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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 1-10 were previously withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 11-12, 22, and 26 are amended.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 10/23/2025, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 9-14 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 11-26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
On pages 10-11, the Applicant argues that claim 11 does not recite concepts of commercial interactions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claims recite a judicial exception that is merely being applied using generic computing tools and instructions. Claim 11, as currently drafted, recites a method for collecting data indicating a potential change in a load status of assets in a vehicle, determining that an asset is being loaded onto a vehicle, and tracking a location the asset within the interior of the vehicle based on received information. As disclosed at ¶ [0006] of the Applicant’s amended specification:
An “aspect of the present embodiments includes the realization that efficiency of delivery relies on assets being correctly stored and easily located within the vehicle. For example, when arriving at a delivery location for an asset the operator need to quickly find the correct asset to unload. Advantageously the present embodiments solve this problem by providing a fine RFID location tracking solution within the vehicle to (a) ensure each asset it placed in an expected rack and slot within the vehicle, and (b) provide an indication to the operator of where an asset to be unloaded is located within the vehicle, such as when arriving at its delivery location”.
Thus, under broadest reasonably interpretation in view of the specification, the claimed invention provides methods for facilitating efficient and quick delivery of assets at a delivery location by delivery operators based on the tracking location of the assets. As such, the claim features directed towards tracking locations of assets within a vehicle are considered to recite concepts of commercial interactions, such as managing and facilitating business relations.
On pages 11-13 of the Response, the Applicant further argues that the claims provide an inventive concept that improves the field of asset tracking and notes ¶ [0005] of the amended specification. The Applicant argues the “technological solution to these problems is captured by claim 11 in that the claimed intelligent includes capability of ensuring, automatically using an RFID reader, comparison of the asset within the interior of the vehicle […] the dependent claims provide additional features that further emphasize the solution to the technical problem. For example, claim 13 […]”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and reflect an improvement to a technological field. Claim 11, as currently drafted, merely recites the use of generic RFID technology to collect information from RFID tags in order to track the locations of assets in a vehicle. For example, the claim steps for “controlling an RFID reader to generate an interrogation signal by at least one cargo area RFID antenna […] and receive an RFID signal associated with an RFID tag attached to an asset in response to the interrogation signal”, “decoding the RFID signal to determine an RFID identifier of the RFID tag”, and tracking the location of an asset based on “RFID signals received from the RFID tag” merely recite the use of generic computer tools in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, and transmit data. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Merely implementing generic computing tools and instructions to collect information (i.e., interrogating RFID tags and receiving/decoding RFID signals) and store information (i.e., updating a location database with an RFID identifier) is not considered to reflect an improvement to the claimed RFID technology itself. Instead, the recited RFID technology is merely recited as a generic computer tool to collect information to perform the abstract idea.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the claims and specification describe an improvement to the abstract idea itself. As disclosed at ¶ [0006] of the amended specification, an “aspect of the present embodiments includes the realization that efficiency of deliveries relies on assets being correctly stored and easily located within the vehicle […] present embodiments […] (b) provide an indication to the operator of where an asset to be unloaded is located within the vehicle, such as when arriving at its delivery location”. Furthermore, ¶ [0005] of the amended specification discloses “embodiments include the realization that significant time and efficiency is lost when an asset is incorrectly loaded onto a vehicle […] embodiments solve this problem by detecting when an asset is being incorrectly loaded or incorrectly unloaded to/from a vehicle and providing an immediate alert to the operator”. These disclosed advantages, as presented in the specification, are considered to be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself. In particular, such advantages directed towards improving the efficiency and time of performing delivery processes based on tracking information of the assets describe an improvement to the commercial interaction itself as opposed to a technical improvement to the technical functioning of a computer or technological environment that is used to perform the recited abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
On pages 13-14 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the combination of claimed features in claim 11 provide significantly more than the abstract idea and provide an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the additional elements of claim 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed further above, the additional elements of claim 11, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer tools. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer tools/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 14 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 12 and 26 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to claims 12 and 26, the previous §112 rejection of the claims have been overcome and have been withdrawn herein accordingly.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 14-18 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
On page 15 of the Response, the Applicant argues “Zacharenko is titled “Template-Based Weather Data Queries for Compiling Location-Based Weather Monitoring Data for Defined Transportation Routes” […] Zacharenko thereby relates to weather data and it would not have been obvious to consult Zacharenko in view of Brown without hindsight of the immediate application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination of Zacharenko and Brown is improper. Despite the title of the prior art, Zacharenko discloses features that are clearly relevant to the system of Brown. In particular, Zacharenko is relied upon for teaching steps for tracking the location of shipments inside a vehicle via RFID beacons/tags/sensors that are affixed to the shipments. Similarly, the system of Brown comprises items within a vehicle that are associated with individual RFID tags, and methods for receiving information from the RFID tags via an interrogation system. Thus, Zacharenko and Brown clearly share capabilities and characteristics and, therefore, the teachings of Zacharenko are considered to be compatible with the system of Brown.
On page 15 of the Response, the Applicant argues that Zacharenko does not teach “tracking the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag”. The Examiner disagrees that Zacharenko does not teach these claim features. As previously set forth in the § 103 rejection of claim 11, Zacharenko is relied upon for ¶ [0044] and ¶ [0056] -¶ [0057]. Therein, Zacharenko discloses that RFID beacons/tags/sensors may be affixed to individual shipments (see ¶ [0044]) and location information of a shipment within a vehicle may be collected by a computing device as automated input via the RFID beacons, wherein the location information indicates the particular location of the shipment inside the vehicle (see ¶ [0056]). Furthermore, Zacharenko teaches that the tracking is fully automated using the beacons/tags/sensors associated with the shipments, where the location information may be updated continuously, regularly, periodically, based on triggers, etc. (see ¶ [0057]). Thus, the referenced disclosure of Zacharenko teaches the claim steps for “tracking the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag” when one considers that continuously updating the location of a shipment based on automated inputs from an RFID beacon/tag affixed to the shipment is equivalent to tracking the location of the asset “based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag”.
On pages 15-16 of the Response, the Applicant argues that neither Brown nor Zacharenko teach the claim features for claims 22-25. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Zacharenko does not teach the features of claim 22-25. As described above, Zacharenko discloses (¶ [0044], ¶ [0056]-¶ [0057]) features for continuously tracking and updating the location of shipments within a vehicle via automated inputs from RFID beacons/tags affixed to the shipments. Furthermore, ¶ [0056] indicates that the location information may be detailed, such as indicating the precise location of the shipment inside a vehicle/tractor/trailer. Moreover, ¶ [0057] indicates that a computing entity may generate communications to a central computing entity to further initiate a process of updating the location of the shipment. Zacharenko does not disclose anywhere that the steps for tracking the location of the shipment via the affixed RFID beacon is halted when the shipment is moved within the vehicle. Conversely, Zacharenko discloses that a shipment’s location may be continuously updated while it is in the vehicle (or even based on trigger events). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of Zacharenko is configured to continuously update the precise location of a shipment within a vehicle/tractor/trailer based on an RFID signal provided by an affixed RFID beacons/tags, such as tracking the location of the shipment when it moves from one location to another within the vehicle (i.e., anywhere in the tractor/trailer). For these reasons, Zacharenko is considered to teach the features for claims 22-25.
On pages 16-17 of the Response, the Applicant argues that dependent claims 12, 14-15, and 16-17 “benefit from argument presented above for claim 11” and that the prior art applied to these claims do not cure the deficiencies of Brown and Zacharenko. As discussed further above in detail, the combination of Brown in view of Zacharenko is considered to be proper and the § 103 rejection of claim 11 is therefore maintained herein.
On page 17 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Schoening, does not teach the features of claim 16 and 17. The Examiner respectfully maintains that Schoening teaches these claim features. In particular, Schoening teaches a system that may display an error message indicating that an incorrect product has been placed in a vehicle (¶ [0063]). Furthermore, the system automatically updates information about a particular product/package in a database when the product is moved around, including incorrect location information corresponding to a product (¶ [0065]). Furthermore, if the operator ignores the error message, the system will not print the final paperwork necessary for the truck driver to complete his load (¶ [0063]) – which is equivalent to cancelling the shipment because it cannot be completed if the operator never addresses the error message.
On pages 17-18 of the Response, the Applicant argues that dependent claims 18-21 and 26 “benefit from argument presented above for claim 11” and that the prior art applied to these claims do not cure the deficiencies of Brown and Zacharenko. As discussed further above in detail, the combination of Brown in view of Zacharenko is considered to be proper and the § 103 rejection of claim 11 is therefore maintained herein.
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 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 11-26 are directed to a process (“a method”). Thus, claims 11-26 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 11-26, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 11, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving data indicative of a potential change in load status of assets in a vehicle;
Determining that an asset is being loaded onto the vehicle […];
Tracking the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle […].
Therefore, claims 11 and 12-26, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 11 identified above, as a whole, recite features for collecting and updating tracking information associated with commercial assets, which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0006]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 11 identified above recite concepts of observation and collecting information, which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include steps for “controlling an RFID reader to generate an interrogation signal by at least one cargo area RFID antenna located in a cargo area of the vehicle and receive an RFID signal associated with an RFID tag attached to an asset in response to the interrogation signal”, making a determination based on the “received RFID signal”, steps for “decoding the RFID signal to determine an RFID identifier of the RFID tag”, steps for “updating a local database stored on a device in the vehicle with the RFID identifier”, and steps for tracking the location of the asset “based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping (“updating a local database stored on a device in the vehicle with the RFID identifier“). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites steps for determining that an asset is being loaded onto a vehicle based on detecting a trajectory of the asset corresponding to entry into the vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of making the determination “based on received signal strength of the received RFID signal associated with the RFID tag”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 13 recites steps for collecting information, evaluating information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as claims 11 and 13, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein notifying the user comprises activating an indicator on the vehicle”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 15 recites steps for sending a notification or message to a user, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “sending a notification or message to a client device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 16 recites steps for collecting information, evaluating information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “communicating with a server to update a database on the asset being located on the vehicle”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 17 recites steps for cancelling a shipment, diverting another shipment, or issuing a new shipment in response to a determination. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 16 from which the claim depends.
Claim 18 recites steps for collecting information indicating that a user enters or exits a vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “receiving sensor data that corresponds to a user entering or exiting the vehicle”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 19 recites steps for collecting/detecting information associated with the opening or closing of a door of the vehicle, and thus further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 18 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as claims 11 and 18-19, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further defines the steps for collecting/detecting information associated with the opening or closing of a door, where the door is a door leading from a driver’s cabin to a cargo storage area of the vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 18-19 from which the claim depends.
Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as claims 11 and 18-19, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further defines the steps for collecting/detecting information associated with the opening or closing of a door, where the door is a door leading from outside of the vehicle to an interior of the vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 18-19 from which the claim depends.
Claim 22 recites steps for collecting/detecting information indicating that an asset has moved from a first location to a second location inside of the vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim further introduces the additional elements of detecting that the asset has moved “based on the additional received RFID signals from the RFID tag”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 23 recites steps for collecting/detecting information indicating that the asset moved from a cargo area to a driver’s cabin. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 24 recites steps for collecting/detecting information indicating that the asset moved from a driver’s cabin to a cargo area. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 25 recites steps for collecting an inquiry on the location of the asset and responsively sending location data corresponding to the location of the asset within the vehicle. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions and mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 26 recites steps for collecting location data comprising a rack identifier corresponding to a location on a rack in the vehicle that is holding the asset. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions and mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 25 from which the claim depends.
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.
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 11, 13, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown U.S. Patent No. 7,030,760, hereafter known as Brown, in view of Zacharenko U.S. Publication No. 2017/0276507, hereafter known as Zacharenko.
Claim 11: Brown teaches the following:
Receiving data indicative of a potential change in a load status of assets in a vehicle; In response, controlling an RFID reader to generate an interrogation signal by at least one cargo area RFID antenna located in a cargo area of the vehicle and receive an RFID signal associated with an RFID tag attached to an asset in response to the interrogation signal; (col. 16, line 59 – col. 17, line 7: system includes an RFID interrogator system having a reader and one or more antennas which may be placed inside an aircraft/vehicle for use during loading processes. The interrogator system is configured to receive item identification information from RFID tags associated with various items within the aircraft/vehicle); (col. 6, lines 55-58: the antenna is capable of detecting information transmitted from an RFID tag located on an item being loaded on a vehicle); (col. 11, lines 35-53: as each item is loaded onto the aircraft/vehicle and enters the RF field generated by the antennas, each item’s corresponding RFID tag will be scanned for information that is encoded in the tag); (col. 17, lines 8-26: RFID reader and antennas are included inside the cargo area of a vehicle, such that RFID tags may be read as the corresponding items are being loaded).
Determining that the asset is being loaded onto the vehicle based on the received RFID signal; Decoding the RFID signal to determine an RFID identifier of the RFID tag; (col. 6, lines 55-58: see above); (col. 11, lines 35-53: as each item is loaded onto the aircraft/vehicle and enters the RF field generated by the antennas, each item’s corresponding RFID tag will be scanned for information that is encoded in the tag); (col. 17, lines 31-45: the item identification information read from the RFID tags may include any desired information, such as an item identification number which is pre-stored in the RFID tag memory).
Updating a local database stored on a device in the vehicle with the RFID identifier; (col. 2, lines 60-64: interrogator is used as an alternative term for the RFID reader); (col. 12, lines 15-26: the interrogator reads any information stored in the tag and stores the information in a memory of the interrogator); (col. 12, lines 42-46: the information stored by the interrogator, which is collected from the scanning operations, is relayed using wireless communication techniques).
Brown does not explicitly teach tracking the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag. However, Zacharenko teaches the following:
Tracking the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, based on additional RFID signals received from the RFID tag. (¶ [0044]: RFID beacons/tags/sensors may be affixed and associated with individual shipments/items); (¶ [0056]: the location of a shipment/item may be collected and stored by a computing device, where the information may be received as automated input – e.g., via beacons on the shipments/items. The location information may indicate the location of the shipment/item inside a vehicle. The location information can be stored as tracking data and used to indicate the location of the shipment within the vehicle); (¶ [0057]: this type of tracking may be fully automated using beacons/tags/sensors associated with the shipments/items. The location information may be updated continuously, regularly, periodically, based on triggers, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to track the location of an asset within the interior of the vehicle, based on additional RFID signals received from an RFID tag, as taught by Zacharenko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Zacharenko are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain information from RFID tags affixed to items being transported in a vehicle.
Claim 13: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Brown teaches the following:
Comparing the RFID identifier to a received manifest; Determining that the asset was erroneously loaded onto the vehicle based on the RFID identifier not being included in the received manifest; (Abstract: the system is configured to compare the information transmitted from the identity RFID tag with expected vehicle information for the item loaded on the vehicle. An alarm condition may be generated if the results of the comparison indicate that the item is loaded on a vehicle other than that which was expected); (col. 7, lines 22-27: the expected vehicle information may be received from the RFID tag, from a database, or from another system/location)
Notifying a user that the asset was erroneously loaded, within a threshold period of time from when the user began loading the vehicle with the asset. (Abstract: see above); (col. 15, lines 39-45: if the comparison reveals that the item has been placed onboard the wrong vehicle, the alarm condition is subsequently triggered. The alarm condition may involve notifying handlers to remove the improperly loaded item).
Claim 22: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 19. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Zacharenko does teach, the following:
Detecting that the asset has moved from a first location inside of the vehicle to a second location inside of the vehicle based on the additional received RFID signals from the RFID tag. (¶ [0044]: RFID beacons/tags/sensors may be affixed and associated with individual shipments/items); (¶ [0056]: the location of a shipment/item may be collected and stored by a computing device, where the information may be received as automated input – e.g., via RFID beacons on the shipments/items. The location information may be detailed or general. For example, the location information may indicate the precise location of the shipment/item inside a vehicle/tractor/trailer– such as five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. The location information can be stored as tracking data and used to indicate the location of the shipment within the vehicle); (¶ [0057]: this type of tracking may be fully automated using beacons/tags/sensors associated with the shipments/items. The location information may be updated continuously, regularly, periodically, based on triggers, etc.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of Zacharenko is configured to continuously track the precise location of individual shipments within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via RFID beacons/tags affixed to the shipments. For example, the system may detect that the shipment/item is located five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system is configured and capable to detect when a shipment has moved from one location to another location within the vehicle based on received RFID signals from an RFID tag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to continuously detect a detailed location of a shipment within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via an RFID beacon/tag affixed to the shipment, as taught by Zacharenko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Zacharenko are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect data associated with RFID tags affixed to items within a vehicle.
Claim 23: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 19. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Zacharenko does teach, the following:
Detecting that the asset has moved from a cargo area to a driver’s cabin. (¶ [0044]: RFID beacons/tags/sensors may be affixed and associated with individual shipments/items); (¶ [0056]: the location of a shipment/item may be collected and stored by a computing device, where the information may be received as automated input – e.g., via RFID beacons on the shipments/items. The location information may be detailed or general. For example, the location information may indicate the precise location of the shipment/item inside a vehicle/tractor/trailer– such as five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. The location information can be stored as tracking data and used to indicate the location of the shipment within the vehicle); (¶ [0057]: this type of tracking may be fully automated using beacons/tags/sensors associated with the shipments/items. The location information may be updated continuously, regularly, periodically, based on triggers, etc.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of Zacharenko is configured to continuously track the precise location of individual shipments within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via RFID beacons/tags affixed to the shipments. For example, the system may detect that the shipment/item is located five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system is configured and capable to detect when a shipment has moved from a cargo area to a driver’s cabin because the cargo area and driver’s cabin are analogous to the trailer and tractor in which the detailed location of shipments may be tracked by the system of Zacharenko.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to continuously detect a detailed location of a shipment within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via an RFID beacon/tag affixed to the shipment, as taught by Zacharenko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Zacharenko are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect data associated with RFID tags affixed to items within a vehicle.
Claim 24: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 19. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Zacharenko does teach, the following:
Detecting that the asset has moved from a driver’s cabin to a cargo area. (¶ [0044]: RFID beacons/tags/sensors may be affixed and associated with individual shipments/items); (¶ [0056]: the location of a shipment/item may be collected and stored by a computing device, where the information may be received as automated input – e.g., via RFID beacons on the shipments/items. The location information may be detailed or general. For example, the location information may indicate the precise location of the shipment/item inside a vehicle/tractor/trailer– such as five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. The location information can be stored as tracking data and used to indicate the location of the shipment within the vehicle); (¶ [0057]: this type of tracking may be fully automated using beacons/tags/sensors associated with the shipments/items. The location information may be updated continuously, regularly, periodically, based on triggers, etc.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of Zacharenko is configured to continuously track the precise location of individual shipments within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via RFID beacons/tags affixed to the shipments. For example, the system may detect that the shipment/item is located five linear feet from the door on the left side of the trailer. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system is configured and capable to detect when a shipment has moved from a driver’s cabin to a cargo area because the cargo area and driver’s cabin are analogous to the trailer and tractor in which the detailed location of shipments may be tracked by the system of Zacharenko.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to continuously detect a detailed location of a shipment within a vehicle/tractor/trailer via an RFID beacon/tag affixed to the shipment, as taught by Zacharenko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Zacharenko are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect data associated with RFID tags affixed to items within a vehicle.
Claim 25: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Zacharenko teaches the following:
Receiving an inquiry on the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, and sending location data corresponding to the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, in response. (¶ [0056]: see above); (¶ [0057]: an appropriate computing entity may generate and transmit signal/communications to the central computing entity to initiate the process of updating the location of the shipment/item as being the corresponding location of the corresponding beacon. The location of each shipment can be updated and stored in a tracking database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to receive an inquiry on the location of the asset within the interior of a vehicle, and send location data corresponding to the location of the asset within the interior of the vehicle, in response, as taught by Zacharenko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Zacharenko are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect data associated with RFID tags affixed to items within a vehicle.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Bianculli et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0055289, hereafter known as Bianculli.
Claim 12: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Bianculli does teach, the following:
The determining that the asset is being loaded onto the vehicle further comprising detecting a trajectory of the asset corresponding to entry into the vehicle based on received signal strength of the received RFID signal associated with the RFID tag. (¶ [0023]: a trigger sensor, such as an RFID reader, can be disposed at a doorway to the storage container of a vehicle. The RFID reader can include a directional reader configured to detect RFI tags affixed to items as the items pass through the doorway, as well as detect the direction in which the RFID tags are traveling, i.e., whether an RFID tag is entering or exiting the vehicle); (¶ [0034]: the RFID tag is configured to transmit information to the reader upon interrogation by the reader as the RFID tag crosses the doorway).
Thus, the trigger sensor (i.e., RFID reader) is configured to detect/interrogate the RFID tag when it is proximate/crossing the doorway where the trigger sensor is installed, and is further configured to determine the direction that the RFID tag using a directional reader. This indicates that the RFID reader makes the determination based on the received signal strength of the RFID signal associated with the RFID tag, because the disclosed RFID reader can only detect the RFID tags as they pass through a particular area (i.e., the doorway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to determine if an asset is being loaded onto a vehicle based on detecting a trajectory of the asset corresponding to entry into the vehicle based on received signal strength of a received RFID signal associated with an RFID tag, as taught by Bianculli, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Bianculli are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain information from RFID tags affixed to items being transported in a vehicle.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Ward et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,217,075, hereafter known as Ward.
Claim 14: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Ward does teach, the following:
Wherein the notifying the user comprises activating an indicator of the vehicle. (col. 2, lines 55-57: a gateway device may be inside a truck); (col. 16, lines 39-45: the gateway can detect when a wrong container is loaded onto a vehicle); (col. 16, lines 50-57: the system may also use an RFID portal which reads RFID tags, where the RFID portal can read the tag information as containers are loaded into the vehicle); (col. 17, lines 1-7: the gateway may use a light or audio speaker to inform an associated that the incorrect container is being moved into the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to notify a user by activating an indicator of a vehicle, as taught by Ward, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose to further provide “feedback to the loading associate to remedy the error” (col. 16, lines 66-67) when a wrong container is loaded onto a vehicle, as suggested by Ward. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Ward are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to provide users with notifications when a container is erroneously loaded onto a vehicle.
Claim 15: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Ward does teach, the following:
Wherein the notifying the user comprises sending a notification or message to a client device associated with the user. (col. 2, lines 55-57: a gateway device may be inside a truck); (col. 16, lines 39-45: the gateway can detect when a wrong container is loaded onto a vehicle); (col. 16, lines 50-57: the system may also use an RFID portal which reads RFID tags, where the RFID portal can read the tag information as containers are loaded into the vehicle); (col. 17, lines 1-7: the gateway may inform the system that the wrong container is being moved, and corresponding feedback may be provided to a mobile device carried by the associated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to notify a user by sending a notification to a client device associated with the user, as taught by Ward, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose to further provide “feedback to the loading associate to remedy the error” (col. 16, lines 66-67) when a wrong container is loaded onto a vehicle, as suggested by Ward. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Ward are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to provide users with notifications when a container is erroneously loaded onto a vehicle.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Schoening U.S. Publication No. 2019/0303848, hereafter known as Schoening.
Claim 16: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Schoening does teach, the following:
Further comprising responsive to the asset not being removed from the vehicle after notifying the user, communicating with a server to update a database on the asset being located on the vehicle. (¶ [0063]: system may display an error message to a forklift operator indicating that an incorrect product has been placed in a bay/vehicle. If the forklift operator ignores the incorrect product error message, the system will not print the final paperwork necessary for the truck driver to complete his load); (¶ [0065]: the system automatically updates information about a particular product/package in a database when the product is moved around. Incorrect location information corresponding to the product may be stored in the database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to communicate with a server to update a database on the asset being located on the vehicle in response to the asset not being removed from the vehicle after notifying the user, as taught by Schoening, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Schoening are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect the incorrect placement of a package in a vehicle.
Claim 17: Brown/Zacharenko/Schoening teaches the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Schoening does teach, the following:
Performing at least one of: cancelling a shipment […]; (¶ [0063]: system may display an error message to a forklift operator indicating that an incorrect product has been placed in a bay/vehicle. If the forklift operator ignores the incorrect product error message, the system will not print the final paperwork necessary for the truck driver to complete his load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to cancel a shipment, as taught by Schoening, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Schoening are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to detect the incorrect placement of a package in a vehicle.
Claims 18 -19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Burch et al. U.S. Publication No. 2016/0239795, hereafter known as Burch.
Claim 18: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 11. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Burch does teach, the following:
Wherein receiving data indicative of a potential load status of assets in the vehicle further comprises receiving sensor data that corresponds to a user entering or exiting the vehicle. (¶ [0130]: a method for automatically quantifying space within a container using a scanning sensor node disposed within the container. The method begins if an initiating condition is detected); (¶ [0131]: the initiating condition reflects an anticipated change within the container, such as detecting a loading/unloading operation based on detected movement of logistics personnel within the container); (¶ [0004]: the container is loaded with items and transported to a destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to receive data indicative of a potential load status of assets in the vehicle which comprises receiving sensor data that corresponds to a user entering or exiting the vehicle, as taught by Burch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Burch are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to capture sensor data within a vehicle via sensors disposed within the vehicle.
Claim 19: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 18. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Burch does teach, the following:
Further comprising detecting the opening or closing of a door of the vehicle. (¶ [0130]: a method for automatically quantifying space within a container using a scanning sensor node disposed within the container. The method begins if an initiating condition is detected); (¶ [0131]: the initiating condition reflects an anticipated change within the container, such as detecting the container door being opened); (¶ [0004]: the container is loaded with items and transported to a destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to detect the opening or closing of a door of the vehicle, as taught by Burch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Burch are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to capture sensor data within a vehicle via sensors disposed within the vehicle.
Claim 21: Brown/Zacharenko/Burch teaches the limitations of claim 19. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Burch does teach, the following:
Wherein the door is a door leading from the outside of the vehicle to an interior of the vehicle. (¶ [0130]: a method for automatically quantifying space within a container using a scanning sensor node disposed within the container. The method begins if an initiating condition is detected); (¶ [0131]: the initiating condition reflects an anticipated change within the container, such as detecting the container door being opened); (¶ [0004]: the container is loaded with items and transported to a destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to detect the opening or closing of a door of a vehicle that leads from the outside of the vehicle to the interior of the vehicle, as taught by Burch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Burch are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to capture sensor data within a vehicle via sensors disposed within the vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Burch, in further view of Kanaoka et al U.S. Publication No. 2019/0205831, hereafter known as Kanaoka.
Claim 20: Brown/Zacharenko/Burch teaches the limitations of claim 19. Brown does not explicitly teach, however Kanaoka does teach, the following:
Wherein the door is a door leading from a driver’s cabin to a cargo storage area of the vehicle. (¶ [0062]: a door of the vehicle cabin or package room of the vehicle may be unlocked); (¶ [0168]: the vehicle cabin and package room may not be separated, such that when a vehicle door is opened, a recorder captures a video of the inside to determine whether or not there is an intrusion).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vehicle in the system of Kanaoka may have a door for both the cabin and the package room of the vehicle- or the cabin and package room may not be separated within the vehicle. As such, a door to the cabin of the vehicle may be considered a door that is leading from the driver’s cabin to a cargo storage area of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown/Burch the ability to detect the opening of a door leading from a driver’s cabin to a cargo storage area of the vehicle, as taught by Kanaoka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Kanaoka are compatible with the system of Brown/Burch as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to capture sensor data within a vehicle upon opening a door of the vehicle.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zacharenko, in further view of Burch, in further view of Dhanjal et al U.S. Publication No. 2007/0164862, hereafter known as Dhanjal.
Claim 26: Brown/Zacharenko teaches the limitations of claim 25. Furthermore, Brown does not explicitly teach, however Dhanjal does teach, the following:
Wherein the location data comprises a rack identifier corresponding to a location on a rack in the vehicle that is holding the asset. (¶ [0033]: racks may be placed within a conveyance, e.g., carrier, truck, or rail car); (Abstract: an electronic method for monitoring the location of a container and products contained in the container. The method involves placing an ID tag encoded with a container ID on the container, associating the one or more products with the container ID, and tracking the location of the containers based on the ID tag); (¶ [0029]: the ID tag can be used to uniquely identify a particular rack container, such as a metal rack. The ID tag may be encoded with the rack container ID and rack characteristics, such as target locations); (¶ [0016]: one or more products are associated with the container ID. The location of the container is tracked via RF interrogators capable of reading the RFID tags on the containers/racks); (¶ [0044]: the RFID scanner can scan the RFID tag and transmit the data encoded on the tag to a computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Brown the ability to receive location data comprising a rack identifier corresponding to a location on a rack in the vehicle that is holding the asset, as taught by Dhanjal, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Dhanjal are compatible with the system of Brown as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to collect and decode RFID sensor data from tags affixed to objects being transported by a vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628