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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363).
With respect to claim 1, Isgar teaches a first user profile accessed via the mobile device (col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 3, employee data, smartphone);
a chronograph (time that the smartphone is within the geofence) and global positioning system (GPS) tracking means (col. 8 lines 18-23) to monitor a geographical location of a first user against passage of time, the tracking means configured to activate the first user profile when said first user is within a first predetermined distance from a location and to deactivate the first user profile when said user is within a second predetermined distance from the location (col. 3 lines 59-65; col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 3),
such that the activation of the first user profile enables the first user to electronically communicate with a second and/or subsequent user and its respective second and/or subsequent user profiles when the mobile device is in an online state connected to a wireless mobile network allowing an exchange of online data between first and second and/or subsequent users (col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 3, The group user
computing device may then be able to communicate with the system);
Isgar does not teach expressly that such that the activation of the first user profile facilitates the first user to store data on the mobile device as recorded data when the mobile device is in an offline state not connected to the wireless mobile network;
a synchronization module in electronic communication with the mobile device and the control center, the synchronization module being configured to receive recorded data from the mobile device when said mobile device is altered from an offline state into an online state and to update the first user profile online data with the recorded data;
a camera in electronic communication with the first user profile when said first user profile is activated, wherein the camera being configured to capture a first image of a first object and to determine its properties including at least one of the group consisting of: the group: species, size, weight, volume, geolocation, and time of capture, and wherein the camera is configured to capture a second and/or subsequent image of a second or subsequent object (and to determine its properties) only after an elapse of a predetermined period of time after the capture and property determination of the first object,
a database connected to the first user profile and the control center which includes output information comprising the properties of the first and/or subsequent objects;
such that in use, the monitoring system allows the activity to be monitored whilst quantifying and/or qualifying the output information.
Fain et al. teach such that the activation of the first user profile facilitates the first user to store data on the mobile device as recorded data when the mobile device is in an offline state not connected to the wireless mobile network; and
a synchronization module in electronic communication with the mobile device and the control center, the synchronization module being configured to receive recorded data from the mobile device when said mobile device is altered from an offline state into an online state and to update the first user profile online data with the recorded data; (para [0091], The information may be cached in a local data store for offline operations and completion of the delivery ticket. The local and remote data stores may synchronize when online operations are available).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locally store when offline and synchronize the data when online operations are available in the method of Fain et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to efficiently and accurately store the data on network.
Cheatle et al. teach a camera in electronic communication with the first user profile when said first user profile is activated, wherein the camera being configured to capture a first image of a first object and to determine its properties including at least one of the group consisting of: the group: species, size, weight, volume, geolocation, and time of capture (Fig. 3 ref label 301, capture image, ref label 308, GPS data and Frequency Data is determined ), and wherein the camera is configured to capture a second and/or subsequent image of a second or subsequent object (and to determine its properties) only after an elapse of a predetermined period of time after the capture and property determination of the first object, (Fig. 3, ref label 309, capture 2nd image ref label 306, only when desired image capture time and location is true)
a database connected to the first user profile and the control center which includes output information comprising the properties of the first and/or subsequent objects (Fig. 3 ref label 312 Download image to external device); such that in use, the monitoring system allows the activity to be monitored whilst quantifying and/or qualifying the output information. (Fig. 3, ref label 308, para[0047], A desired time to capture an image for sequence (as determined from a current time, and the frequency of capture for example) can also be monitored continuously or determined).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to capture number of imaged in the form of a time-lapse image sequence in order to monitor development of a particular object or scene over time in the method of Fain et al. and Isgar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to permit the temporal evolution of an object/subject or scene attribute to be monitored.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Fain et al. teach the control center is cloud based and/or includes a physical server (para [0061]).
With respect to claim 4, Isgar teaches the first predetermined distance is less than the second predetermined distance relative to the location.( (col. 3 lines 59-65; col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 3, within geofence, outside geofence)
B. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Rutschman et al. (US 2018/0239948).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 3 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach a mine, a forest, a crop, a herd of beasts, a body of water.
Rutschman et al. teach monitoring of a forest (para [0104]), a crop (para [0038]), , a body of water (para [0314], ocean).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor a forest or a crop or a body of water in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to monitor and track variety of things.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rutschman et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
C. Claims 5 and 32 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Benjamin et al. (US 10,798,522).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 5 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not wherein the first predetermined distance is a range of between zero and 20 meters, preferably a range of between zero and 10 meters, from the location, and wherein the second predetermined distance is greater than 20 meters, preferably, greater than 10 meters, from the location.
Benjamin et al. teach setting geofence distance at verity of distances (col. 9 lines 15-40).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set geofences distance of 10 or 20 meter in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to monitor and track variety of distance depend on situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rutschman et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
With respect to claim 32, Benjamin et al teach first predetermined distance is a range of between zero and 10 meters from the location, and wherein the second predetermined distance is greater than 10 meters from the location (col. 9 lines 15-40).
D. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Samples (US 2020/0285953).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 6 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not the object is an animal including at least one the group consisting of: fish, reptile, amphibian, insect, bird,.
Samples teaches monitoring fish count (para [0595]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor fish count in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to monitor and track variety of animal depend on situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Samples with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
E. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Tippery et al. (US 2017/0251589).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 7 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not the object is a plant including at least one the group consisting of: fungi, gymnosperm, angiosperm, monocotyledon and dicotyledon.
Tippery et al. teach monitoring fungus (para [0301]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor fungus in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to monitor and track variety of object depend on situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tippery et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
F. Claims 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Glatthaar et al. (US 20230014707).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 8 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not the object is a mineral, including at least one the group consisting of: copper, gold, silver, iron, titanium, tin, zinc, manganese, diamond, precious metal, semi-precious metal and gem.
Glatthaar et al. teach monitoring Zinc (para [0023]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor Zinc in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to monitor and track variety of object depend on situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Glatthaar et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
G. Claims 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Castelli et al. (US 20180049407).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 8 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach that the properties of the object include identification, and identification includes determination of mineral type, plant type, or animal type.
Castelli et al. teach identification of type of animal (para [0038]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify type of animal in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to identify variety of object type depend on situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Castelli et al.. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
H. Claims 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Shen et al. (US 20180032832).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 8 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach that the camera is configured to include self-recognition capability of previous images such that any previously captured image will not be processed as online data or recorded date and, in so doing, avoids capturing and/or collecting duplicate data.
Shen et al. teach the camera is configured to include self-recognition capability of previous images such that any previously captured image will not be processed as online data or recorded date and, in so doing, avoids capturing and/or collecting duplicate data. (para [0046]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to suspend the capturing of images for the product to avoid capturing duplicate images in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to efficiently use resource (storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shen et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
i. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Burgmeier (US 2004/0117392).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 11 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach that the system further comprises a scoring means, the scoring means assigning a value to the first and/or second and/or subsequent object based on its property.
Burgmeier teaches the assigning a value to the first and/or second and/or subsequent object based on its property. (para [0014]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to map value of object in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to improve the efficiency and productivity of users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Burgmeier with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, Burgmeier teaches the scoring system facilitates qualitative comparison between dissimilar objects to determine productivity of different users. (para [0014]).
j. Claims 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) , Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and Burgmeier (US 2004/0117392) in further view of Karami et al. (US 2020/0133818).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 13 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach that the productivity is ranked..
Burgmeier teaches the productivity is ranked. (para [0104]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to rank productivity in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar and Burgmeier
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to measure improve the efficiency and productivity of users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Karami et al. with Burgmeier , Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
K. Claims 14, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Isgar (US Patent 10,771,617) in view of Fain et al. (US 2012/0246039) and Cheatle et al. (US 2007/0030363) and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20230252407).
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 14 respectively depend.
Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar do not teach that predetermined period of time is greater than 30 seconds; preferably greater than 2 minutes, further preferably greater than 3 minutes.
Kim et al. teach predetermined period of time is greater than 30 seconds; preferably greater than 2 minutes, further preferably greater than 3 minutes (para [0033]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to capture image in 5-10 minutes interval in the method of Fain et al. and Cheatle et al with Isgar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to efficiently use resource (storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim et al. with Fain et al., Cheatle et al and Isgar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14
With respect to claim 30, Kim et al. teach that the predetermined period of time is greater than 2 minutes (para [0033]).
With respect to claim 31, Kim et al. teach that the predetermined period of time is greater than 3 minutes (para [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights