DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. Although the same art was used to reject some of the claims, a new figure and new sections of the art were cited.
These new citations are considered to teach what the applicant argues that the art lacks.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ of 11/25/25, 02/24/26, and 04/13/26 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/01/23 and 05/17/23 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
In view of the applicant’s 11/25/25 response and amendments, claims 1-20 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Under step 2A, prong two, the amended limitations to independent claims 1, 12, and 16 effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather than generically outputting a data processing result on a display, the applicant has given further detail as to how a physical output unit of a notification device installed on a physical container is activated, as a result of a value crossing a threshold.
The examiner considered whether this was merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the examiner noted the “problem” stated in paragraph 0002 of the applicant’s original specification, where “Defense customers need immediate ‘mission centric’ feedback to determine the system’s relative readiness for a mission at a point in time.” Here, the activation of a result on the physical output unit appears to be “core” to the solution that the applicant is trying to achieve, rather than a tangential byproduct of computer processing.
The examiner considered the amended claims, as a whole, and determined that the amendments offered sufficient detail to be indicative of integration into a practical application. This decision was also made in light of the fact that the claims do not explicitly disclose any mathematical formulas or equations.
Examiner’s Note - Double Patenting
In the applicant’s 11/25/25 response, the applicant made the following comments, with respect to the previous double patenting rejection: “The undersigned submits that, as this is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection due to neither application having issued, the double patenting rejection should be held in abeyance. The undersigned will address this issue in due course should co-pending Application No. 18/176775 issue as a patent.”
The examiner will give further consideration to the status of a potential double patenting rejection if/when this application is in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gullo et al (US PgPub 20210062764).
With respect to claim 1, Gullo et al discloses:
A method for use in a computing device (paragraph 0048 states, “Referring again to FIG. 3A, in this example the effector health monitor system 314 further includes a communication hub 322 in communication with each of the sensors … the communication hub 322 wirelessly communicates with one or more assessment tools including, but not limited to, a separate device such as a processor, computer, smart phone, tablet computer, lap top, service module, mobile phone or the like having the failure identification module (and optional failure model generation module) therein ...”; see also paragraphs 0071, 0086, and 0164 for further computer teachings. The title of Gullo is, “Effector Health Monitor System and Methods for Same.”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a monitoring device, a first value of a first parameter, the first value being generated by the monitoring device, the monitoring device arranged to monitor a respective monitored system (abstract states, “The effector health monitor system includes a characteristic sensor suite including at least first and second characteristic sensors.”; paragraph 0010 states, “the monitor system includes a communication hub that interfaces with the characteristic sensor suite (including one or more Category 1 and 2 sensors) and is configured to receive and communicate each of the failure characteristic measurements (including plural characteristics) and at least one environmental characteristic measurements ( also including plural characteristics) … This data is accumulated from various environmental stress parameters (e.g., measured environmental characteristics) and design parameters …”; The values measured by the sensors anticipate the claimed “first value of a first parameter.”)
the respective monitored system comprising an asset, the monitoring device installed at least one of in and on a physical container housing the respective monitored system (figure 8; paragraphs 0084-0086 state, “FIG. 8 shows one example of an effector storage housing 800 … The effector health monitor system 808 is, in various examples, a component of one or more of the effector health monitor systems 314, 714, previously described herein and associated with an effector 100 shown … The access module 810 provided along the effector storage housing 800 optionally includes one or more components of the effector health monitor systems 314, 714 described herein including, but not limited to, one or more of a failure identification module, failure model generation module or both …”)
With respect to claim 1, Gullo et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
retrieving, from a memory, a first threshold that is associated with the first parameter and the asset
generating a first system condition alert by activating a physical output unit of a notification device installed on the physical container, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the first value has crossed the first threshold, the physical output unit providing immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time
With respect to claim 1, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Gullo et al:
retrieving, from a memory, a first threshold that is associated with the first parameter and the asset (Gullo et al teaches memory (paragraphs 0048, 0072, and 0164). Gullo et al also teaches using a threshold that is associated with the parameters and monitored system (abstract; paragraphs 0010, 0047, 0052, 0059, 0060, 0087, 0126, 0145, and 0154). Gullo et al does not explicitly disclose retrieving the first threshold from memory. However, this is an obvious data processing step, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, from the total teachings of Gullo et al, that the threshold data can be stored in and retrieved from memory. Paragraph 0047 of Gullo et al discloses that the failure models can include threshold values or the like. Paragraph 0048 follows this paragraph by stating that “the communication hub 322 includes one or more processors, memory or the like to accordingly identify failure event, log environmental characteristics and generate (or refine) the failure model.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these broad teachings to imply that the data associated with the failure model, such as the threshold data, could be processed by various computer components, such as processors or memory.)
generating a first system condition alert by activating a physical output unit of a notification device installed on the physical container, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the first value has crossed the first threshold, the physical output unit providing immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time (Alerts are taught in paragraphs 0064, 0072, 0086, and 0108 of Gullo et al, in response to identified failure events. Paragraph 0072 also discloses “audible alert, visual alert or the like.” Paragraph 0086 states, “In still another example, the failure module 810 provides one or more displays or other output devices configured to facilitate observation or alerting … Stated another way, if one or a plurality of effectors 100 are stored in the effector storage housings 800 or consolidated in a larger container, the access module 810, in one example, provides ready access to the unique environmental characteristics measured by each of the effector health monitor systems, identified failure events, failure models associated with each of the effectors … the effector health monitor systems 714 and 314 described herein and the optionally access module 810 provide ready access to one or more of the logged environmental or failure characteristic measurements, identified failure events, failure models or the like stored with the effector health monitor systems.” Although the word “threshold” is not used in these paragraphs, Gullo et al teaches, in other areas, that the identified failure events, are based on thresholds. For example, paragraph 0060 states, “The failure identification module 324 identifies a failure event based on comparison of the stress or strain measurements with one or more thresholds ( e.g., one or more thresholds for stress/strain spikes, unpredicted rises, falls or the like).” The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the total teachings of Gullo et al.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of using computer components, such as memory, to store and process data that is relevant to potential failure events and to also alert a user of potential failure events.
With respect to claim 5, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the first parameter includes at least one of vibration, acceleration, humidity, pressure, and temperature, and the computing device includes one of a scanning device and/or a data assessment system (figures 10-11 and 13-14 disclose a stress input of “Temp, Delta Temp, Pressure, Delta Pressure, Humidity, Shock, Vibration).” See table between paragraphs 0009 and 0010 and paragraph 0011, which states, “An effector that includes an example effector health monitor system with a characteristic sensor suite including one or more environmental sensors that perform ongoing measurements such as temperature, pressure, humidity, vibration, or shock …”; paragraphs 0004, 0006, and 0048 disclose assessment.)
With respect to claim 6, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the respective monitored system includes one of a missile, an aircraft, a watercraft, a radar, or a combat electronics system (paragraph 0003 states, “Effectors include one or more of rockets, missiles or the like …”)
With respect to claim 11, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
receiving a second value of a second parameter, the second value being received at the computing device from the monitoring device (paragraph 0052 states, “For instance, in one example, the failure identification module 324 includes a series of thresholds (e.g., one or more of pressure, temperature, stress or strain, polymer aging thresholds, changes of the same, rates of change of the same or the like) to identify failure events.”)
retrieving a second threshold that is associated with the second parameter and the respective monitored system (obvious for the same reasons given in claim 1 above, with respect to retrieving a first threshold)
generating a second system condition alert when the second value has crossed the second threshold (obvious for the same reasons given in claim 1 above, with respect to generating a first system condition alert)
With respect to claim 12, Gullo et al discloses:
A system (abstract discloses “an effector health monitor system”)
a memory (paragraphs 0048, 0072, and 0164)
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory (paragraphs 0048 and 0072), the at least one processor being configured to perform operations that include:
receiving a first value of a first parameter, the first value being received from a monitoring device that is arranged to monitor a respective monitored system (abstract states, “The effector health monitor system includes a characteristic sensor suite including at least first and second characteristic sensors.”; paragraph 0010 states, “the monitor system includes a communication hub that interfaces with the characteristic sensor suite (including one or more Category 1 and 2 sensors) and is configured to receive and communicate each of the failure characteristic measurements (including plural characteristics) and at least one environmental characteristic measurements ( also including plural characteristics) … This data is accumulated from various environmental stress parameters (e.g., measured environmental characteristics) and design parameters …”; The values measured by the sensors anticipate the claimed “first value of a first parameter.”), the respective monitored system comprising an asset, the monitoring device installed at least one of in and on a physical container housing the asset (paragraphs 0084-0086)
With respect to claim 12, Gullo et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
retrieving, from the memory, a first threshold that is associated with the first parameter and the asset
and returning a first system condition alert by activating a physical output unit of a notification device installed on the physical container, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the first value has crossed the first threshold, the physical output unit configured to provide immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time
With respect to claim 12, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Gullo et al.
retrieving, from the memory, a first threshold that is associated with the first parameter and the asset (Gullo et al teaches memory (paragraphs 0048, 0072, and 0164). Gullo et al also teaches using a threshold that is associated with the parameters and monitored system (abstract; paragraphs 0010, 0047, 0052, 0059, 0060, 0087, 0126, 0145, and 0154). Gullo et al does not explicitly disclose retrieving the first threshold from memory. However, this is an obvious data processing step, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, from the total teachings of Gullo et al, that the threshold data can be stored in and retrieved from memory. Paragraph 0047 of Gullo et al discloses that the failure models can include threshold values or the like. Paragraph 0048 follows this paragraph by stating that “the communication hub 322 includes one or more processors, memory or the like to accordingly identify failure event, log environmental characteristics and generate (or refine) the failure model.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these broad teachings to imply that the data associated with the failure model, such as the threshold data, could be processed by various computer components, such as processors or memory.)
and returning a first system condition alert by activating a physical output unit of a notification device installed on the physical container, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the first value has crossed the first threshold, the physical output unit configured to provide immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time (Alerts are taught in paragraphs 0064, 0072, 0086, and 0108 of Gullo et al, in response to identified failure events. Paragraph 0072 also discloses “audible alert, visual alert or the like.” Paragraph 0086 states, “In still another example, the failure module 810 provides one or more displays or other output devices configured to facilitate observation or alerting … Stated another way, if one or a plurality of effectors 100 are stored in the effector storage housings 800 or consolidated in a larger container, the access module 810, in one example, provides ready access to the unique environmental characteristics measured by each of the effector health monitor systems, identified failure events, failure models associated with each of the effectors … the effector health monitor systems 714 and 314 described herein and the optionally access module 810 provide ready access to one or more of the logged environmental or failure characteristic measurements, identified failure events, failure models or the like stored with the effector health monitor systems.” Although the word “threshold” is not used in these paragraphs, Gullo et al teaches, in other areas, that the identified failure events, are based on thresholds. For example, paragraph 0060 states, “The failure identification module 324 identifies a failure event based on comparison of the stress or strain measurements with one or more thresholds ( e.g., one or more thresholds for stress/strain spikes, unpredicted rises, falls or the like).” The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the total teachings of Gullo et al.)
With respect to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of using computer components, such as memory, to store and process data that is relevant to potential failure events and to also alert a user of potential failure events.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-10, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gullo et al (US PgPub 20210062764) in view of O’Malley (US Pat 9710836).
With respect to claim 2, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 2, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising receiving a user input specifying the first threshold, and storing the first threshold in the memory, wherein the generating the first system condition alert includes: identifying a current mission requirement of the monitoring device or a platform carrying the monitoring device, identifying one or more recipients based on the current mission requirement, and transmitting the first system condition alert to the identified recipients
With respect to claim 2, O’Malley discloses:
further comprising receiving a user input specifying the first threshold (figure 4b, reference 402; column 36, lines 34-42 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, the first user input may comprises and/or contains a plurality of inputs from the list of scored criteria/fitness/threshold …”)
and storing the first threshold in the memory (obvious for reasons discussed in claim 1 above)
wherein the generating the first system condition alert includes: identifying a current mission requirement of the monitoring device or a platform carrying the monitoring device (figure 20, reference 510; figure 33a, reference 416; figure 39; figure 41, reference 467; column 80, lines 3-23 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, preferably the system would preferably analyze the data and data/content in a mission and/or document, say for/from a training exercise, and calculate the anticipated resource requirements (e.g. weapons, actors, ammunition) and display a list of requirements dependent on a range of factors … to display a list of options, resources, and/or the like, along with the associated missioned outcomes …”)
identifying one or more recipients based on the current mission requirement (figure 13 shows flowchart of members’ roles and permissions; column 69, lines 19-34; column 80, lines 3-8 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, preferably the system would preferably analyze the data and data/content in a mission and/or document, say for/from a training exercise, and calculate the anticipated resource requirements (e.g. weapons, actors, ammunition) and display a list of requirements dependent on a range of factors.”)
and transmitting the first system condition alert to the identified recipients (figure 35, reference 1438 states, “Notify Appropriate Members with the Appropriate Information.”; column 37, lines 36-49 state, “the SWARMER System could display what particular information/data generated the ascertained, discerned, and/or relatively perceived concern, issue, event, and/or the like … additional data or data analysis may reveal a situation that was not apparent previously and notify/alert the appropriate parties/actors/participants.”)
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 3, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 3, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first system condition alert includes at least one of an identifier of a current mission requirement, the first value of the first parameter, and the first threshold
With respect to claim 3, O’Malley discloses:
wherein the first system condition alert includes at least one of an identifier of a current mission requirement, the first value of the first parameter, and the first threshold (column 12, lines 29-41, state, “Of primary interest is its capability of synchronizing an aiming location of a weapon … of mapping and locating mechanical and anatomical features; of aiming location and navigating tools to pre-identified locations, targets and/or the like; of providing instantaneous feedback; and of facilitating the delivery of alerts, remedies, and/or the like …”; see also column 7, lines 38-44; O’Malley further teaches “identifying” and “identification” throughout its disclosure.)
With respect to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 4, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 4, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first threshold is retrieved from a database that stores a plurality of thresholds for the first parameter, each of the plurality of thresholds being associated with a different type of monitored system, the method further comprising receiving user input specifying a budget for a system condition of one of monitored system types, and scaling the plurality of thresholds in response to the user input
With respect to claim 4, O’Malley discloses:
wherein the first threshold is retrieved from a database that stores a plurality of thresholds for the first parameter (figure 6, reference 323 shows various databases; figure 33a, reference 418 shows “SWARMER updates &/or synchronizes with all other appropriate databases, rules, conditions, thresholds, PINs/PACs, listes &/or the like …”; Figures 24a-24d are illustrative examples of database schema/table for collecting, parsing, indexing, and analyzing data retrieved from specific sensors.)
each of the plurality of thresholds being associated with a different type of monitored system (figure 33a, reference 418 shows “SWARMER updates &/or synchronizes with all other appropriate databases, rules, conditions, thresholds, PINs/PACs, listes &/or the like …”; column 17, lines 35-40 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, there would preferable be rules, logic, criteria, thresholds, and/or conditions where data input and/or output with the SWARMER system would become labeled …”; column 36, lines 3-17 and 34-48)
the method further comprising receiving user input specifying a budget for a system condition of one of monitored system types (column 90, lines 40-63 state, “ In various non-limiting embodiments, the current and/or historic data for financial, budget … Further, the system, methods, and/or user-selections may automatically, conditionally and/or specifically employ a particular actor, mission, budget, goal, timeline, and/or a segment of the data elements in the calculations and analysis …”)
and scaling the plurality of thresholds in response to the user input (column 36, lines 34-40 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, the first user input may comprises and/or contains a plurality of inputs from the list of scored criteria/fitness/threshold relatively compared against the scored criteria/fitness/threshold list score comprising a relative metric/continuum, scale, subgraph, graph, map, 3D object, and/or the like, for what is quantifiable, qualifiable, hyperbolic, and/or the like.”; column 40, lines 10-16 state, “Implementing, determining, and providing a relative input (e.g. scale …) …”)
With respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 7, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 7, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the respective monitored system is based on a combat platform, the method further comprising, receiving a user input identifying a mission for the combat platform, selecting a threshold value for the first threshold based on the mission, and setting the first threshold to equal the threshold value
With respect to claim 7, O’Malley discloses:
wherein the respective monitored system is based on a combat platform (column 4, lines 41-41 state, “There are several aspects to the present disclosure with three (3) core aspects. A first core aspect surrounds a system and associated methods (sometimes referred to as a "Strategic Weapon, Ammunition, & Reconnaissance Monitor, Evaluator & Researcher" System" (SWARMER) System) for improved tracking, assessing, and predicting of firearm sales and trends. A second core aspect surrounds the SWARMER System for monitoring, analyzing, and evaluating actual weapon and ammunition usage, say while in training, sport/competition, hunting, protection, combat, police work and/or the like.”)
the method further comprising, receiving a user input identifying a mission for the combat platform (column 36, lines 34-48; column 85, lines 18-29; and column 100, lines 27-46 disclose user input for a variety of data and situations. Figure 5, reference 602 discloses campaign / mission management. Figure 33a, reference 416 states, “SWARMER continually monitors data/inputs/stats (e.g. regarding the Ranked List, & user options, inputs, &/or the like ) to update Ranked List(s) per contest destination rules, user interactions …”)
selecting a threshold value for the first threshold based on the mission (figure 33b, reference 394 states, “SWARMER pulls any Account preferences … where rankings may be displayed based upon a pre-selected mission …”; column 53, lines 19-37 gives a practical example, where it states, “In various non-limiting embodiments, there would be additional threshold(s) and/or decisions for obtaining the marksman expert roles/status …” Based on the full and complete disclosure of O’Malley, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that for a mission that requires an expert marksman, there would be thresholds set for someone to qualify for the mission. This is just one example that would be suggested by the full and complete disclosure of O’Malley.)
and setting the first threshold to equal the threshold value (obvious in view of the full and complete threshold teachings of O’Malley, as discussed above)
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 8, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the mission for the combat platform is selected from a group including a standard operations mission, an emergency operations mission, and a lifecycle maintenance mission (obvious in view of O’Malley figure 16, reference 213, which states, “Request, Pull, &/or Determine Active Weapon Environment/Location Status (e.g. Location … Protection, Combat, Emergency, Other, Etc.”; column 88, lines 49-53 state, “Further, the system analysis may include data/content and/or data from a negotiation weapon purchase, training exercise, crime event/report, emergency event/report, medical event/report, crime event/report, court case, settlement and/or the like.”)
and selecting the threshold value for the first threshold, includes performing a search of a database based on an identifier of the mission to identify a threshold value that is mapped by the database to the identifier of the mission (obvious in view of broad and expansive teachings and applications of the SWARMER System disclosed by O’Malley, which discloses threshold, database, and mission, as discussed above.)
With respect to claim 9, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising selecting a recipient for the first system condition alert based on the mission for the combat platform, wherein generating the first system condition alert includes transmitting the first system condition alert to the selected recipient (O’Malley column 65, lines 24-33 state, “In one embodiment, the SWARMER Hub 100 sends and/or receives data and content files according to the IFS out in the field and/or per a specific shielded PIN address/location, encryption scheme, serial number …of the appropriate recipient/transceiver/client …”)
With respect to claim 10, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the respective monitored system includes a munition that is part of a plurality of munitions that are stored in a same case or pallet (obvious in view of the ammunition sensors disclosed in O’Malley figure 23a, which could track a plurality of munitions, regardless of whether they are in a same case or pallet; Column 80, lines 3-8 of O’Malley state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, preferably the system would preferably analyze the data and data/content in a mission and/or document … and calculate the anticipated resource requirements (e.g. weapons, actors, ammunition) and display a list of requirements dependent on a range of factors.” The claimed limitation would be obvious depending on the resource requirements for a specific mission.)
the method further comprising changing an availability rating for the plurality of munitions when the first value has crossed the first threshold (obvious in view of resource requirements, as discussed in the preceding limitation; Also, O’Malley discloses assessing resource availability (column 12, line 51).)
and leaving the availability rating unchanged when the first value has not crossed the first threshold (obvious in view of resource requirements, as discussed in a preceding limitation; Also, O’Malley discloses assessing resource availability (column 12, line 51).)
With respect to claim 13, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The system of claim 12 (as applied to claim 12 above)
With respect to claim 13, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the first threshold is retrieved from a database that stores a plurality of thresholds for the first parameter, each of the plurality of thresholds being associated with a different type of monitored system
and the at least one processor is further configured to perform the operations of receiving user input specifying a budget for a system condition of one of monitored system types, and scaling the plurality of thresholds in response to the user input
With respect to claim 13, O’Malley discloses:
wherein: the first threshold is retrieved from a database that stores a plurality of thresholds for the first parameter (figure 6, reference 323 shows various databases; figure 33a, reference 418 shows “SWARMER updates &/or synchronizes with all other appropriate databases, rules, conditions, thresholds, PINs/PACs, listes &/or the like …”; Figures 24a-24d are illustrative examples of database schema/table for collecting, parsing, indexing, and analyzing data retrieved from specific sensors.)
each of the plurality of thresholds being associated with a different type of monitored system (figure 33a, reference 418 shows “SWARMER updates &/or synchronizes with all other appropriate databases, rules, conditions, thresholds, PINs/PACs, listes &/or the like …”; column 17, lines 35-40 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, there would preferable be rules, logic, criteria, thresholds, and/or conditions where data input and/or output with the SWARMER system would become labeled …”; column 36, lines 3-17 and 34-48)
and the at least one processor is further configured to perform the operations of receiving user input specifying a budget for a system condition of one of monitored system types (column 90, lines 40-63 state, “ In various non-limiting embodiments, the current and/or historic data for financial, budget … Further, the system, methods, and/or user-selections may automatically, conditionally and/or specifically employ a particular actor, mission, budget, goal, timeline, and/or a segment of the data elements in the calculations and analysis …”)
and scaling the plurality of thresholds in response to the user input (column 36, lines 34-40 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, the first user input may comprises and/or contains a plurality of inputs from the list of scored criteria/fitness/threshold relatively compared against the scored criteria/fitness/threshold list score comprising a relative metric/continuum, scale, subgraph, graph, map, 3D object, and/or the like, for what is quantifiable, qualifiable, hyperbolic, and/or the like.”; column 40, lines 10-16 state, “Implementing, determining, and providing a relative input (e.g. scale …) …”)
With respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 14, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The system of claim 12 (as applied to claim 12 above)
With respect to claim 14, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the respective monitored system includes a built-in-test (BIT) subsystem, and returning the first system condition alert includes transmitting the first system condition alert to the BIT subsystem
With respect to claim 14, O’Malley discloses:
wherein the respective monitored system includes a built-in-test (BIT) subsystem, and returning the first system condition alert includes transmitting the first system condition alert to the BIT subsystem (Figure 26, reference 371 discloses, “Self-Test,” which is construed to anticipate the claimed built-in test subsystem. Column 22, lines 29-27 state, “Reference throughout this specification to ‘interrogate,’ broadly refers to a process of evaluating data using analytical and logical reasoning to test and address a value, to determine whether or not it is correct. In various embodiments, a reference to ‘interrogate,’ may also refer to information or data extraction.” Please also note paragraph 0070 of the applicant’s original Specification, which states, “in some implementations, the message may be transmitted to a built-in-test (BIT) subsystem of the monitored system … In this way the BIT system (already inherent in most systems) …” Here, it would appear that the applicant is admitting that a BIT system is well-known and well-understood in the art. Returning a system alert and transmitting a system condition alert to the BIT subsystem is obvious in view of modified Gullo et al. Returning alerts and transmitting alerts was addressed above.)
With respect to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 15, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
The system of claim 12 (as applied to claim 12 above)
With respect to claim 15, Gullo et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the respective monitored system includes a munition that is part of a plurality of munitions that are stored in a same case or pallet, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform the operation of changing an availability rating for the plurality of munitions when the first value has crossed the first threshold, and leaving the availability rating unchanged when the first value has not crossed the first threshold
With respect to claim 15, O’Malley discloses:
wherein the respective monitored system includes a munition that is part of a plurality of munitions that are stored in a same case or pallet, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform the operation of changing an availability rating for the plurality of munitions when the first value has crossed the first threshold, and leaving the availability rating unchanged when the first value has not crossed the first threshold (rejected on the same basis as claim 10 above)
With respect to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of modified Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 16, Gullo et al discloses:
A method (Title discloses “Effector Health Monitor System and Methods for Same)
a platform that is arranged to carry a monitored system, the monitored system comprising an asset (figure 8; paragraphs 0084-0086)
configuring at least one of a notification device installed on a physical container housing the asset (figure 8; paragraphs 0084-0086)
With respect to claim 16, Gullo et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining a mission identifier, the mission identifier specifying a mission for a platform that is arranged to carry a monitored system
selecting a threshold value for a threshold, the threshold corresponding to a monitored parameter of the asset, the threshold value being selected based on the mission identifier
and a data assessment system to generate an alert by activating a physical output unit of the notification device, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the monitored parameter has crossed the threshold value, the physical output unit providing immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time
With respect to claim 16, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Gullo et al:
and a data assessment system to generate an alert by activating a physical output unit of the notification device, the physical output unit comprising at least one of a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or a tactile indicator, activation of the physical output unit altering the notification device from an inactive state to an active alert state when the monitored parameter has crossed the threshold value, the physical output unit providing immediate, mission-centric feedback to determine readiness and health of the asset for a mission at a desired point in time (see rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of alerting a user of potential failure events.
With respect to claim 16, O’Malley discloses:
obtaining a mission identifier, the mission identifier specifying a mission for a platform that is arranged to carry a monitored system (figure 20, reference 510; figure 33a, reference 416; figure 39; figure 41, reference 467; column 80, lines 3-23 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, preferably the system would preferably analyze the data and data/content in a mission and/or document, say for/from a training exercise, and calculate the anticipated resource requirements (e.g. weapons, actors, ammunition) and display a list of requirements dependent on a range of factors … to display a list of options, resources, and/or the like, along with the associated missioned outcomes …”)
selecting a threshold value for a threshold, the threshold corresponding to a monitored parameter of the asset, the threshold value being selected based on the mission identifier (O’Malley figure 4b, reference 402; column 36, lines 34-42 state, “In various non-limiting embodiments, the first user input may comprises and/or contains a plurality of inputs from the list of scored criteria/fitness/threshold …” O’Malley discloses both threshold and mission, although it doesn’t disclose them in the same paragraph. However, please note figure 33a, references 416-418. Reference 416 discloses missions. Reference 417 discloses user input. Reference 418 discloses thresholds. This suggests the threshold value being selected based on the mission identifier. Also, as one illustrative example, please note, column 52, lines 29-37, which states, “In various non-limiting embodiments, the points may be based on such things as the point value associated with member … say a prominent member from such measurable success as targets hit per rounds fired, people/hostages rescued, mission accomplishments …” This shows a link between a mission or objective and a threshold that quantifies the success of that objective.)
With respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of O’Malley into the invention of Gullo et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of monitoring, analyzing, evaluation, scoring, and interrogating weapon and ammunition transactions, buyers, sellers, FFLs, actors/users, along with trends, storage, transporting, training, targeting, firing, and usage patterns.
With respect to claim 17, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein selecting the threshold value includes selecting a first threshold value when a first mission identifier is received and selecting a second threshold value when a second mission identifier is received (obvious in view of combination; O’Malley figure 33a, references 416-417; The mission data comes before the user input, and column 36, lines 34-48 disclose threshold data as a possible user input. It also discloses first and second user input – “In various non-limiting embodiments, the first user input may comprises and/or contains a plurality of inputs from the list of scored criteria/fitness/threshold … the inputs (e.g. the first and second input) …” Column 52, line 21 – column 53, line 37 discloses various roles/missions that are accompanied by varying thresholds to measure “success.”)
With respect to claim 18, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein receiving the mission identifier includes at least one of: (i) receiving user input specifying the mission identifier and/or (ii) executing a machine-learning engine to obtain the mission identifier (obvious in view of combination, for similar reasons as discussed above. Please also note O’Malley column 100, lines 27-46, which states, “In various non-limiting embodiments, a system and computer-implement method compromising, receiving a first user input, analyzing the first user input, generating a relative reliability score …”)
With respect to claim 19, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the mission identifier identifies a mission that is selected from a group including a standard operations mission, an emergency operations mission, and a lifecycle maintenance mission, and the platform includes a combat platform (obvious in view of combination; see O’Malley figure 16, reference 213, which states, “Request, Pull, &/or Determine Active Weapon Environment/Location Status (e.g. Location … Protection, Combat, Emergency, Other, Etc.”; column 88, lines 49-53 state, “Further, the system analysis may include data/content and/or data from a negotiation weapon purchase, training exercise, crime event/report, emergency event/report, medical event/report, crime event/report, court case, settlement and/or the like.”)
With respect to claim 20, Gullo et al, as modified, discloses:
receiving a parameter value, the parameter value being received from a monitoring device that is arranged to monitor a respective monitored system, the parameter value identifying at least one of vibration, pressure, temperature, or humidity that is experienced by the respective monitored system (obvious in view of combination; O’Malley figure 26, reference 350 discloses temperature sensors; column 12, line 58 and column 13, line 6 disclose “body temperature assessments.”)
detecting whether the parameter value has crossed the threshold value, returning a first maintenance alert when the parameter value has crossed the threshold value (obvious in view of combination; see expansive threshold and notification teachings of O’Malley, as discussed above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knapp et al (US PgPub 20140379173) discloses a controlled range and payload for unmanned vehicles, and associated systems and methods.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 04/19/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights