Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended claim 1 and argued that the current references do not disclose the new limitation. Examiner is using a new reference Gersitz et al. (US 9639899 B1) to disclose the new limitation.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culpepper et al. (US 20060158328 A1) in view of Gersitz et al. (US 9639899 B1) and further in view of Purba (US 20190147311 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Culpepper discloses a method of detecting that a vehicle tracking device is being used to track humans with a computer ([0002] discloses “The present invention relates generally to tracking systems for tracking the location of valuable materials, persons, objects …”; [0046]; Fig. 5 & [0052] disclose details of tracking device; computer part of network in Fig. 7; [0061] discloses “…the enclosures for the tracker and the hand-held tracker are capable of taking any number of formats, from a laptop computer,…“), comprising:
determining whether the vehicle tracking device has been removed from its linked vehicle ([0004] discloses GPS used to track automobile; [0023] discloses each tracker has its own GPS receiver and “Each tracking receiver is capable of relaying its own position …”; comparing the two GPS positions will determine if the tracking device has been removed from the linked vehicle and the comparison disclosed below by Gersitz);
determining whether the vehicle tracking device is being used to track a human by tracking human movement ([0002] discloses “The present invention relates generally to tracking systems for tracking the location of valuable materials, persons, objects …”; [0046], 1st sentence discloses same; [0023] discloses “In another embodiment, the tracker is a hand-held module, i.e., a hand-held tracking receiver, to be used in environments that do not permit vehicle access; i.e., within buildings, shopping centers, etc. …… using the global positioning system (GPS).”. Here, the tracker can track human movement as it is hand-held).
Culpepper does not disclose:
wherein determining whether the tracking device has been removed from its linked vehicle includes comparing tracking information of the vehicle tracking device with GPS tracking of the linked vehicle;
alerting when it is determined that the vehicle tracking device is tracking one or more humans.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Gersitz discloses:
wherein determining whether the tracking device has been removed from its linked vehicle includes comparing tracking information of the vehicle tracking device with GPS tracking of the linked vehicle (column 10, lines 52 – 57 disclose “For example, the server may compare GPS coordinates received from the borrower's smartphone and GPS coordinates received from the borrower tracking′ device to determine whether the borrower is currently within the vehicle associated with the borrower tracking device.”). A comparison of GPS of smartphone and GPS of tracking device is disclosed. Comparing the GPS location of vehicle and GPS location of tracking device is an obvious variation of the above (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F) and can be used to determine if the tracking device is away from the vehicle. GPS location of the vehicle is available as disclosed by Culpepper ([0004] as in the 1st limitation above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Gersitz in the system of Culpepper because this would allow one to know the location of the tracking device relative to the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Purba discloses alerting when it is determined that the vehicle tracking device is tracking one or more humans ([0039] – [0040] discloses tracking user visits to select locations e.g. [0040] discloses “….a system for tracking a user's visits to select locations. …”; [0051] discloses “…. activating the light and the sound generating buzzer of the tracking device upon activation of an alert feature … when the automobile enters a portion of a dealership having a receiving unit. …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Purba in the system of Culpepper because issuing an alert will allow the technician to be informed of the user’s arrival.
Regarding claim 2, Culpepper doesn’t explicitly disclose determining whether a weighted score is greater than a threshold level.
However, this is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what Culpepper discloses ([0093] discloses “…allows for ready calculation of separation, relative displacement, relative velocity and optimal intercept parameters. Such optimal intercept parameters suitably include a vehicle that is closest, and advantageously integrates readily available topographic and street layout data so as to calculate a best intercept route. Also, with multiple vehicles, a calculation is readily made to allow for positioning of various vehicles to cover possible, or likely, alternative routes that may be chosen by a perpetrator of an asset of interest. ….”).
Implicit in evaluation of multiple routes and then selecting a best one is assigning a score to each route and then picking the best scores i.e. comparing with a threshold. Hence, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), what Applicant claims is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what Culpepper teaches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to assign weights to calculate scores for routes and select the best route, as this would allow for the best intercept route to be selected.
Regarding claim 3, Culpepper discloses alerting includes at least one of:
notifying an owner of the vehicle tracking device ([0091] discloses “….FIG. 12 illustrates a template of an activation alert screen displayed to a user, informing the user that a tracking device 500 has been activated. As demonstrated in FIG. 12, a user is suitably provided with relevant information regarding the incident giving rise to the activation alert. ….”; Fig. 12).
setting off an audio alert on the vehicle tracking device;
or notifying one or more authorities.
Regarding claim 4, Culpepper discloses determining whether the vehicle tracking device is being used to track a human by tracking human movement includes at least one of:
detecting steep elevation changes;
detecting acceleration data consistent with human movement;
or detecting movement that is not on any road according to map data ([0023] discloses “In another embodiment, the tracker is a hand-held module, i.e., a hand-held tracking receiver, to be used in environments that do not permit vehicle access; i.e., within buildings, shopping centers, etc. …… using the global positioning system (GPS). ”. Here, the tracker can track human movement as it is hand-held).
Regarding claim 5, Culpepper discloses determining whether the vehicle tracking device is with a different vehicle or in a building, by:
detecting a different vehicle's hotspot;
detecting a building’s Wi-Fi ([0023] discloses detecting being in a building, as in claim 4 above; [0010] and [0092 last sentence discloses several networks can be used, including WiFi; [0044]; [0103]; Fig. 18 discloses WiFi);
or detecting GPS movement that matches a different vehicle's GPS movement.
Regarding claim 6, Culpepper discloses the vehicle tracking device includes battery power and wireless communications ([0006] discloses “…When the tracking device is activated, it transmits a beacon signal that continuously runs for the duration of the battery….”; Fig. 5, wireless via antennas).
Regarding claim 7, Culpepper discloses determining that the vehicle tracking device is on a public transport by, at least one of:
detecting GPS movement matching bus routes or stops;
detecting multiple connected devices;
or detecting GPS movement matching known rideshare GPS movement ([0093] discloses “A security agency is thus provided with location data associated with a tracked asset, along with position of tracking vehicles. …coupled with readily available geographic information …advantageously integrates readily available topographic and street layout data so as to calculate a best intercept route …”; wherein tracked asset could be tracking device; known rideshare would be known street layout data).
From the above, the determination can be made since the street layout is known and the location of the asset is known, hence a match can be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to determine if the vehicle tracking device is on a public transport by doing the above. This would allow, law enforcement to know location of criminals, as disclosed by Culpepper ([0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Culpepper discloses the alerts are automatically sent from a centralized location (Centralized location shown in Fig. 7 network; elements 715, 706 which communicate with all trackers and users).
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claims 5 and 6.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 3. Centralized location shown in Fig. 7 network; elements 715, 706 which communicate with all trackers and users).
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claims 5 and 6.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 3.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 12. Locking doors of a vehicle is inherent in any vehicle. Further, Culpepper discloses ([0003]) “ …vehicle tracking and security system that allows immediate response in case of vehicle theft, an accident, vehicle breakdown, or other emergency … intrusion protection using an in-vehicle alarm…”. Here, intrusion protection would imply locking the doors.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claims 6 and 7.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to tracking devices:
Flick (US 6737989 B2) discloses Vehicle Tracker Including Variable Frequency Transmission and Related Methods.
Flick (US 6509868 B2) discloses Vehicle Tracker with User Notifications and Associated Methods.
Steven (US 20160335878 A1) discloses User Device and Method for Tracking Physical Location of Vehicle Keys.
Williams et al. (US 20020070874 A1) discloses Apparatus and Method for Tracking Stolen Articles
Berard et al. (US 5515043 A) discloses Cellular/GPS System for Vehicle Tracking.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights