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 Objections
The previous objections under Claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 20 has been addressed and are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under Claim 19 has been addressed and are hereby withdrawn
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility
analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for improved product monitoring during transit, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving at least one product identifier associated with at least one product,
wherein the at least one product identifies the at least one product;
determining, based at least in part on the at least one product identifier, at least one monitoring parameter;
generating, using a trained model, a threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier based at least in part on the at least one monitoring parameter and threshold data for the at least one product identifier, wherein the threshold rules set comprises a set of one or more rules;
initiating operation of one or more monitoring devices of a plurality of monitoring devices configured to monitor condition of an environment within which the at least one product associated with the at least one product identifier is located during transit, wherein initiating the operation of the one or more monitoring devices comprises transmitting one or more control signals configured to control the one or more monitoring devices to capture monitoring data for the at least one monitoring parameter;
receiving the monitoring data from the one or more monitoring devices;
processing the monitoring data to determine whether each rule in the
threshold rules set for the at least on product identifier is satisfied; and
storing at least a portion of the monitoring data corresponding to the at least one monitoring parameter.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of the Apparatus Claim 14 which performs the method of claim 1 and comprises:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to…
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 20 which performs the method of claim 1 and comprises:
A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the computer program to…
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 14 is an apparatus claim, and claim 20 is an non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “determining, based at least in part on the at least one product identifier, at least one monitoring parameter“, “generating, using a trained model, a threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier based at least in part on the at least one monitoring parameter and threshold data for the at least one product identifier, wherein the threshold rules set comprises a set of one or more rules”, “processing the monitoring data to determine whether each rule in the threshold rules set for the at least on product identifier is satisfied” which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to identify and analyze monitoring data for determining compliance with threshold rules is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations and evaluations, e.g. determining parameter values, comparing monitoring data to thresholds, and assessing where the monitored condition satisfy predefined rules, all of which are abstract mental and mathematical processes.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 20.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “A computer-implemented method for improved product monitoring during transit”, “receiving at least one product identifier associated with at least one product, wherein the at least one product identifies the at least one product”, “initiating operation of one or more monitoring devices of a plurality of monitoring devices configured to monitor condition of an environment within which the at least one product associated with the at least one product identifier is located during transit, wherein initiating the operation of the one or more monitoring devices comprises transmitting one or more control signals configured to control the one or more monitoring devices to capture monitoring data for the at least one monitoring parameter”, “receiving the monitoring data from the one or more monitoring devices”, and “storing at least a portion of the monitoring data corresponding to the at least one monitoring parameter” however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. Furthermore, the claim recites that the steps, e.g. “receiving”, and “storing” are performed using a “computer implemented method” however this is found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Apparatus claim 14 recites the same additional elements as claim 1 and also recites “An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to…”. Also, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20 recites the same additional elements as claim 1 and also recites “A storage program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the computer to…” however the use of a generic computer components performing common functions of executing instructions do not limit the claim. Similarly, the use of a general purpose computer to receive and process product monitoring data during transit is similarly found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using “monitoring system(s)” and “computing system(s)”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the results after determining and processing the monitoring data to validate it satisfy the threshold rules. The claim merely evaluates the data to identify where certain conditions have been met but does not result to any action after that step such as making modification on the device or adjusting the environment. The results of the determination are not used to do any sort of control or change the operation, instead used as a information attained during transit for evaluation rather than a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1, 14 and 20). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 14, and claim 20, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 and 14-19, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for claims 1, 14 and 20. Specifically:
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, and 15-17 specifically, the claims further specify variations of the product identifiers or monitoring parameters, such as associating different parameters to different products that have different identifiers. These limitations merely describe the type or categorization of data being collected and analyzed and thus amount to insignificant data gathering and organization activity. As such, these claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 18 specifically, the claims further recite that the one or more monitoring devices comprise at least one IoT device. The indication of IoT technology in the invention merely specifies the network environment of the monitoring device and does not provide any technically improvement to the functionality of the monitoring system. The use of generic IoT technology to collect and transmit monitoring data represents insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 19 specifically, the claims recite that the product identifier is received from an indicia or machine-readable symbology reader. Such limitation merely define a generic data input device and therefore is also a form of insignificant data-gathering activity that is well-understood and conventional.
With respect to dependent claims 7-9 specifically, the claims further define that the monitoring devices are configured to monitor environmental conditions such as temperature, pressure, tilt, or humidity during transit. These limitations merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use of monitoring product conditions during shipment and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claims 10-12 specifically, the claims further recite determining threshold data, applying a model and retrieving data from a master library. These represent mathematical operations and routine data retrieval steps that are themselves abstract ideas and therefore do not integrate to a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, for the reasons above and those discussed in relation to the independent claims 1, 14, and 20, and the dependent claims are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 US 20210125143 A1, Barlett (hereinafter Barlett) in view of US 20220269920 A1, Valencia et al (hereinafter Valencia).
Regarding Claim 1, 14, and 20, Barlett discloses a computer-implemented method (Barlett, [0356] software instructions stored in memory embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium) for improved product monitoring during transit (Barlett, [0337] the invention uses various features of the IoT system described herein to ensure secure transport of temperature-sensitive or vibration-sensitive products), the method comprising:
receiving at least one product identifier (Barlett, Fig. 12A (1202) Barcode / QR code, [0069] the unique code may be embedded in a barcode on the IoT device and may be read by the barcode reader 106 or may be communicated over the local communication channel 130) associated with at least one product (Barlett, [0346] a QR code associated with the IoT device 101 on the IoT service 120 may be visible from the outside of the shipping container/package. Scanning the QR code may then provide access to the IoT device 101 via the secure transport service 4250), wherein
the at least one product identifier identifies the at least one product (Barlett, [0125] FIG. 12A each IoT device 101 or SIM 401 may be packaged with a barcode or QR code 1501 uniquely identifying the IoT device 101 and/or SIM 1001).
determining, based at least in part on the at least one product identifier, at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0349] any type of sensor capable of measuring a variable related to the safe transport of the product may be integrated on the IoT device 101 and used to ensure that the product arrives undamaged);
receiving the monitoring data from the one or more monitoring devices (Barlett, [0349] In addition, while the embodiments of the invention described herein focus on temperature, the same principles may be applied to other forms of sensor data. As mentioned, this may include humidity data read from humidity sensors, vibration data related to accelerometers, mechanical shock sensors, humidity sensors, radio-frequency dosage sensors (e.g., X-ray sensors), ionizing radiation dosage sensors, and tamper sensors. In short, any type of sensor capable of measuring a variable related to the safe transport of the product may be integrated on the IoT device 101 and used to ensure that the product arrives undamaged);
processing the monitoring data (Barlett, [0342] In one embodiment, if a sensor 4200 measures a value outside of a specified range, the monitor application 4210 records this as an event within an event data storage device 4001 which is implemented as a secure non-volatile memory) to determine whether each rule in the threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier is satisfied (Barlett, [0342] the monitor application 4210 may measure/calculate the amount of time that the temperature remains outside of the specified range and store events when particular temporal thresholds have been reached. In addition to the amount of time, it may calculate and store other relevant data such as the average temperature differential above/below the specified threshold, the maximum and/or minimum temperatures recorded, and any data relevant to the safe transport of the associated product); and
storing at least a portion of the monitoring data corresponding to the at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0347] Thus, the IoT device 101 of this embodiment opportunistically uploads event data and/or other telemetry logs to the IoT service 120 when the package receiver or any other user along the way uses a secure transport app 4725 to check status).
Barlett does not disclose generating, using a trained model, a threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier based at least in part on the at least one monitoring parameter and threshold data for the at least one product identifier, wherein the threshold rules set comprises a set of one or more rules;
initiating operation of one or more monitoring devices of a plurality of monitoring devices configured to monitor the condition of an environment within which the at least one product associated with the at least one product identifier is located included during transit, wherein initiating the operation of the one or more monitoring devices comprises transmitting one or more control signals configured to control the one or more monitoring devices to capture monitoring data for the at least one monitoring parameter;
However, Valencia teaches generating, using a trained model, a threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier based at least in part on the at least one monitoring parameter (Valencia, [0207] In this example, at step 840, received tag history data is applied to the predictive model, with the predictive model generating an output in the form of a likelihood that a trigger event is to occur at step 845. The likelihood can be compared to a threshold and if this is exceeded at step 850, meaning a trigger event is likely, a notification can be generated at step 855 and transferred at step 860, either to a client device 320, or a tag 310, allowing an action to be performed, such as generating an alert or similar, or allowing machinery or other equipment, such as AGV (automated guided vehicle) to be controlled or similar. It will be appreciated that this in turn can prevent trigger events occurring, and hence can be used to help prevent rule breaches or similar in a predictive manner) and threshold data for the at least one product identifier, wherein the threshold rules set comprises a set of one or more rules (Valencia, [0087] In this regard the object rules typically embody compliance rules or regulations regarding permitted or restricted actions, behaviours, characteristics or circumstances associated with different types of objects. Thus, the object rules will typically be different for objects 101 that are to be treated differently, so that, for example, the object rules for a tag associated with a hydrogen gas bottle, may differ to the object rules for a tag associated with an oxygen gas bottle. This allows the object rules to be used to assess whether an object is in breach of the rules or regulations, which is typically identified as a trigger event, [0169] In order to upload object rules to a tag, the client device typically needs to determine a tag identifier associated with a tag. This can be achieved in any one of a number of ways, such as obtaining tag identifiers from tags within range of the client device to allow a user to select a tag identifier, based on user input commands for example by having a user manually input a tag identifier, or by scanning coded data, such as a QR code or similar displayed on the tag. Having determined a tag identifier, the client device will then determine available object types in accordance with user input commands, for example by displaying a list of object types obtained from object rules and then determining selection of one or more of the listed object types. Once an object type has been determined, rules can be retrieved for the respective object type from the rules repository, with these then being uploaded to the tag in accordance with the tag identifier.);
initiating operation of one or more monitoring devices of a plurality of monitoring devices configured to monitor the condition of an environment (Valencia, [0083] One or more processing devices 120 can be provided that communicate with the tags 110 and an optional repository 130, which can be configured to store object rules for a plurality of different types of object, [0156] As previously mentioned, in addition to performing monitoring solely on the basis of the locations of the tags, the tags 110 can also make use of sensor data from at least one sensor to determine a measured parameter value. This can then be used to determine a trigger event, for example if the measured value breaches parameter value restrictions. Thus, for example, it may be a breach in compliance to store a gas bottle in an environment where the temperature exceeds a set temperature threshold. In this instance, the tag 110 can use temperature data received from a temperature sensor in order to determine a current environmental temperature) within which the at least one product associated with the at least one product identifier is located included during transit (Valencia, [0080] The tags 110 are typically associated with an object 101 by having the tag 110 attached to or integrated into the object 101 in some manner, depending on the physical form factor of the tag 110 and the object 101. This is performed so that the tag 110 is generally provided in the same environment as the object, and has a similar context to the object, such as the same physical location and optionally is subject to similar conditions, such as levels of temperature, humidity or the like), wherein initiating the operation (Valencia, Fig. 7, trigger event and perform action) of the one or more monitoring devices comprises transmitting (Valencia, [0120] The location beacons can then broadcast a communication request using the tag identifier, and then wait for a response. A response might be received by one or more of the beacons, in which case the beacons can communicate to select one of the beacons, which then forwards the object rules to the tag) one or more control signals configured to control the one or more monitoring devices (Valencia, Fig. 11, [0132] this allows the tag processing device to access an object rule and then identify context data that is relevant to that rule, simply by accessing defined portions of a received tag broadcast message, allowing the tag processing device to use the relevant context data and the object rule to identify if a trigger event has occurred. So, for example, if a tag processing device is processing an object rule relating to the location of another tag, the tag processing device knows only the first n bits of the tag broadcast message payload need to be analysed. Conversely, if the object rule relates to a sensor reading, only the next m bits need analysis, [0195] 0195] at step 715, the tag processing device 601 determines if a trigger event has occurred and if so, performs any required action associated with the trigger event at step 720. The tag processing device 601 can then return to step 700 to monitor for further context data. Simultaneously the tag processing device 601 can generate trigger tag history data. This is typically achieved by retrieving context data for a predetermined time period, such as the proceeding 10-15 seconds, or the like, and then using this to generate a feature vector including an object type identifier, at least some of the context data, and an indication of the trigger event at step 725. The trigger tag history data is then uploaded to the processing system 330 at step 730 allowing this to be used in generating a predictive model, as will be described below) to capture monitoring data for the at least one monitoring parameter (Valencia, [0091] In another example, the context data could also be determined using sensor data obtained from one or more sensors, located on-board or in communication with the tag 110. The sensor data typically relates to one or more sensed parameters, such as a temperature sensed by a temperature sensor, a humidity sensed by a humidity sensor, a pressure sensed by a pressure sensor, or radiation, such as visible or non-visible electromagnetic radiation, sensed by a radiation sensor, [0156] As previously mentioned, in addition to performing monitoring solely on the basis of the locations of the tags, the tags 110 can also make use of sensor data from at least one sensor to determine a measured parameter value);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barlett and Valencia’s teaching because Valencia teaches generating threshold rules using a trained predictive model based on monitoring data, which enhances the ability to anticipate and respond to environmental conditions affecting a monitored product. Integrating Valencia’s predictive model and techniques into Barlett’s monitoring system would have improved Barlett’s system by enabling more intelligent, data-driven threshold determination and proactive event detection, rather than depending solely on predefined thresholds. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the accuracy, reliability, and automation of monitoring and alerting functions in product transport systems such as temperature or condition of sensitive goods.
Claim 14 recites the same or substantially similar claim limitations as independent claim 1 merely further reciting “An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to…” which is also taught by Barlett ([0337] the invention uses various features of the IoT system described herein to ensure secure transport of temperature-sensitive or vibration-sensitive products), thus claim 14 is similar rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlett in view of Valencia for the same reasons as described above.
Claim 20 recites the same or substantially similar claim limitations as independent claim 1 merely further reciting “A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the computer to…” which is also taught by Barlett ([0356] software instructions stored in memory embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium), thus claim 20 is similar rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlett in view of Valencia for the same reasons as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, and 15, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the at least one product identifier comprises a first product identifier associated with a first product (Barlett, [0125] FIG. 12A each IoT device 101 or SIM 401 may be packaged with a barcode or QR code 1501 uniquely identifying the IoT device 101 and/or SIM 1001) and a second product identifier associated with a second product that is different for the first product (Barlett, [0254] When a new IoT device 101 is provisioned in the system, the user scans the barcode/QR code containing the association ID 2812 with a user device 135 having an IoT app or application installed thereon. Alternatively, or in addition, the IoT hub 110 may be used to capture the barcode/QR code including the association ID).
Regarding Claim 3 and 16, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the at least one monitoring parameter comprises a first parameter (Barlett, [0125] FIG. 12A each IoT device 101 or SIM 401 may be packaged with a barcode or QR code 1501 uniquely identifying the IoT device 101 and/or SIM 1001) of a first sensor type (Barlett, [0050] the IoT devices include sensors (e.g., temperature sensors, accelerometers, heat sensors, motion detectore, etc), the database 122 may be continually updated to store the data collected by the IoT devices 101-105) associated with a first product identifier and second parameter of a second sensor type associated with a second product identifier (Barlett, [0064] one or more other/alternate I/O devices or sensors 250 may be included on the IoT device 101 based on the particular application for which the IoT device 101 is designed. For example, an environmental sensor may be included to measure temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. A security sensor and/or door lock opener may be included if the IoT device is used as a security device).
Regarding Claim 4 and 17, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the at least one monitoring parameter comprises a first monitoring parameter of a first sensor type (Barlett [0264] the device database 2851 includes data transmission requirements for a plurality of different flow control “classes” (e.g., audiovisual device, temperature device, control device, security device, etc). When a new IoT device is introduced in the system, it is then associated with a particular flow control class based on the requirements of the IoT device and/or the type of IoT device.), wherein the first monitoring parameter is shared between a first product identifier and a second product identifier (Barlett, [0337] the invention uses various features of the IoT system described herein to ensure secure transport of temperature-sensitive or vibration-sensitive products.).
Regarding Claim 5 and 18, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the one or more monitoring devices comprise at least one IoT device (Barlett, [0340] In one embodiment, the IoT device 101 comprises one or more sensors 4200 to detect various environmental conditions experienced by the product while in transit).
Regarding Claim 6 and 19, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the at least one product identifier is received from an indicia reader (Barlett, [0125] where the barcode is printed, in one embodiment, the IoT hub 110 is equipped with a barcode reader 206 for reading the barcode and providing the resulting data to the security logic 1012 on the IoT hub 110 and/or the security logic 1013 on the IoT service 120) configured to read the at least one product identifier from a machine readable symbology associated with the at least one product (Barlett, [0129] the barcode/QR code 1201 may be printed directly on the IoT device 101 or may be printed on a separate card provided with the IoT device 101. In either case, the barcode reader 206 reads the pairing code from the barcode/QR code 1201 and provides the pairing code to the local communication module 1280).
Regarding Claim 7, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the one or more monitoring devices (i) are configured to monitor environmental conditions corresponding to the at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0340] the IoT device 101 comprises one or more sensors 4200 to detect various environmental conditions experienced by the product while in transit. As mentioned, the sensors 4200 may include temperature sensors to measure the temperature during transport and/or accelerometers to measure the acceleration or vibration experienced by the product. Various other types of sensors 4200 may be used based on the type of product being shipped including, but not limited to, mechanical shock sensors, humidity sensors, X-ray dosage sensors, ionizing radiation dosage sensors, and tamper sensors), and (ii) comprise a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices (Barlett, [0269] flow control parameters are specified for each IoT device. In one embodiment, and IoT device may be assigned to a particular IoT device “class” which has a specified set of flow control parameters associated therewith. At 3102, the flow control parameters are stored on IoT hubs within the IoT system. In one embodiment, each hub may store a subset of all of the IoT device parameters (e.g., only those parameters for IoT devices that have been provisioned locally)).
Regarding Claim 8, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches initiating the operation of the one or more monitoring devices in response to an indication (Barlett, [0347] Thus, the IoT device 101 of this embodiment opportunistically uploads event data and/or other telemetry logs to the IoT service 120 when the package receiver or any other user along the way uses a secure transport app 4725 to check status) indicating start of transportation of the at least one product from a starting location to an end location (Barlett, [Abstract] a wireless communication interface to connect to an Internet of Things (IoT) service at one or more intermediate locations between the origin location and the destination location and/or at the destination location, the wireless communication interface to transmit the environmental values and/or event data associated with the environmental values to the IoT service).
Regarding Claim 9, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the at least one monitoring parameter comprises one or more of real-time location, temperature, pressure, tilt, altitude, or humidity (Barlett, [0064] one or more other/alternate I/O devices or sensors 250 may be included on the IoT device 101 based on the particular application for which the IoT device 101 is designed. For example, an environmental sensor may be included to measure temperature, pressure, humidity, etc).
Regarding Claim 10, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein determining the threshold rules set for the at least one product identifier comprises:
determining the threshold data associated with the at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0342] the monitor application 4210 may measure/calculate the amount of time that the temperature remains outside of the specified range); and
applying the trained model to the threshold data to output the threshold rules set (Barlett, [0342] store events when particular temporal thresholds have been reached. In addition to the amount of time, it may calculate and store other relevant data such as the average temperature differential above/below the specified threshold, the maximum and/or minimum temperatures recorded, and any data relevant to the safe transport of the associated product).
Regarding Claim 11, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein the threshold data comprises one or more of minimum threshold value for the at least one monitoring parameter, maximum threshold value for the at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0342] In addition to the amount of time, it may calculate and store other relevant data such as the average temperature differential above/below the specified threshold, the maximum and/or minimum temperatures recorded, and any data relevant to the safe transport of the associated product), or threshold violation duration for the at least one monitoring parameter (Barlett, [0342] In addition, the monitor application 4210 may measure/calculate the amount of time that the temperature remains outside of the specified range and store events when particular temporal thresholds have been reached).
Regarding Claim 12, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches wherein determining the at least one monitoring parameter comprises retrieving data (Barlett, [0262] each IoT device is assigned to a particular flow control “class” based on the data requirements of that IoT device) comprising the at least one monitoring parameter from a master data library (Barlett, [0060] the program code may include application program code 203 defining an application-specific set of functions to be performed by the IoT device 201 and library code 202 comprising a set of predefined building blocks which may be utilized by the application developer of the IoT device 101).
Regarding Claim 13, Barlett in view of Valencia teaches generating a notification in response to determining that the monitoring data fails (Barlett, [0084] In addition to providing general control functions as described, one embodiment of the IoT hub 110 and/or IoT service 120 transmits notifications to the end user related to the current status of each piece of electronics equipment) to satisfy at least one rule of the threshold rules set (Barlett, [0271] certain IoT devices may be used to collect data such as temperature and status (e.g., on/off status) and report this data back to the IoT service, where it may be accessed by an end user and/or used to generate various types of alert conditions).
Response to Arguments
35 USC§ 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process and instead improve computer or monitoring technology. However, the claimed steps such as receiving a product identifier, determining monitoring parameters, generating threshold rules, and evaluating monitoring data, data collection, and analysis that can be performed mentally, and thus fall within the category of mental processes.
Applicant assertion of a technological improvement is also unpersuasive, as the claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality, but instead use conventional components to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements, including monitoring devices and processors are well understood, and conventional. The recitation of a “trained model” amounts to applying a generic data analysis technique and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
35 USC§ 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 of the 35 U.S.C 102 Rejection have been considered but are moot and/or unpersuasive because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references (Barlett in view of Valencia) being used in the current rejection.
Regarding the argument that the amended limitations in Claims 1, 14, and 20 the applicant argues that Barlett does not disclose a product identifier identifying a product, generating, using a trained model a threshold rules set, and transmitting control signals to control monitoring devices under the original limitation. This argument is unpersuasive because the newly cited portions of Bartlett, in view of Valencia, teach or suggest the disputed limitations, as explained in the rejection above.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and claims 1-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See rejection above for further detail.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights