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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 02/02/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 2 should read “the system according to claim 1,. . . .”
Claim 14 should begin with “A cargo location device (1). . . .”
Claim 14 should begin with “A cargo container (29). . . .”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cargo control means” . . . configured to store in claims 1, 14, 15
“at least one cargo supervising device” configured to receive in claims 1, 14, 15
“at least one cargo location device” which transmits in claims 1, 14, 15
“at least one wireless alarm device” configured to transmit in claim 3
“cargo control center” configured to control in claim 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 12, 13, 14, and 20, the phrase "especially" 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).
Regarding claims 2-20, each of the claims is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Claims 1, 14-18 recites the limitation, “preferably.” It is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-20, each of the claims is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Examiner’s Note: for the purposes of this action, claims 14 and 15 are treated as dependent from claim 1, the claim in which the cargo location device and cargo container have been introduced.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez Latorre, Francisco Javier (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150339902; hereinafter "Francisco") in view of Kilburn, Christopher Bjorn (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180365771; hereinafter "Kilburn") further in view of Lanes et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190230474; hereinafter "Lanes").
As per claim 1, Dominguez teaches:
Cargo monitoring, tracking and recovery system, comprising:
Dominguez teaches a cargo tracking and recovery system. (Dominguez: abstract, paragraph [0018])
With respect to the following limitation:
- at least one cargo location device (1), configured to be disposed at, especially hidden in a cargo item or a group of cargo items or being integrated in a cargo container (29), the cargo location device (1) comprising means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals, a central processing unit (16) and at least one energy source (17a, 17b), the means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals comprising a GSM module (19) and a LPWAN module (20b) and a GPS module (20a) and a radio module (13),preferably a VHF radio module,
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Dominguez, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the tracking device may comprise a LPWAN and GPS unit.
Kilburn, however, teaches that a tracking device may comprise a common core which may comprise an LPWAN modem and a GPS unit. (Kilburn: paragraph [0211, 212-218], Fig. 18, 19) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Dominguez, or by Kilburn. Adding the LPWAN and GPS of Kilburn to the CLD of Dominguez does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Dominguez. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kilburn with the teachings of Dominguez, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Dominguez in view of Kilburn further teaches:
- at least one cargo supervising device (2), configured to be disposed at a transport means (5) for the cargo items, comprising means (27) for wirelessly transmitting signals to and wirelessly receiving signals from the at least one cargo location device (1) and at least one energy source (26), and
Dominguez teaches a cargo supervising device CSD disposed at a transport means. (Dominguez: Fig. 1, paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez further teaches that the CSD may comprise antennas and modules for wirelessly transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the CSD and a battery 26. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0072-79], Fig. 3)
- cargo control means (6), comprising means for wirelessly sending data to and wirelessly receiving data from the at least one cargo supervising device (2) and a database, the cargo control means (6) being configured to store data, especially data that has been sent to or received from the at least one cargo supervising device (2), in the data base,
Dominguez teaches a cargo control means CCM which comprises means for wirelessly communicating with the CSD and a database which stores data received from the CSD. (Dominguez: paragraph [0007, 81-82])
With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to be operated in a monitoring mode in which it wirelessly transmits a monitoring signal adapted to be received by the at least one cargo supervising device (2) and a tracking mode in which it wirelessly transmits a tracking signal which is traceable by tracking means (7), and wherein the at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode in response to receiving a tracking activation message 3 that is sent via at least one of a GSM network, a LPWA network and a radio, preferably a VHF radio network, in particular by the cargo control means (6).
Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the message is sent from the CCM to the CLD.
Lanes, however, teaches that a gateway device 230/330 may be used to send instructions to a tracking device 320, or the server itself may send the instructions directly to the tracking device, wherein the instructions indicate changes to the times at which the tracking device is to send its GPS location including coordinates to a central device. (Lanes: paragraph [0035, 45, 50, 51]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Dominguez, or by Lanes. Having the reconfiguration of the location reporting mode performed by the gateway (taught by Dominguez to comprise a CSD) does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Dominguez. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lanes with the teachings of Dominguez, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 2, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to intermittently send check signals to the at least one cargo supervising device (2) in monitoring mode and the at least one cargo supervising device (2) is configured to intermittently send acknowledge signals to the at least one cargo location device (1) in response to the check signals, wherein the at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode when it does not receive an acknowledge signal in predefined time period after sending a check signal.
Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may send check signals to the CSD periodically, which may then send acknowledge signals back to the CLD, wherein the CLD may switch to tracking mode if an ACK signal is not received in a predefined time period after sending the check signal. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0042, 76-78, 87])
As per claim 4, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from tracking mode to monitoring mode in response to receiving a monitoring activation message that is sent via at least one of a GSM network, a LPWAN and a radio, preferably a VHF radio network, in particular by the cargo control means (6).
Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Lanes, as outlined above, teaches that a gateway device 230/330 may be used to send instructions to a tracking device 320, or the server itself may send the instructions directly to the tracking device, wherein the instructions indicate changes to the times at which the tracking device is to send its GPS location including coordinates to a central device. (Lanes: paragraph [0035, 45, 50, 51]) The motivation to combine Lanes persists.
As per claim 6, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo location device (1) comprises means for determining its spatial distance to the cargo supervising device (2) and is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode when a given value of spatial distance is exceeded and/or when a current value of spatial distance is changed and/or when a signal transmission from the at least one cargo supervising device (2) to the at least one cargo location device (1) ends.
Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez further teaches that spatial distance thresholds between the CLD and the CSD may be used to activate the tracking mode. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0028, 36, 66-67, 70])
As per claim 7, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals of the at least one cargo location device (1) comprise a radio chip (13), which is configured to generate modulated radio signals and to demodulate radio signals and/or at least one antenna (15) and/or a power amplifier (14) and/or in that the energy source of the at least one cargo location device (1) comprises a primary battery (17a), a transmit battery (17b) and a battery power management system (18).
Dominguez further teaches a primary battery, a transmit battery, and a battery power management module in the CLD. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2)
As per claim 8, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the GSM module (19) of the at least one cargo location device (1) comprises a GSM radio modem configured to be registered to a cellular network.
Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20 with a modem registered to a radio network in the CLD. (Dominguez: paragraph [0071])
As per claim 9, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo supervising device (2) comprises means for determining its spatial distance to the at least one cargo location device (1) and is configured to switch to an alert mode when a given value of spatial distance is exceeded and/or when a current value of spatial distance is changed.
Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez further teaches that spatial distance thresholds between the CLD and the CSD may be used to activate the tracking mode. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0028, 36, 66-67, 70])
As per claim 10, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo supervising device (2) is configured to communicate with a number of cargo location devices (1) which are assigned to the at least one cargo supervising device (2).
Dominguez further teaches that each CSD may have multiple CLDs assigned to it. (Dominguez: paragraph [0050])
As per claim 11, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one cargo supervising device (2) comprises at least one GPS receiver (21) and/or at least one GSM module (22) and/or at least one Bluetooth module (24) and/or at least one antenna (23) and/or at least one serial hub controller (25), and/or a RF cargo location device supervisor unit (27) with a radio chip, a radio power amplifier and a central processing unit, and/or in that the at least one cargo supervising device (2) comprises a LPWAN module (28), and/or in that the cargo location device (1) is configured such that the GPS module (20a) intermittently provides coordinates, in particular LAT/LONG coordinates, at least when the cargo location device (1) is in tracking mode, and in that it transmits the coordinates provided by the GPS module (20a).
Dominguez teaches a cargo supervising device CSD disposed at a transport means. (Dominguez: Fig. 1, paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez further teaches that the CSD may comprise a GPS receiver and GSM module. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0072-79], Fig. 3)
As per claim 12, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the cargo control means (6) comprise a cargo control center (9), configured to control the at least one cargo supervising device (2) and/or a cargo management server (8), configured to keep data bases with information about the at least one cargo supervising device (2) and the at least one cargo location device (1), about date, time and position and/or the cargo control means (6) are configured to send information to and receive information from a customer via a software based, especially web based, customer information system (10).
Dominguez further teaches a cargo control center CCC which may control the CSD. (Dominguez: paragraph [0081])
As per claim 13, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein tracking means (7), especially stationary (11) and/or mobile (12) tracking devices, are provided, which are configured to trace a tracking radio signal transmitted by the at least one cargo location device (1) in tracking mode, wherein especially the tracking means (7) comprise a radio frequency direction 6 finding unit, which is configured to determine the bearing angle of the tracking signal transmitted from the at least one cargo location device (1) in tracking mode, especially by application of a Doppler shift based radio frequency direction finding technology.
Dominguez further teaches tracking means 7 which are configured to trace a signal transmitted by the tracking device in tracking mode using a doppler shift. (Dominguez: paragraph [0082-83])
As per claim 14, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches the cargo location device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
Cargo location device (1) configured to be disposed at, especially hidden in a cargo item or a group of cargo items, the cargo location device (1) comprising means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals, a central processing unit (16) and at least one energy source (17a, 17b), and being configured to be operated in a monitoring mode in which it transmits a monitoring signal, which is receivable by monitoring means (2) and a tracking mode in which it transmits a tracking signal which is traceable by tracking means (7), wherein the means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals comprise a GSM module (19) and a LPWAN module (20b) and a GPS module (20a) and a radio module (13), preferably a VHF radio module, and wherein the cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode in response to receiving a tracking activation message that can be sent via a GSM network, a LPWAN and a radio network, preferably a VHF radio network, preferably, wherein the cargo location device (1) is configured such that the GPS module (20a) intermittently provides coordinates, in particular LAT/LONG coordinates, at least when the cargo location device (1) is in tracking mode, and in that it transmits the coordinates provided by the GPS module (20a).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez further teaches the sending of GPS coordinate information. (Dominguez: paragraph [0073]) Lanes, as outlined above, teaches that a gateway device 230/330 may be used to send instructions to a tracking device 320, or the server itself may send the instructions directly to the tracking device, wherein the instructions indicate changes to the times at which the tracking device is to send its GPS location including coordinates to a central device. (Lanes: paragraph [0035, 45, 50, 51]) The motivation to combine Lanes persists.
As per claim 15, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches the cargo container of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
Cargo container (29) comprising at least one cargo location device (1), the at least one cargo location device (1) comprising means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals, a central processing unit (16) and at least one energy source (17a, 17b), and being configured to be operated in a monitoring mode in which it transmits a monitoring signal, which is receivable by monitoring means (2) and a tracking mode in which it transmits a tracking signal which is traceable by tracking means (7), wherein the means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals comprise a GSM module (19) and a LPWAN module (20b) and a GPS module (20a) and a radio module (13), preferably a VHF radio module, and wherein the cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode in response to receiving a tracking activation 7 message that can be sent via a GSM network, a LPWAN and a radio network, preferably a VHF radio network, preferably, wherein the cargo location device (1) is configured such that the GPS module (20a) intermittently provides coordinates, in particular LAT/LONG coordinates, at least when the cargo location device (1) is in tracking mode, and in that it transmits the coordinates provided by the GPS module (20a).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez further teaches the sending of GPS coordinate information. (Dominguez: paragraph [0073]) Lanes, as outlined above, teaches that a gateway device 230/330 may be used to send instructions to a tracking device 320, or the server itself may send the instructions directly to the tracking device, wherein the instructions indicate changes to the times at which the tracking device is to send its GPS location including coordinates to a central device. (Lanes: paragraph [0035, 45, 50, 51]) The motivation to combine Lanes persists.
As per claim 16, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
Cargo container (29) according to claim 15, wherein at least one cargo location device (1) is integrated in the cargo container (29), preferably, wherein the central processing unit (16), the at least one energy source (17a, 17b), the GSM module (19), the LPWAN module (20b), the GPS module (20a) and the radio module (13) are integrated in the cargo container (29).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63, 67]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2)
As per claim 19, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches:
Cargo container (29) according to claim 15 , wherein the cargo container (29) is embodied such that the at least one cargo location device (1) is shielded from radiation originating from within the cargo container (29) and/or from radiation originating from outside of the cargo container (29).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Kilburn, as outlined above, teaches that a tracking device may comprise a common core which may comprise an LPWAN modem and a GPS unit. (Kilburn: paragraph [0211, 212-218], Fig. 18, 19) The motivation to combine Kilburn persists. In teaching that the CLDs may be hidden within the cargo pieces in the truck, Dominguez teaches that the CLDs may be shielded from radiation from outside the container. (Dominguez: paragraph [0014, 37])
As per claim 20, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
Method for tracking and recovering a lost cargo item by use of a system according to claim 1, the system comprising tracking means (7), especially stationary (11) and/or mobile (12) tracking devices, wherein at least one cargo location device (1) intermittently provides coordinates, in particular LAT/LONG coordinates, at least when the cargo location device (1) is in tracking mode, and transmits the coordinates provided by the GPS module (20a) to the cargo control means (6) which then provides the coordinates to the tracking means, which use them to track and recover the at least on cargo location device (1).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may operate in monitoring mode or tracking mode, wherein the monitoring mode sends signals to the CSD and the tracking mode sends signals to the tracking means. (Dominguez: paragraph [0017]) Dominguez further teaches that the acknowledge signal sent by the CSD to the CLD may be interrupted which may initiate a tracking mode at the CLD, switching it away from monitoring mode, wherein this communication may occur over the VHF channel. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 76-78, 87]) Dominguez further teaches tracking means 7 which are configured to trace a signal transmitted by the tracking device in tracking mode using a doppler shift. (Dominguez: paragraph [0082-83]) Dominguez further teaches the sending of GPS coordinate information. (Dominguez: paragraph [0073]) Lanes, as outlined above, teaches that a gateway device 230/330 may be used to send instructions to a tracking device 320, or the server itself may send the instructions directly to the tracking device, wherein the instructions indicate changes to the times at which the tracking device is to send its GPS location including coordinates to a central device. (Lanes: paragraph [0035, 45, 50, 51]) The motivation to combine Lanes persists.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes further in view of Williams et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140330737; hereinafter "Williams").
As per claim 3, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein at least one wireless alarm device (3), which is configured to be joined to the transport means (5) for the cargo items is provided, the at least one wireless alarm device (3) comprising at least one energy source and means for transmitting alarm signals to the at least one cargo location device (1) and being adapted to be manually activated by a user, wherein the at least one wireless alarm device (3) is configured to send an alarm signal to the at least one cargo location device (1) in response to being manually activated by a user, and wherein the at least one cargo location device (1) is configured to switch from monitoring mode to tracking mode in response to receiving an alarm signal from the at least one wireless alarm device (3).
Dominguez teaches an alarm device in a PB at the transport means which comprises an energy source and a means for transmitting alarm signals, wherein when a driver manually activates the alarm device which triggers the tracking mode in the CLD. (Dominguez: paragraphs [0030-31, 49, 53, 63, 69, 79, 87]) Dominguez, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the panic signal is sent directly from the PB device to the CLD.
Williams, however, teaches that a device at which a panic button is pressed (here, a server, but taught by Dominguez to comprise a alarm device 3 at the vehicle), may send a signal to a tracking device which initiates a panic mode at the tracking device which alters its location reporting interval. (Williams: paragraph [0045-48], Fig. 6) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, or by Williams. Sending the signal which triggers the panic mode directly from the alarm device 3 to the tracking device does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Williams with the teachings of Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes further in view of Meadow, William (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160195602; hereinafter "Meadow")
As per claim 5, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the cargo control means (6) are configured to 4 send tracking activation messages and/or monitoring activation messages to the at least one cargo location device (1) that comprise a unique activation code of the at least one cargo location device (1).
Meadow, however, teaches that a unique device activation code may be broadcast to a device which causes the device to broadcast its location logs. (Meadow: paragraph [0157]) Meadow teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes for the benefit of allowing privacy to be maintained such that only registered owners of devices may create a request that activates controls. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Meadow with the teachings of Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes further in view of Skaaksrud, Ole-Petter (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150349917; hereinafter "Skaaksrud").
As per claim 17, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
Cargo container (29) according to claim 15 , comprising an inner (30) and an outer container wall (31), wherein at least one cargo location device (1) is disposed between the inner (30) and outer container wall (31), preferably wherein the central processing unit (16), the at least one energy source (17a, 17b), the GSM module (19) , the LPWAN module (20b), the GPS module (20a) and the radio module (13) are disposed between the inner (30) and outer container wall (31), preferably, wherein the central processing unit (16), the at least one energy source (17a, 17b), the GSM module (19) , the LPWAN module (20b), the GPS module (20a) and the radio module (13) are disposed in a cavity that is formed between the inner (30) and outer container wall (31).
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Kilburn, as outlined above, teaches that a tracking device may comprise a common core which may comprise an LPWAN modem and a GPS unit. (Kilburn: paragraph [0211, 212-218], Fig. 18, 19) The motivation to combine Kilburn persists. Dominguez, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the tracking device may be embedded within a wall of the container.
Skaaksrud, however, teaches that an tracking device in the form of an ID node which may comprise a processing unit and one or more sensors may be embedded into the wall of a package. (Skaaksrud: paragraph [0654, 656-658], Figs. 3, 75B, 76) In teaching that the sensor is embedded in the sidewall of the container, Skaaksrud teaches that the node may be disposed in the inner wall and protected from radiation originating from outside of the cargo container. It can be seen that each element is taught by either Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, or by Skaaksrud. Embedding the tracker of Dominguez in the package, as taught by Skaaksrud does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Skaaksrud with the teachings of Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes further in view of Salvat Jr., Roberto (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110227722; hereinafter "Salvat")
As per claim 18, Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
Cargo container (29) according to claim 16 , wherein the cargo container (29) comprises a preferably closable opening (32) for inserting and removing and/or for charging the at least one energy source (17a, 17b), preferably, wherein the opening (32) is disposed in an inner wall (30) of the cargo container (29) and/or wherein the cargo container (29) comprises a flap (33) for closing the opening (32).8
Dominguez teaches a cargo location device CLD which may be configured to be disposed at or hidden in a cargo item or group of such. (Dominguez: paragraph [0012, 63]) Dominguez teaches that the CLD may comprise a means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving signals in the form of an antenna 15 and one or more modules. (Dominguez: paragraph [0067], Fig. 2) Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise a CPU 16. Id. Dominguez further teaches that the CLD may comprise two batteries 17, 18. Id. Dominguez further teaches a GSM module 20. Id. Dominguez further teaches radio chip 13 which may communicate via VHF. (Dominguez: paragraph [0042, 67], Fig. 2) Kilburn, as outlined above, teaches that a tracking device may comprise a common core which may comprise an LPWAN modem and a GPS unit. (Kilburn: paragraph [0211, 212-218], Fig. 18, 19) The motivation to combine Kilburn persists. Dominguez, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the tracking device may be embedded in a sidewall of the container with a flap for changing the batteries.
Salvat, however, teaches a tracking device disposed within an inner wall of a container 16 with a flap 18 which may be opened to change the battery of the tracking device. (Salvat: paragraph [0055], Figs. 15A-C) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, or by Salvat. Embedding the tracker of Dominguez in the package while having the flap taught by Salvat, as taught by Salvat does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Salvat with the teachings of Dominguez in view of Kilburn further in view of Lanes, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628