Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on 04/06/2023. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-2, 6, 10-19, 21, 23-24, 28-32, 37, 40, 45-47, 58 are currently pending in the instant application.
Examiner Comment
Please disregard the interview summary that was mistakenly posted from another case on 10/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Costomisation” should be amended to customization. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-19, 21, 23-24, 28-32, 37, 40, 45-47, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, 47 and 58, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23, 40 and 45 use the phrase “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Also Claims 2 and 6 Singh state “over a distance up to at least…” (emphasis added). The limitation “up to at least” does not define boundaries of the distance. Up to means 20m or less, and at least means 20m or more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-14, 16, 18-19, 21, 23-24, 28-32, 37, 40, 45-47, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2020/0042850 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Singh teaches the limitations "A system for tracking a plurality of objects, the system including a server system, a plurality of gateways and the plurality of objects, wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes a battery arranged to power the object, (see abstract and fig. 1, showing objects with battery (106 and par. 0006), gateways (115, 118, 114) and server (110/112);
a non-transitory storage medium, an (e.g. unique) object ID stored in the non-transitory storage medium, a first transceiver and a second transceiver, wherein the second transceiver is different to the first transceiver, wherein the first transceiver of each object is arranged to communicate with a first respective gateway, and wherein the second transceiver of each object is arranged to communicate with a second respective gateway; (see fig. 1 and par. , where asset includes two transceivers (passive and active, cellular and e.g. RFID) and identification stored (see par. 0072 “asset identification”);
wherein each object of the plurality of objects includes one or a plurality of sensors and is configured to sense and to transmit sensory data, wherein the server system is configured to receive transmissions of the sensory data from each respective object via any gateway of the plurality of gateways, (see par. 0045);
the transmissions including a respective object ID of a respective object, and a gateway ID of a gateway which receives the transmission from the respective object and which sends the transmission to the server system; (see fig. 6 and par. 0079, where asset communicates via gateways (612, 614) to server (610) and includes sending identification of asset and gateway (see par. 0082 and 0084-0085);
wherein the server system is configured to store a tracking record of each respective object in association with the respective object ID, wherein the server system is configured to update the stored tracking record of the respective object, in response to receiving a respective communication from the respective object, the update including the sensory data and location data of the respective object; (see fig. 5 (510) and par. 0045, 0065, 0072-0073 “activation events” are recorded);
wherein the server system is configured to derive the location data of the respective object using at least a gateway ID included in the received communication from the respective object" (see fig. 7 and par. 0090).
Claims 47 and 58 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 2 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, (i) wherein the first transceiver is arranged to communicate with the first respective gateway over a distance up to at least 20 m; or (ii) wherein the first transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver or a Bluetooth Low Energy transceiver; or (iii) wherein the first transceiver is arranged to communicate with the first respective gateway over a distance up to at least 1.0 km; or (iv) wherein the first transceiver is a Bluetooth Long Range transceiver" (see par. 0024-0025 and 0098, showing BLE or Bluetooth).
Regarding Claim 6 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, (i) wherein the second transceiver is arranged to communicate with the second respective gateway over a distance up to at least 10 km; or (ii) wherein the second transceiver is a LoRa (Long Range) transceiver; or (iii) wherein the second transceiver is a cellular transceiver and the second respective gateway is a cellular gateway; or (iv) wherein the second transceiver is a cellular transceiver and the second respective gateway is a cellular gateway, and wherein the cellular transceiver and the cellular gateway technology is 2G(GPRS), or 3G, or NarrowBand-Internet of Things (NB-IoT), or LTE Cat. M ((Long Term Evolution for Machines—low power wide area (LPWA))), or 5G" (see par. 0023 and fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 10 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein each object includes a unique object ID and can be identified through an included identifier which is an included Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, or an included NFC tag, or an included Quick Response code (QR code) or an included barcode, wherein the included identifier includes the unique object ID" (see par. 0031 and fig. 2 and 0037-0038).
Regarding Claim 11 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the objects each include a temperature sensor, the sensory data includes temperature data measured using the temperature sensor, and the update includes the temperature data of the respective object" (see par. 0045j and 0070).
Regarding Claim 12 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the objects each include a light sensor, the sensory data includes light exposure data measured using the light sensor, and the update includes the light exposure data of the respective object" (see par. 0070).
Regarding Claim 13 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the objects each include a noise sensor, the sensory data includes noise data measured using the noise sensor, and the update includes the noise data of the respective object" (see par. 0048-0049, where accelerometer data noise is equated to noise data).
Regarding Claim 14 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the objects each include an accelerometer sensor, the sensory data includes vibration data measured using, or derived from, the accelerometer sensor, and the update includes the vibration data of the respective object" (see par. 0048-0049).
Regarding Claim 16 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the objects each include a pressure sensor, the sensory data includes pressure data measured using the pressure sensor, and the update includes the pressure data of the respective object" (see par. 0092).
Regarding Claim 18 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is configured to analyze received sensory data of a respective object, and to determine whether to inspect, maintain or replace the respective object, and to record the determination" (see par. 0077).
Regarding Claim 19 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system includes a data collection, transmission and visualization platform, which also includes data orchestration, analytics and integration with other systems, and wherein the platform includes a visual editing tool, the tool operable to define zones, and operable to place one or both of directional and omnidirectional beacons, e.g. in a map or location plan" (see fig. 7 and par. 0090, showing dashboard platform).
Regarding Claim 21 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 19, wherein the tool is operable to define the place of beacons on a map or location plan, to include their geographic or relative coordinates, to define geofences, and to save this data in a (e.g. Moeco) geolocation service" (see fig. 7 and par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 23 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is configured to include a list of objects at a site, such as at a warehouse, at a construction site, or at a drilling site" (see fig. 7 and par. 0075).
Regarding Claim 24 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 23, wherein the server system is configured to output positions of the objects in the list of objects, or wherein the server system is configured to output the usage of each object in the list of objects, for example using sensed vibration data" (see fig. 7 showing list of asset location and id).
Regarding Claim 28 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein each object is customizable and includes multiple pads and/or connectors arranged to mount or to connect sensors, e.g. during tracker customization" (see par. 0029 “the asset 106 is an object within which the asset data communications device 108 can be placed, such as a high-value package or shipment.”).
Regarding Claim 29 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors includes two or more of, or all of: (a) an Air/Surface temperature sensor; (b) a humidity sensor; (c) an accelerometer (e.g. for sensing Vibrational patterns, movements detection, orientation in space); (d) a Magnetometer (e.g. for sensing Direction of movement/facing); (e) a light exposure sensor; (f) an air pressure sensor; (g) a distance sensor; (h) a Secure seal" (see par. 0045 “the sensors 155 include a temperature sensor 156, a humidity sensor 157, a light sensor 158, and an accelerometer 159.”).
Regarding Claim 30 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein each object is configured to determine its location, for example using one or more of: (a) Global Positioning System (GPS)/Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates; or (b) Triangulation by cellular network (e.g. GSM) Towers; or (c) Triangulation through gateways locations; or (d) WiFi or Bluetooth location-based service (LBS); or (e) Bluetooth 5.1 Angle of Arrival (AoA) and/or Angle of Departure (AoD) calculating; or (f) Bluetooth location beacons zoning (half-sphere and/or omnidirected); or (g) RFID zoning" (see par. 0042 and 0053).
Regarding Claim 31 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein each object is configured to measure signals from a plurality of beacons, to determine the beacons' IDs and respective signal attenuation levels, and to transmit the determined beacons' IDs and respective signal attenuation levels to the server system, wherein the server system is configured to derive location data of the respective object using the transmitted determined beacons' IDs and the respective signal attenuation levels" (see par. 0086).
Regarding Claim 32 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gateways are configured to receive the same signal from an object, and to determine a respective signal attenuation level, and to transmit the received signal and the determined respective signal attenuation level to the server system, wherein the server system is configured to derive location data of the respective object using the received signals and the determined respective signal attenuation levels" (see par. 0086 “the wireless asset data communication tag 120 can determine the associated location information and identification code of the beacon communication tag 616 and thereby determine the location of the wireless asset data communication tag 120, for example, such as being located in a building and proximate to the beacon communication tag 616. In some embodiments, if several beacon communication tags 616 are detected by the wireless asset data communications tag 120, the wireless asset data communication tag 120 can determine the location of the beacon communications tag 616 with the highest RSSI or highest electromagnetic measure, which can then be used to determine the location of the wireless asset data communication tag 120.”).
Regarding Claim 37 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system stores the current state of the plurality of objects, and wherein the server system is configured to display a dashboard of the plurality of objects, showing the current state of the plurality of objects" (par. 0072 and fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 40 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system includes a Data Transfer Network which is configured to collect, synchronize and store immutably transferred encrypted metadata, such as a list of the sensors identified by their IDs that are sensed by the object, and/or object settings, and/or a list of the gateways sensed by the object" (see fig. 7, par. 0030, 0055-0056 and 0060).
Regarding Claim 45 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is configured to output inventory lists of objects located in a location, by object type, along with available information, such as the planned date of maintenance of each object, and/or the previous date of maintenance of each object, and to display this information on an object tracking dashboard" (see fig. 7 and par. 0090).
Regarding Claim 46 Singh teaches the limitations "The system of claim 1, wherein the server system is configured to determine a distribution of objects at different stages of the object life cycle, along with information about the current object state and mode of object use at each life cycle stage, and to display this information on an object tracking dashboard" (see fig. 7 and par. 0090, showing battery life (i.e. state of life cycle), mode (one or off) and locations of objects.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 2017/0311127 A1).
Regarding Claim 15 Singh teaches the system of claim 14, and further that accelerometer data is processed via a programmable circuit (see par. 0048) but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the sensory data includes sensory data derived from the accelerometer sensor which is Fast Fourier Transform of vibration data measured using the accelerometer sensor.”
In the same field of endeavor Murphy teaches a sensor based geolocation of a user device system, where “user device 210 may continuously monitor the accelerometer measurement in the vertical plane. Continuing with the previous example, user device 210 may infer a step to have occurred in the time between consecutive peaks in vertical acceleration (e.g., prior to using, or based on, a fast Fourier transform technique) detected using the accelerometer.” (see abstract and par. 0058 and 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process accelerometer data using FFT as taught by Murphy in the system of Singh, in order to identify the directions of the fundamental oscillations due to the step motions, which in turn may permit user device 210 to identify the step direction (see Murphy par. 0061).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US 2008/0252459 A1).
Regarding Claim 17 Singh teaches the limitations the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the objects each include a water immersion sensor, the sensory data includes water immersion data measured using the water immersion sensor, and the update includes the water immersion data of the respective object.”
In the same field of endeavor Butler discloses associating consumer RFID tags with home security including water detection (see abstract and par. 0655).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense water immersion as taught by Butler in the system of Singh, in order to secure the user’s facility or home (see par. 0655 of Butler).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard Time. 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648