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 communication is in response to the application Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/16/2025.
Claims 1-43 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 4/10/2007 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-27 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims1-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-43 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “to read asset identification data from a marker associated with the asset to identify the asset and thereby transmit asset location data and asset identification data to record the presence or absence of the asset within the store; a configured to read user identification data to identify a user when the user is within the store; to receive: the asset identification data and the asset location data in a first data packet from the scanner; and the user identification data in a second data packet from the sensor, and record the first data packet in conjunction with the second data packet in an asset record, wherein the controller is configured to repeatedly receive and write the first and second data packets to the asset record to assess over a predetermined time period the presence of the asset within the store or the absence of the asset in conjunction with the user, to thereby track the asset.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a system for tracking an asset. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 33 and 35 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 33 and 35 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-32, 34 and 36-43 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2-32, 34 and 36-43 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a system, a scanner, a sensor and a controller devices. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the system devices amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 33 and 35 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 33 further includes a network comprising a central controller and an asset tracking system, and claim 35 further includes a method for tracing as asset, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 33 and 35 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-32, 35 and 36-43 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-32, 35 and 36-43 depend. As a result, claims 2-32, 35 and 36-43 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a system device and a step for tracking an asset. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for tracking an asset is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 33 and 35 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 33 further includes a network, and claim 33 further includes a method, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 33 and 35 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-32, 34 and 36-43 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims2-32, 34 and 36-43 depend. As a result, claims 2-32, 34 and 36-43 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr “US 6989749 B2” (Mohr) in view of Flores et al. “2008/0088454 A1” (Flores).
Regarding Claim 1: A system for tracking an asset, comprising: a store configured to house the asset;
a scanner configured to read asset identification data from a marker associated with the asset to identify the asset and thereby transmit asset location data and asset identification data to record the presence or absence of the asset within the store (at least see Mohr Abstract; Figs. 1-2; 4:64-67);
a sensor configured to read user identification data to identify a user when the user is within the store (at least see Mohr Abstract; Fig. 3; 1:66-67 and 2:1-3);
a controller configured to receive: the asset identification data and the asset location data in a first data packet from the scanner (at least see Mohr Abstract; Fig. 5; 3:66-67 and 4:1-3); and
the user identification data in a second data packet from the sensor, and record the first data packet in conjunction with the second data packet in an asset record (at least see Mohr Abstract; 5:57-67),
Mohr disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to repeatedly receive and write the first and second data packets to the asset record to assess over a predetermined time period the presence of the asset within the store or the absence of the asset in conjunction with the user, to thereby track the asset. However, Flores disclose this (at lease see Flores Abstract; Fig. 1; [00057-[0063].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Folres’s teachings in Mohr’s enabled, for the advantage of automatically recording asset information a sensor for automatically record a user information using RFID technology for automatically recording user information.
Regarding Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the asset is a non-consumable asset (at least see Mohr Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the non-consumable asset is one of: a power-tool; a tool; a meter; a pair of gloves, a pair of goggles, a hard hat, a safety vest, a communication device, and a safety vest (at least see Mohr Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein the marker is attached to the directly non-consumable asset (at least see Mohr Fig. 2; Ref. 32).
Regarding Claim 5: The system of claim 1, wherein the marker is attached to a location within or upon which the asset is stored inside the store (at least see Mohr Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6: The system of claim 5, further comprising a secondary scanner for reading the marker and assessing movement of the asset from and to the location (at least see Mohr Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the asset is a consumable asset (at least see Mohr Fig. 2; Ref. 30; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset ).
Regarding Claim 8: The system of claim 7, wherein the consumable asset is one of: a plurality of fasteners, a plurality of nails, a plurality of screws, a quantity of fuel and a quantity of lubricant (at least see Mohr 1-:62-67; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 9: The system of claim 7 wherein the marker is attached to a container in which the consumable asset is stored (at least see Mohr 4:34-49; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 10: The system of claim 9, wherein the container comprises an interrogation device configured to determine the quantity of the consumable asset therein (at least see Mohr Fig. 1; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 11: The system of claim 10, wherein the interrogation device is a weigh scale (at least see Mohr Fig. 1; As skilled person in the art at the time of the invention it well would understand scanning asset would obvious to include a weigh scale).
Regarding Claim 12: The system of claim 10, further comprising a movement detector for detecting movement of the asset from and to the container (at least see Mohr Fig. 3; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 13: The system of claim 8 wherein the asset location data comprises the quantity of the consumable asset stored within the container (at least see Mohr 1:27-42; Here as skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 14: The system of claim 8 wherein the asset identification data comprises the quantity of the consumable asset stored within an individual unit (at least see Mohr 4:27-34; s skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 15: The system of claim 8 wherein the individual unit is a packet comprising a discrete quantity of the consumable asset (at least see Mohr 4:27-34; s skilled person would understand that the asset are non-consumable is a design of choice to modify the prior arts of record to include a consumable asset).
Regarding Claim 16: The system of claim 1, wherein the marker is a transmitter (at least see Mohr Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 17: The system of claim 16, wherein the marker is a RFID tag (at least see Mohr Fig. 6; Ref. 32).
Regarding Claim 18: The system of claim 1, wherein the marker is a barcode (at least see Mohr 1:19-26).
Regarding Claim 19: The system of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver to detect a location of the asset outside of the store (at least see Mohr Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20: The system of claim 19, wherein the transceiver is configured to send external asset location data to the controller(at least see Mohr Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21: The system of claim 1, wherein the asset record is linked to safety data for the asset, to record on the asset record at least one of: scheduled testing dates; maintenance information; and working life information (at least see Mohr Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 22: The system of claim 1, wherein the asset is one of a plurality of assets stored in the store, each of the plurality of assets having a marker (at least see Mohr Fig. 1; Refs. 28 and 30).
Regarding Claim 23: The system of claim 1, wherein the marker is unique to the asset (at least see Mohr Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 24: The system of claim 23, wherein each asset record is associated with the unique marker (at least see Mohr 1:62-67 and 2:1-3).
Regarding Claim 25: The system of claim 24, further comprising an asset registry, the asset registry comprising each of the asset records (at least see Mohr Fig. 2; Ref. 96).
Regarding Claim 26: The system of claim 25, further comprising a user interface from which the user selects the asset from the asset registry (at least see Mohr Fig. 5; Ref. 84).
Claims 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr “US 2005/0110638 A1” (Mohr) in view of Flores et al. “2008/0088454 A1” (Flores) in further view of Chirnomas “US 2017/031004 A1” (Chirnomas).
Regarding Claim 27: The system of any claim 26, wherein the store comprises a guide configured to direct the user to the asset within the store (at least see Chirnomas Fig.1; [0010]).
Regarding Claim 28: The system of claim 1 any one of the preceding claims, wherein the sensor is a camera (at least see Chirnomas Fig.1; [0010]).
Regarding Claim 29: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a barcode reader (at least see Chirnomas [0117]).
Regarding Claim 30: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a person (at least see Chirnomas Fig.1; [0155]).
Regarding Claim 31: The system of claim 1, wherein the store is transportable (at least see Chirnomas Fig.1; [0157]).
Regarding Claim 32: The system of claim 1, wherein the store is a shipping container (at least see Chirnomas Fig.1; [0158]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Chirnomas’s teachings in Mohr’s enabled, for the advantage for controller of the assets in very efficient and easier to track and maintenance.
Regarding Claims 33-43: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-32.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627