DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed December 23, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 for claims 1-20 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible as they recite the use of “a radio access node of the network,” that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a radio access node of the network,” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible as they improve the technical field of shipping services as they incorporate a virtual network function of a communication network. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a virtual network function of a communication network,” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f)..
The specific problem (contract validation) is not a problem specifically arising in the technical field of computer-implemented business methods. The fact that the performing of sensor data determination is executed on a networked system does not somehow automatically make problem unique to the realm of computer networks. The fact that the determinations are made by a generic computer processor does not somehow automatically make the solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. The instant claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment. This same problem would exist in non-computer environments, and the same solution would be appropriate – the claims here are merely detecting and receiving data. Stripped of the generic computer elements recited in the claims, the problem and solution would remain intact. Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-20 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues Tal does not explicitly disclose “determining, by the network equipment, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tal discloses receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor (Par. [0030], processor), via a radio access node (Par. [0063]) of a communication network (Par. [0039], network interface), a communication comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled device (Par. [0053], information sent from tracker/monitor to server; Par. [0049], [0050], sensor information communicated wirelessly from TMU) that is associated with a tangible asset being transported (Par. [0049], TMU and sensor placed in container for a shipped good).
Examiner notes: the claims “wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node;” require validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold. This is based on sensor data, contract data, and additional data from the radio access node. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “additional data from the radio access node” is understood as any additional data received from the radio access node and not data pertaining to the specific radio access node.
As such, Tal also discloses determining, by the network equipment, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract (Par. [0072], validity of sensor data is checked, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature), and additional data from the radio access node (Par. [0063], data obtained by sensors 426 related to ambient or other temperature, light exposure, pressure, humidity, acceleration, proximity, location from the GPS radio 414, as well as data received from remote units and/or commands received from a remote server (e.g., from server 326); Par. [0072], The smart contract (or a process based on the smart contract, also referred to herein as a smart contract process) may, in turn, check the validity of the data, based on a previously defined set of criteria and the process may perform an action based on the criteria).
As such, Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are drawn to a process, claims 8-14 are drawn to a device, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a product of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“determining, …, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node;” and
“in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract and a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, sending, …, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract …to improve a shipping service,”
“wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.”
Claim 8 recites/describes the following steps:
“determining, based on contract data corresponding to a contract associated with the tangible asset, …the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node;” and
“in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract and a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, sending, …, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract …to improve a shipping service,”
“wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.”
Claim 15 recites/describes the following steps:
“determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node;” and
“in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract and a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, sending, …, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract …to improve a shipping service,”
“wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining compliance with contract requirements based on sensor data and updating the contract based on the compliance determination, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “network equipment comprising a processor,” “a radio access node of a communication network,” “a radio-enabled device,” and “a system associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 1); “network equipment, comprising: a processor of a virtual network function of a communication network; and a memory,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “an Internet-enabled device,” and “a network device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 8); and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” “a processor of network equipment of a communication network,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “a radio-enabled sensor,” “a device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 15).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor, via a radio access node of a communication network, a communication comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 1); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a message comprising sensor data from an Internet-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 8); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a transmission comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled sensor that is attached to a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 15).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “network equipment comprising a processor,” “a radio access node of a communication network,” “a radio-enabled device,” and “a system associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 1); “network equipment, comprising: a processor of a virtual network function of a communication network; and a memory,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “an Internet-enabled device,” and “a network device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 8); and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” “a processor of network equipment of a communication network,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “a radio-enabled sensor,” “a device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited additional elements of “receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor, via a radio access node of a communication network, a communication comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 1); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a message comprising sensor data from an Internet-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 8); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a transmission comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled sensor that is attached to a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 15), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “network equipment comprising a processor,” “a radio access node of a communication network,” “a radio-enabled device,” and “a system associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 1); “network equipment, comprising: a processor of a virtual network function of a communication network; and a memory,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “an Internet-enabled device,” and “a network device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 8); and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” “a processor of network equipment of a communication network,” “a radio access node of the communication network,” “a radio-enabled sensor,” “a device associated with a party of the contract,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the recited additional elements of “receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor, via a radio access node of a communication network, a communication comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 1); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a message comprising sensor data from an Internet-enabled device that is associated with a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 8); “receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network, a transmission comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled sensor that is attached to a tangible asset being transported;” (claim 15), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal et al. (US 2018/0220278 A1), hereinafter Tal, in view of Schmeling et al. (US 2018/0096175 A1), hereinafter Schmeling.
Regarding claim 1, Tal discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor (Par. [0030], processor), via a radio access node (Par. [0063]) of a communication network (Par. [0039], network interface), a communication comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled device (Par. [0053], information sent from tracker/monitor to server; Par. [0049], [0050], sensor information communicated wirelessly from TMU) that is associated with a tangible asset being transported (Par. [0049], TMU and sensor placed in container for a shipped good); [Examiner notes: the claims “wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data, and additional data from the radio access node;” require validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold. This is based on sensor data, contract data, and additional data from the radio access node. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “additional data from the radio access node” is understood as any additional data received from the radio access node and not data pertaining to the specific radio access node.]
determining, by the network equipment, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract (Par. [0072], validity of sensor data is checked, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature), and additional data from the radio access node (Par. [0063], data obtained by sensors 426 related to ambient or other temperature, light exposure, pressure, humidity, acceleration, proximity, location from the GPS radio 414, as well as data received from remote units and/or commands received from a remote server (e.g., from server 326); Par. [0072], The smart contract (or a process based on the smart contract, also referred to herein as a smart contract process) may, in turn, check the validity of the data, based on a previously defined set of criteria and the process may perform an action based on the criteria);
in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, sending, by the network equipment to a system associated with a party of the contract, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract (Par. [0072], If the detected temperature (as reported in the blockchain transaction) is out of bounds (as defined in the smart contract), the smart contract process may generate a penalty transaction to the shipper).
Tal does not explicitly disclose determining a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.
Schmeling teaches at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset (Par. [0124], verification can be done with integrated sensors that indicate changes or tampering to the package. These indications can be visual indications that recipients can inspect upon delivery, or they can be digitally recorded to the blockchain and verified in that manner, or both. The package can also utilize smart-contract technology (i.e. Ethereum, Hyperledger, or other smart-contract capability) to trigger actions based on these verification functions. In one example, the smart-contract will trigger notifications to both the sender and the recipient if tampering becomes evident at any point in transit. In another example, the smart-contract capabilities can rescind payment in the event of tampering or failure to verify package contents (i.e. payment in full is only delivered when the final package passes contents verification)).
The teachings of Schmeling are applicable to Tal as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to techniques for using sensors to monitor items in transit. It would have been obvious to one ordinary in the skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the technique of Schmeling to update contract data with the teachings of Tal as a need exists to improve the process of supplying products to consumers (Schmeling, Par. [0005]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of contract updates as taught in Schmeling for the contract updates as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Tal discloses wherein the communication is encrypted according to a first encryption standard (Par. [0046], a cellular component and antenna 304; See Par. [0027], cellular communications are communicated by LTE communication standards; Examiner note – Current application, Par. [0024], communication is encrypted, or otherwise protected, via one or more techniques indicated by mobile communications standards, e.g., LTE), and wherein the sensor data is encrypted according to a second encryption standard different from the first encryption standard (Par. [0050], TMU encrypts data collected from sensors and/or other data to produce an encrypted telemetry packet, different than LTE standards).
Regarding claim 7, Tal discloses wherein the first encryption standard is based on a communication standard of the communication network (Par. [0046], a cellular component and antenna 304; See Par. [0027], cellular communications are communicated by LTE communication standards; Examiner note – Current application, Par. [0024], communication is encrypted, or otherwise protected, via one or more techniques indicated by mobile communications standards, e.g., LTE), and wherein the second encryption standard is based on encryption information specified by the contract (Par. [0072], encrypted telemetry packet is sent to blockchain to verify data for the smart contract).
Regarding claim 8, Tal discloses a network equipment, comprising: a processor (Par. [0030], processor) of a virtual network function of a communication network (Par. [0064]); and a memory that stores executable instructions (Par. [0031], memory) that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving, via a radio access node (Par. [0063]) of the communication network (Par. [0039], network interface), a message comprising sensor data from an Internet-enabled device (Par. [0053], information sent from tracker/monitor to server; Par. [0049], [0050], sensor information communicated wirelessly) that is associated with a tangible asset being transported (Par. [0049], TMU and sensor placed in container for a shipped good);
determining, by the network equipment, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract (Par. [0072], validity of sensor data is checked, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature), and additional data from the radio access node (Par. [0063], data obtained by sensors 426 related to ambient or other temperature, light exposure, pressure, humidity, acceleration, proximity, location from the GPS radio 414, as well as data received from remote units and/or commands received from a remote server (e.g., from server 326); Par. [0072], The smart contract (or a process based on the smart contract, also referred to herein as a smart contract process) may, in turn, check the validity of the data, based on a previously defined set of criteria and the process may perform an action based on the criteria);
in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, sending, by the network equipment to a system associated with a party of the contract, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract (Par. [0072], If the detected temperature (as reported in the blockchain transaction) is out of bounds (as defined in the smart contract), the smart contract process may generate a penalty transaction to the shipper).
Tal does not explicitly disclose determining a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.
Schmeling teaches at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset (Par. [0124], verification can be done with integrated sensors that indicate changes or tampering to the package. These indications can be visual indications that recipients can inspect upon delivery, or they can be digitally recorded to the blockchain and verified in that manner, or both. The package can also utilize smart-contract technology (i.e. Ethereum, Hyperledger, or other smart-contract capability) to trigger actions based on these verification functions. In one example, the smart-contract will trigger notifications to both the sender and the recipient if tampering becomes evident at any point in transit. In another example, the smart-contract capabilities can rescind payment in the event of tampering or failure to verify package contents (i.e. payment in full is only delivered when the final package passes contents verification)).
The teachings of Schmeling are applicable to Tal as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to techniques for using sensors to monitor items in transit. It would have been obvious to one ordinary in the skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the technique of Schmeling to update contract data with the teachings of Tal as a need exists to improve the process of supplying products to consumers (Schmeling, Par. [0005]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of contract updates as taught in Schmeling for the contract updates as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Tal discloses wherein the message is encrypted according to a first encryption protocol (Par. [0046], a cellular component and antenna 304; See Par. [0027], cellular communications are communicated by LTE communication standards; Examiner note – Current application, Par. [0024], communication is encrypted, or otherwise protected, via one or more techniques indicated by mobile communications standards, e.g., LTE), and wherein the sensor data is encrypted according to a second encryption protocol different from the first encryption protocol (Par. [0050], TMU encrypts data collected from sensors and/or other data to produce an encrypted telemetry packet, different than LTE standards).
Regarding claim 14, Tal discloses wherein the first encryption protocol is based on an encryption standard of the communication network (Par. [0046], a cellular component and antenna 304; See Par. [0027], cellular communications are communicated by LTE communication standards; Examiner note – Current application, Par. [0024], communication is encrypted, or otherwise protected, via one or more techniques indicated by mobile communications standards, e.g., LTE), and wherein the second encryption protocol is based on encryption requirements represented in the contract data (Par. [0072], encrypted telemetry packet is sent to blockchain to verify data for the smart contract).
Regarding claim 15, Tal discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Par. [0031], memory), comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of network equipment of a communication network (Par. [0030], processor), facilitate performance of operations, comprising: receiving, via a radio access node of the communication network (Par. [0063]), a transmission comprising sensor data from a radio-enabled sensor (Par. [0053], information sent from tracker/monitor to server; Par. [0049], [0050], sensor information communicated wirelessly) that is attached to a tangible asset being transported (Par. [0049], TMU and sensor placed in container for a shipped good);
determining, by the network equipment, based on contract data representative of a contract applicable to the tangible asset, the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract (Par. [0072], validity of sensor data is checked, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold based on the sensor data, the contract data (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature), and additional data from the radio access node (Par. [0063], data obtained by sensors 426 related to ambient or other temperature, light exposure, pressure, humidity, acceleration, proximity, location from the GPS radio 414, as well as data received from remote units and/or commands received from a remote server (e.g., from server 326); Par. [0072], The smart contract (or a process based on the smart contract, also referred to herein as a smart contract process) may, in turn, check the validity of the data, based on a previously defined set of criteria and the process may perform an action based on the criteria);
in response to determining that the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract, sending, by the network equipment to a system associated with a party of the contract, updated contract data representative of at least one update made to the contract (Par. [0072], If the detected temperature (as reported in the blockchain transaction) is out of bounds (as defined in the smart contract), the smart contract process may generate a penalty transaction to the shipper).
Tal does not explicitly disclose determining a timestamp as to when the validating was performed, at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset.
Schmeling teaches at least one update made to the contract by the network equipment to improve a shipping service, wherein the updated contract data indicates at least one change to the contract comprising at least one of: a determination as to a shipment of a non-compliant tangible asset, a change in a delivery window of the tangible asset, a change in a payment of the tangible asset, or a determination as to a shipping of a replacement of the tangible asset (Par. [0124], verification can be done with integrated sensors that indicate changes or tampering to the package. These indications can be visual indications that recipients can inspect upon delivery, or they can be digitally recorded to the blockchain and verified in that manner, or both. The package can also utilize smart-contract technology (i.e. Ethereum, Hyperledger, or other smart-contract capability) to trigger actions based on these verification functions. In one example, the smart-contract will trigger notifications to both the sender and the recipient if tampering becomes evident at any point in transit. In another example, the smart-contract capabilities can rescind payment in the event of tampering or failure to verify package contents (i.e. payment in full is only delivered when the final package passes contents verification)).
The teachings of Schmeling are applicable to Tal as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to techniques for using sensors to monitor items in transit. It would have been obvious to one ordinary in the skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the technique of Schmeling to update contract data with the teachings of Tal as a need exists to improve the process of supplying products to consumers (Schmeling, Par. [0005]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of contract updates as taught in Schmeling for the contract updates as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Tal discloses wherein the transmission is encrypted using to a first encryption mechanism (Par. [0046], a cellular component and antenna 304; See Par. [0027], cellular communications are communicated by LTE communication standards; Examiner note – Current application, Par. [0024], communication is encrypted, or otherwise protected, via one or more techniques indicated by mobile communications standards, e.g., LTE), and wherein the sensor data is encrypted using a second encryption mechanism different from the first encryption mechanism (Par. [0050], TMU encrypts data collected from sensors and/or other data to produce an encrypted telemetry packet, different than LTE standards).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal (US 2018/0220278 A1) in view of Schmeling (US 2018/0096175 A1) and Powers et al. (US 2010/0326146 A1), hereinafter Powers.
Regarding claim 2, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset, and wherein the determining the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract comprises determining the weight does not meet at least one weight threshold of the at least one compliance threshold specified by the contract. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset (Par. [0042]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining weight as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked, and wherein the determining the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract comprises determining the locking status does not meet a security condition specified by the contract. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked (Par. [0166], that the lock is secured to the container but the sensors indicate a possible intrusion (e.g., the lock sensors indicate that the lock is locked..)). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining lock status as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset, and wherein the determining whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data comprises determining whether the weight satisfies at least one weight threshold represented in the contract data. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset (Par. [0042]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining weight as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked, and wherein the determining the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract comprises determining the locking status does not meet a security condition specified by the contract. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked (Par. [0166], that the lock is secured to the container but the sensors indicate a possible intrusion (e.g., the lock sensors indicate that the lock is locked..)). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining lock status as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset, and wherein the determining whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data comprises determining whether the weight meets at least one weight threshold in the contract data. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a weight of the tangible asset (Par. [0042]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining weight as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked, and wherein the determining the sensor data is not in compliance with the contract comprises determining the locking status does not meet a security condition specified by the contract. Tal discloses pressure sensors (Par. [0063]) and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract), and wherein the determining comprises validating that the sensor data is outside of at least one compliance threshold (Par. [0072], the smart contract process may check the temperature detected as reported in the blockchain transaction and compare it with a set of thresholds to determine whether or not temperature in a container used for shipping goods has exceeded a threshold temperature).
Powers teaches wherein the sensor data indicates a locking status of the tangible asset indicating whether a lock on the tangible asset is locked (Par. [0166], that the lock is secured to the container but the sensors indicate a possible intrusion (e.g., the lock sensors indicate that the lock is locked..)). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining lock status as taught in Powers for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal (US 2018/0220278 A1) in view of Schmeling (US 2018/0096175 A1) and Cella et al. (US 2018/0284758 A1), hereinafter Cella.
Regarding claim 3, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Cella teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition (Par. [1272], Weight or mass sensors can determine the continuous or changing weight of a component, and can be on coarse scale such as a weighing device for weighing large machinery down to an integrated MEMS scale that determines the continuous and instantaneous changes in weight of a target that may lose mass over time due to damage or abrasion or evaporation, sublimation, etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining evaporation as taught in Cella for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Cella teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition (Par. [1272], Weight or mass sensors can determine the continuous or changing weight of a component, and can be on coarse scale such as a weighing device for weighing large machinery down to an integrated MEMS scale that determines the continuous and instantaneous changes in weight of a target that may lose mass over time due to damage or abrasion or evaporation, sublimation, etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining evaporation as taught in Cella for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Cella teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential evaporation condition (Par. [1272], Weight or mass sensors can determine the continuous or changing weight of a component, and can be on coarse scale such as a weighing device for weighing large machinery down to an integrated MEMS scale that determines the continuous and instantaneous changes in weight of a target that may lose mass over time due to damage or abrasion or evaporation, sublimation, etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining evaporation as taught in Cella for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal (US 2018/0220278 A1) in view of Schmeling (US 2018/0096175 A1) and Mattingly et al. (US 2018/0114415 A1), hereinafter Mattingly.
Regarding claim 4, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Mattingly teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition (Par. [0048], For example , the system can detect weight changes due to loss of product ( partial or in full ) from damage , spillage , theft , removal for stocking , etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining theft as taught in Mattingly for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Mattingly teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition (Par. [0048], For example , the system can detect weight changes due to loss of product ( partial or in full ) from damage , spillage , theft , removal for stocking , etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining theft as taught in Mattingly for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Tal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition. Tal discloses sensors and determining, based on contract data associated with the tangible asset, whether the sensor data is in compliance with the contract data (Par. [0072], sensor data, such as temperature detected is compared with thresholds as defined in smart contract). Mattingly teaches where the at least one weight threshold comprises a weight threshold indicating a potential theft condition (Par. [0048], For example , the system can detect weight changes due to loss of product ( partial or in full ) from damage , spillage , theft , removal for stocking , etc.). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the sensor determining theft as taught in Mattingly for the sensor determining pressure as taught in Tal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights