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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in this application. No claims have been amended, cancelled, or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/02/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All prior art rejections are maintained for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant argues that the secondary prior art reference, Nagy is not analogous art an therefore the combination of references is improper. However, the Examiner maintains the Nagy is prior art and meets both prongs of the recited test for prior art as outlined by the Applicant. Regarding the first prong, Nagy is from the same field of endeavor as the proposed invention, which is of object tracking, so Nagy meets the first requirement to be considered analogous art. The Applicant’s suggestion that because the proposed invention is a projectile it is substantially different than the mobile wireless tracking device of Nagy is not accurate. The claimed projectile of claim 1 is not significantly more than an intended use of the device as the claims do not recite any language or detail that would be significantly different than a non-projectile object. Further, a projectile is not limited to a preferred embodiment, such as an arrow, as suggested by the Applicant. Therefore, the over limited interpretation of analogous art by the Applicant is improper, and the Examiner maintains the teachings of Nagy are analogous art.
The Examiner additionally maintains that the motivation to combine the teachings of Wetzler in view of Nagy is clear and present in Nagy. The advantageous use of LoRaWAN is that it is a low power system, which is defined in the name low-power wide area network. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the obvious advantageous of using a low power wireless system for tracking such as for extending the possible timeframe of device usage.
The same or similar reasoning is applied to all dependent claims and corresponding independent claims.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzler (US 20180142996 A1), hereinafter Wetzler, in view of Nagy (US 20250054378 A1), hereinafter Nagy.
Regarding claim 1, Wetzler, as shown below, discloses a tracking system comprising the following limitations:
a tracking device (See at least Fig. 1, [0014] “Referring now to FIG. 1, there is shown an exploded view of the tracking arrow.”):
a global positioning system (GPS) antenna (See at least Fig. 3, Item 42, [0020] “The tracker 20 comprises a power supply 41 operably connected to each of a GPS unit 42 and a transmitter 43”); and
a projectile configured and adapted to support the tracking device (See at least Figs. 1, 3, [0020] “Referring now to FIG. 3, there is shown a diagram of the components of the tracker of the tracking arrow. The tracker 20 comprises a power supply 41 operably connected to each of a GPS unit 42 and a transmitter 43.”)
Wetzler does not explicitly disclose
(See at least [0060] “After the location is determined, the controller 150 may report its location to monitoring personnel by transmitting data through the wireless transceiver 130. In some variations, the wireless transceiver 130 may be configured to communicate through cellular (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE and LTE Cat-M1) networks. Wi-Fi, long range low-power wide area networks (LoRa)”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously conserve power by utilizing a low power system (See at least [0060] “After the location is determined, the controller 150 may report its location to monitoring personnel by transmitting data through the wireless transceiver 130. In some variations, the wireless transceiver 130 may be configured to communicate through cellular (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE and LTE Cat-M1) networks. Wi-Fi, long range low-power wide area networks (LoRa)”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
the tracking device is configured and adapted to separate from the projectile (See at least [0016] “The tracker 20 further includes one or more barbs 22 thereon. The fastener 21 is configured to detach when the tracking arrow 10 strikes a target animal, and the one or more barbs 22 embed themselves in the flesh of the animal, securing the tracker 20 thereto, allowing the location of the wounded animal to be determined.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
the tracking device is further configured and adapted to attach to an animal (See at least [0016] “The tracker 20 further includes one or more barbs 22 thereon. The fastener 21 is configured to detach when the tracking arrow 10 strikes a target animal, and the one or more barbs 22 embed themselves in the flesh of the animal, securing the tracker 20 thereto, allowing the location of the wounded animal to be determined.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Wetzler further discloses
the tracking device is configured and adapted to attach to an animal using an attachment prong (See at least [0016] “The tracker 20 further includes one or more barbs 22 thereon. The fastener 21 is configured to detach when the tracking arrow 10 strikes a target animal, and the one or more barbs 22 embed themselves in the flesh of the animal, securing the tracker 20 thereto, allowing the location of the wounded animal to be determined.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
a receiver configured to be in electronic communication with the tracking device; wherein the tracking device is configured and adapted to transmit a position signal to the receiver (See at least [0020] “The transmitted geographic position of the tracker 20 can be received by any electronic device capable of receiving wireless transmissions”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Wetzler further discloses
the position signal is updated and transmitted at a predetermined time period (See at least [0020] “the tracker 20 is configured to continuously transmit its location”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, does not explicitly disclose the position signal is updated and transmitted every five minutes for the first two hours after the tracking device begins transmitting the position signal. However, mere changes in size/proportion have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Similarly, the claim recites similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, or proportions as described by Wetzler (See at least [0020] “the tracker 20 is configured to continuously transmit its location”). See MPEP 2144.04 and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, 8, and 9. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, does not explicitly disclose the position signal is then updated and transmitted every fifteen minutes for the next five hours. However, mere changes in size/proportion have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Similarly, the claim recites similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, or proportions as described by Wetzler (See at least [0020] “the tracker 20 is configured to continuously transmit its location”). See MPEP 2144.04 and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, does not explicitly disclose the position signal is then updated and transmitted every thirty minutes until the battery dies. However, mere changes in size/proportion have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Similarly, the claim recites similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, or proportions as described by Wetzler (See at least [0020] “the tracker 20 is configured to continuously transmit its location”). See MPEP 2144.04 and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler does not disclose the tracking device includes a microprocessor. However, Nagy further discloses
the tracking device includes a microprocessor (See at least Fig. 1, [0050], “the controller (including one or more processors) may use data from the IMU and/or EMU to determine if a patient is likely to have eloped (e.g., left the monitoring area)” [0111] “the term “processor” or “physical processor,” as used herein, generally refers to any type or form of hardware-implemented processing unit capable of interpreting and/or executing computer-readable instructions. […] Examples of physical processors comprise, without limitation, microprocessors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the processing system disclosed by Nagy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously aggregate data to enhance location accuracy (See at least [0024] “these components may be aggregated (e.g., GPS, WiFi, altitude, etc.) to enhance location accuracy”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler does not disclose the tracking device includes a microprocessor. However, Nagy further discloses
the tracking device includes a temperature measurement device (See at least [0009] “the environmental sensor data may include ambient temperature”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the sensor system disclosed by Nagy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously aggregate data to enhance location accuracy (See at least [0024] “these components may be aggregated (e.g., GPS, WiFi, altitude, etc.) to enhance location accuracy”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
the tracking device includes an accelerometer (See at least [0020] “the tracker 20 includes a sensor configured to detect impact, such as an accelerometer”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
he tracking device includes an acceleration switch (See at least [0020] “he tracker 20 includes a sensor configured to detect impact, such as an accelerometer, which in turn causes the transmitter 43 to transmit the location of the tracker 20 if a threshold deceleration is detected, which would occur when the arrow strikes the target”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wetzler further discloses
determining a position of a tracking device using GPS satellites (See at least Fig. 3, Item 42, [0020] “The tracker 20 comprises a power supply 41 operably connected to each of a GPS unit 42 and a transmitter 43”);
Wetzler does not disclose sending the position of the tracking device to a receiver via a LoRaWAN protocol; and displaying position information on the receiver. However, Nagy further discloses
sending the position of the tracking device to a receiver via a LoRaWAN protocol (See at least [0060] “After the location is determined, the controller 150 may report its location to monitoring personnel by transmitting data through the wireless transceiver 130. In some variations, the wireless transceiver 130 may be configured to communicate through cellular (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE and LTE Cat-M1) networks. Wi-Fi, long range low-power wide area networks (LoRa)”); and
displaying position information on the receiver (See at least Fig. 2A, [0069] “The monitoring server 250 may notify alert devices 260 of the location of the tracking device 215 and subject 210. The alert devices 260 (which may include desktop computers, laptop computers, personal digital assistants, tablet computers, smart phones, or any other feasible device) may receive location information of the subject 210. The alert device 260 may notify the monitoring personnel 270”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the processing system disclosed by Nagy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously aggregate data to enhance location accuracy (See at least [0024] “these components may be aggregated (e.g., GPS, WiFi, altitude, etc.) to enhance location accuracy”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzler, in view of Nagy, in further view of Torres (US 20230376103 A1), hereinafter Torres.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy does not explicitly disclose the tracking device includes an integrated rechargeable battery, the integrated rechargeable battery being configured to shut off at prior to a predefined event. However, Torres, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the tracking device includes an integrated rechargeable battery (See at least [0015] “The internal power source 5 (which can be an internal rechargeable battery”), the integrated rechargeable battery being configured to shut off at prior to a predefined event (See at least [0030] “The system 11 determines when and how to power the internal electronic device or devices from either the internal or external power source 5, 14, when to charge the internal power source 5 with the internal power charger circuit 13, when to shut down the internal electronic device 13 so as not to over discharge and damage”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy with the battery system disclosed by Torres. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously avoid damaging the battery (See at least [0030] “shut down the internal electronic device 13 so as not to over discharge and damage”).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Wetzler, Nagy, and Torres as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy does not explicitly disclose the predefmed event is a battery damaging event. However, Torres, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the predefmed event is a battery damaging event (See at least [0030] “The system 11 determines when and how to power the internal electronic device or devices from either the internal or external power source 5, 14, when to charge the internal power source 5 with the internal power charger circuit 13, when to shut down the internal electronic device 13 so as not to over discharge and damage”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy with the battery system disclosed by Torres. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously avoid damaging the battery (See at least [0030] “shut down the internal electronic device 13 so as not to over discharge and damage”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzler, in view of Nagy, in further view of Lynch (US 20240031785 A1), hereinafter Lynch.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 13. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy does not explicitly disclose the temperature measurement device is a thermocouple. However, Lynch, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the temperature measurement device is a thermocouple (See at least [0091] “The temperature sensor may be a contact temperature sensor or a non-contact temperature sensor such as an infrared thermometer. Example contact temperature sensors include thermocouples”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy with the thermocouple system disclosed by Lynch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately gather relevant data (See at least [0081] “This can enable more accurate or informed medical assessments to be made by the user” ).
Claims 15 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzler, in view of Nagy, in further view of Vaquer (US 20190226821 A1), hereinafter Vaquer.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 13. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy does not explicitly disclose the temperature measurement device is attached to an attachment prong of the tracking device. However, Vaquer, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the temperature measurement device is attached to an attachment prong of the tracking device (See at least Fig. 3, [0074] “The archery projectile locating facility 1300 may comprise a transmitter 50. The transmitter 50 may comprise a temperature sensor 52” The Examiner notes that the arrow head is a prong.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy with the temperature system disclosed by Vaquer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase efficiency of tracking and improve success likelihood (See at least [0060] “At least some embodiments of the present disclosure provide specific information related to an injured animal to increase the efficiency of hunters tracking the injured animal. Employment of the specific information may increase the likelihood of successfully finding the injured animal.”).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Wetzler and Nagy, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 18. The combination of Wetzler and Nagy does not explicitly disclose determining if a target is alive using an acceleration profile or a temperature profile. However, Vaquer, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determining if a target is alive using an acceleration profile or a temperature profile (See at least Fig. 3, [0074] “The microcontroller 60 may be operable to generate movement information after an impact has been detected. The movement information may comprise a binary representation of movement based on the acceleration information.” Vaquez discloses that movement detected by acceleration sensors is assumed to be a moving animal).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking system disclosed by Wetzler with the long range wide area network system disclosed by Nagy with the acceleration system disclosed by Vaquer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase efficiency of tracking and improve success likelihood (See at least [0060] “At least some embodiments of the present disclosure provide specific information related to an injured animal to increase the efficiency of hunters tracking the injured animal. Employment of the specific information may increase the likelihood of successfully finding the injured animal.”).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648