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 .
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 7-10 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.
As to claim 7, the recitation “the wireless controller” at line 5 lacks clear antecedent basis.
As to claim 10, there are plural “commands” recited in independent claim 7; therefore, it is not clear as to which command the recitation “the command” at line 1 actually refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruutu (US 2013/0109323).
As to claim 1, Ruutu discloses an electronic device 200 (see at least figure 2), comprising: a processor 290 to place the electronic device 200 in a transit mode (see at least paragraph [0150]), wherein when in the transit mode the processor 290 is placed in an inactive state (see at least paragraphs [0110], [0113])); a wireless module comprising: a wireless controller (see paragraph [0143]; in this instance, the claimed “a wireless controller” reads on circuitries to “wake up” “the relevant parts of the device at predefined times”) to, when in the transit mode, periodically activate a wireless transceiver 210, 270 of the electronic device 200 (see paragraph [0143]); and the wireless transceiver 210, 270 to, when in the transit mode: connect to a wireless network (see paragraphs [0050], [0122], [0143]); and transmit configuration information for the electronic device (see paragraph [0143]).
As to claim 2, Ruutu discloses that the configuration information comprises supply chain information. See paragraphs [0035], [0036], [0132], [0139], [0142].
As to claim 3, Ruutu discloses that the configuration information comprises operational information for the electronic device. See paragraphs [0034], [0121], [0143].
As to claim 4, Ruutu discloses that the wireless network is selected from the group consisting of: a wireless wide area network (WWAN); a BLUETOOTH (BT) network; and a wireless local area network (WLAN). See paragraphs [0122], [0136].
As to claim 5, Ruutu discloses that responsive to electronic device activation, the processor is to transition the electronic device from an administrator mode to a consumer mode. See paragraphs [0036], [0039], [0134], [0150].
As to claim 7, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 above. Ruutu further discloses that the processor executes a command that is received by the wireless controller (see paragraphs [0143], [0151]), and that the wireless transceiver 210, 270 receives a command for the processor of the electronic device (in this instance, the claimed “a command “ reads on “wirelessly querying (or instructing)” at paragraph [0035]), and that the wireless controller to, when in the transit mode: periodically activate the wireless transceiver of the electronic device to connect to the wireless network (see paragraphs [0050], [0122], [0143]); and based on a received command, activate the processor and transmit the command (In this instance, the claimed “a received command“ reads on an end-user initiated software update command after purchasing the electronic device as disclosed at paragraph [0151]).
As to claim 8, Ruutu discloses that the command is an end-user initiated provisioning command. In this instance, the claimed “an end-user initiated provisioning command “ reads on an end-user initiated software update command after purchasing the electronic device, as disclosed at paragraph [0151].
As to claim 9, Ruutu discloses that upon electronic device activation, the processor is to execute the end-user initiated provisioning command. In this instance, the claimed “end-user initiated provisioning command “ reads on an end-user initiated software update command after purchasing the electronic device and turn it ON for the first time, as disclosed at paragraph [0151].
As to claim 10, Ruutu discloses that the command is an update to program code of the electronic device. See paragraph [0143].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruutu.
As to claim 6, Ruutu fails to disclose responsive to electronic device activation, the processor is to de-provision the wireless module until a user activation request is received. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art, especially after the electronic device is purchased by the owner. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruutu as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing security to the end user upon purchasing the electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
As to independent claim 11, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, causing the processor to: map the electronic device to a supply chain account to record a transaction with the electronic device while in the transit mode; and deleting a mapping of the electronic device to the supply chain account.
As to dependent claims 12-15, they are allowed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 11 as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tilly (US 12,045,846); Kim (US 2018/0173401) disclose wirelessly tracking electronic devices during shipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646