
With respect to Claim(s) 19, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However BELOV is lacking the explicit language of:
wherein the event comprises a deviation threshold from a planned route.
STATMOEN teaches a smart and secure container that includes a GPS based route verification feature and route deviation determination and the BRI of:
wherein the event comprises a deviation threshold from a planned route (See Para 0033, 0034).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include wherein the event comprises a deviation threshold from a planned route.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to securely transport cargo. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 20, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES, STATMOEN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
STATMOEN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein the deviation threshold comprises a number of miles from the planned route (See Para 0033, 0034).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include wherein the event comprises a deviation threshold from a planned route.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to securely transport cargo. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 21, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of EBERT ET AL. (US 2003/0227392) (hereinafter “EBERT”).
With respect to Claim(s) 21, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However BELOV is lacking the explicit language of:
wherein the event comprises changes in weather conditions.
EBERT teaches a context-aware and real-time item tracking system and the BRI of:
wherein the event comprises changes in weather conditions (See Para 0187).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include wherein the event comprises changes in weather conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to receive context-aware information that would affect shipment of an asset. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 27, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BELOV teaches the BRI of:
the event.
BRACKMANN further teaches the BRI of:
tracking a shipment.
However BELOV is lacking the explicit language of:
the asset or good being situated in customs during a period of time.
EBERT teaches a context-aware and real-time item tracking system and the BRI of:
the asset or good being situated in customs during a period of time (See Fig. 54).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include the asset or good being situated in customs during a period of time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to receive context-aware information that would affect shipment of an asset. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 28, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES, EBERT teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
STAMATAKIS further teaches the BRI of:
performing a change to the first configuration upon expiration of the period time (See Col 4 Lines 17-32; Col 5 Lines 51-61; Col 13 Lines 24-33).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include performing a change to the first configuration upon expiration of the period time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely control the configuration of sensor system for convenience. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include to a remote network; receiving a reconfiguration signal by the sensor device from the remote network; wherein the event is defined by data received by the sensor device over the remote network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely control the configuration of sensor system for convenience. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 29, BELOV, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, KATES, EBERT teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
STAMATAKIS further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the period of time corresponds to a weekend (See Col 4 Lines 17-32; Col 5 Lines 51-61; Col 13 Lines 24-33).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include to further comprising wherein the period of time corresponds to a weekend.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely control the configuration of sensor system for convenience. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BELOV to include to a remote network; receiving a reconfiguration signal by the sensor device from the remote network; wherein the event is defined by data received by the sensor device over the remote network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BELOV because it would be beneficial to remotely control the configuration of sensor system for convenience. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 03/13/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is overcome.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7-13, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12-18, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELOV ET AL. (US 2011/0248846) (hereinafter "BELOV") in view of STAMATAKIS ET AL. (US 9,800,646) (hereinafter "STAMATAKIS"), BRACKMANN ET AL. (US 2010/0253519) (hereinafter "BRACKMANN"), KATES (US 7142107 B2). Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of STRATMOEN ET AL. (US 2004/0041706) (hereinafter "STRATMOEN"). Claim(s) 21- 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of EBERT ET AL. (US 2003/0227392) (hereinafter "EBERT").
Claim 1, as amended, recites:
…
On page 4 of the Action, the Examiner relies on Belov, at paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0050], and [0055], to teach the claimed event and the claimed second configuration. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The relied-upon portions of Belov disclose:
[0027] …
[0028] …
…
[0050] …
[0055] …
Applicant respectfully submits that there are three distinctions between Belov and claim 1.”.
-Applicant states
“First. Belov discloses transitioning a device from a sleep mode to an active mode. Belov, in paragraph [0027] explicitly states: "[ijn the sleep mode, the sensors 1, the non-volatile memory 3, and the transceiver 4 do not perform ... data transmitting." By contrast, claim 1 recites transitioning the claimed sensor device from a first state in which the sensor performs data transmissions to a second state in which it performs data transmissions. Because "transitioning a device out of a state in which it does not perform data_ transmissions" and "transitioning a device out of a state in which it performs data transmissions " are patentably distinct concepts, it is believed that Belov does not disclose or suggest the limitation of "performing, by the sensor device, the configuration change from the first configuration to the second configuration ....wherein the sensor device transmits data during both the first configuration and the second configuration," as required by claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
BELOV teaches:
[0049] “Operating parameters of wireless sensing modules are defined at the next step. The operating parameters include at least timing and duration of measurement sessions for each sensor and its sampling rate; periodicity of data transmission; and a range of environmental conditions for wireless data transmission. Operating parameters can be changed with time. For example, a wireless sensing module can be required to make two measurements per day every day for the first six months of operation and after that the requirement can be dynamically changed to perform the same two measurements every other day.”.
BELOV teaches the available function to dynamically change the defined operating parameters (e.g., periodicity of data transmission) with time.
In addition and in combination with BELOV,
KATES teaches:
[Figs. 6-7] a continuous monitoring/transmission mode/configuration and a periodic monitoring/transmission mode/configuration
Therefore, at least the combination of BELOV, KATES at least teach the function of transitioning between two configurations with different data transmission periodicities.
-Applicant states
“Second. Belov, in paragraph [0050], discloses providing a sensing module with code for "responding to external events such as shock and/or vibrations exceeding a predetermined threshold."However, Belov makes no mention that the response includes changing the length of a time interval at which data is transmitted. For this reason, it is believed that Belov fails to teach the limitation of "wherein transitioning from the first configuration to the second configuration includes changing a length of a time interval at which the sensor device transmits data," as required by claim 1.
Importantly, Belov discloses transitioning a sensing device from a sleep mode to an active mode. As noted above, when in the sleep state, the sensing device of Belov does not transmit data. Accordingly, the transition from the sleep mode to the active mode involves transitioning the sensing device from a state in which it has a zero transmission rate to a state in which it has a non- zero transmission rate.
By contrast, claim 1 recites that data is transmitted in accordance with each of the first and second configurations. In other words, the claimed sensor device transmits data when it is in the first configuration, and it also transmits data when it is in the second configuration. Thus, the claimed transition involves transitioning the sensing device from a state in which it has a non-zero transmission rate to another state in which it has a different non-zero transmission rate. As best understood, Belov cannot be taken to teach this feature because the transmission rate of Belov is zero when Belov's device is sleep mode. For this reason, it is believed that Belov does not disclose or suggest the limitation of "wherein the sensor device transmits data during both the first configuration and the second configuration, and wherein transitioning from the first configuration to the second configuration includes changing a length of a time interval at which the sensor device transmits data," as required by claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
In addition to the above response:
BELOV teaches:
[Para 0050] “…responding to external events such as shock and/or vibrations exceeding a predetermined threshold…”
Therefore, at least the combination of BELOV, KATES at least teach the function of transitioning between two configurations with different data transmission periodicities based on a shock/vibration triggering event.
-Applicant states
“Third. Belov, in paragraph [0050], discloses code for "responding to external events ". Belov, in paragraph [0051], discloses that "the code and operating parameters can be modified through the wireless links." In other words, Belov discloses that the response to external events can be specified over a network. By contrast, claim 1 recites that the evt is specified over anetwork. In other words, Belov and claim 1 are specifying different things over the network. Because "specifying an event" and "specifying the response to an event" are patentably distinct concepts, it is believed that Belov does not disclose or suggest the limitation of "the event including the sensor device experiencing a change in temperature or the sensor device experiencing mechanical shock,...., the event being defined by data received by the sensor device over the remote network."
In view of the foregoing, and because the remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies of Belov in the above respects, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
In addition to the above response:
BELOV teaches:
[Fig. 3] external/remote sensors being used as well that can be used as triggering events.
[Para 0050] “responding to external wireless signals”
In addition and in combination with BELOV, KATES,
STAMATAKIS teaches:
[Col 5 Lines 41-50] “…a sensor application can specify, via web API, configuration settings for application to a sensor network at a monitored location. The control provided by the specification of these configuration settings via web API enables a sensor application to remotely configure a sensor network at a monitored location. In various scenarios, the remote configuration commands would customize the operation of a sensor network at a monitored location to meet the needs of a given sensor application.”
Therefore, at least the combination of BELOV, KATES, STAMATAKIS at least teach the function of the operating functions being defined by an external/remote application.
-Applicant states
“Dependent claim 27, as amended, recites "wherein the event further includes the asset or good being situated in customs during a period of time." Support for claim 27 can be found throughout the specification, such as in paragraph [0091], which discloses "[als an example, a sensor device that is tracking a shipment is stuck in customs on Friday afternoon. The probability of the shipment clearing customs on Friday is low. Without this knowledge, if the device is configured to transmit every 5 minutes, the device continues transmitting throughout the weekend which may waste significant amounts of battery power. In embodiments, the cloud and/or device recognizes that shipment location is customs on a Friday afternoon and determines that the device will remain in customs until Monday. The cloud and/or sensor device then changes sensor data transmissions from every five minutes to every 6 hours until Monday morning at 8am (local time) in order to save a significant amount of battery life." Applicant respectfully submits that claim 27 is patentable over the cited references.
The remaining claims depend on claim 1, and they are likewise patentable. The recitation of additional limitations in them provides further grounds for their patentability.
In view of the above, Applicant believes the present application is in condition for allowance for which a notice thereof is respectfully requested.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
In addition to the above response:
BRACKMANN teaches:
[Figs. 12A, 12B] tracking a sensor device that is coupled to an asset or good being shipped en route to a destination.
EBERT teaches:
[0355] “a system and method for tagging and tracking technology to the needs of a government customs service in handling information related to imports”.
Therefore, at least the combination of BELOV, KATES, STAMATAKIS, BRACKMANN, EBERT at least teach the function of tracking a sensor device and monitoring at a particular location for a period of time.
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit