DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A2 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 14, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/07/2026.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15 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 claim 1, and similarly claim 9, the term “a portion” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “a portion”. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velusamy (US 2011/0148625) in view of Jam et al (US 7,397,376).
Velusamy
PNG
media_image1.png
412
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jam et al
PNG
media_image3.png
756
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
712
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Velusamy discloses a device (i.e. location device) comprising at least one computer processor configured to:
establish a communication connection with a user device (i.e. tracking module) that has entered a communication area associated with the device (i.e. tracking module communicates with tag items with tag items based on specified triggering event such as proximity) (Fig 7 above – “705”; [0053]; [0062]); and
upon establishing the communication connection with the user device:
receive, from the user device, asset identifier data identifying an asset (i.e. tracking module 200 with an RFID reader in Fig 2 above receives RFID tags that transmitting their presences) (Fig 7 above – “707”; [0021]; [0028]; [0041]; [0063]);
Velusamy does not explicitly disclose transmit at least a portion of the asset identifier data to a control system; receive, from the control system, confirmation data indicating the user device is proximate an appropriate sort location for the asset as claimed. Instead, Velusamy teaches the tracking module communicates with tag items with tag items based on specified triggering event such as proximity (Fig 7 above – “705”; [0053]; [0062]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to transmit at least a portion of the asset identifier data to a control system; receive, from the control system, confirmation data indicating the user device is proximate an appropriate sort location for the asset as claimed to confirm that the user device is proximate an appropriate sort location for the asset, since Applicant has not disclose such confirmation that the user device is proximate an appropriate sort location for the asset solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the confirmation that the user device is proximate an appropriate sort location utilizing proximity triggering event as taught by Velusamy.
Still regarding claim 1, Velusamy also does not explicitly disclose responsive to receiving the confirmation data, perform an operation comprising at least one of transmitting an indication that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location to the user device for causing a display or causing at least one of a sound to be emitted or a light to be illuminated indicating that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location from an associated output device as claimed. Jam et al teach in the same field of endeavor perform an operation comprising at least one of transmitting an indication that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location to the user device for causing a display or causing at least one of a sound to be emitted or a light to be illuminated indicating that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location from an associated output device (i.e. generate alert if document maybe outside workflow; indicate the document has passed at least one destination; indicate that workflow cannot be ensured due to tag and reader errors) (Fig 3 above – “310, 314”; Fig 4 above – “412, 414”; col 6, line 59 – col 7, line 6; col 7, line 64 – col 8, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Velusamy in view of Jam et al to incorporate performing an operation comprising at least one of transmitting an indication that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location to the user device for causing a display or causing at least one of a sound to be emitted or a light to be illuminated indicating that the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location from an associated output device as taught by Jam et al to gain the advantages of properly identifying and tracking items and their locations in a tracking area; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2-3, Velusamy in view of Jam et al disclose a display (i.e. generate alert if document maybe outside workflow; indicate the document has passed at least one destination; indicate that workflow cannot be ensured due to tag and reader errors) (Jam et al – Fig 3 above – “310, 314”; Fig 4 above – “412, 414”; col 6, line 59 – col 7, line 6; col 7, line 64 – col 8, line 5). Velusamy in view of Jam et al do not explicitly the display comprising a representation of the appropriate sort location. However, presenting the information on the display based on user preference would be just an obvious matter of design choice. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 5, Velusamy disclose the at least one computer processor is further configured to associate the asset identifier data with sort location identifier data identifying the appropriate sort location based on receiving the asset identifier data (i.e. acquire location information of the associated tag based on proximity) (Fig 6 above – “607”; Fig 7 above – “707-711”; [0053]; [0063]-[0065]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 6, Velusamy discloses the at least one computer processor is further configured to transmit an indication of associating the asset identifier data with the sort location identifier data to at least one of the control system or a data storage (i.e. tracking module registers and stores items in the memory) ([0029]; [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Velusamy discloses the at least one computer processor is configured to transmit, to the control system, location data identifying the sort location associated with the device (i.e. RFID tag items transmit their locations) (Fig 7 above – “705-707”; [0021]; [0028]; [0062]-[0063]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15, the claims are rejected for similar reasons of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8 as stated above and wherein Velusamy in view of Jam et al further teach in the same field of endeavor of performing an operation comprising at least one of transmitting an indication that the user device is not proximate the appropriate sort location to the user device for causing a display or causing at least one of a sound to be emitted or a light to be illuminated indicating that the user device is not proximate the appropriate sort location from an associated output device (i.e. generate alert if document maybe outside workflow; indicate the document has passed at least one destination; indicate that workflow cannot be ensured due to tag and reader errors) (Jam et al – Fig 3 above – “310, 314”; Fig 4 above – “412, 414”; col 6, line 59 – col 7, line 6; col 7, line 64 – col 8, line 5). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velusamy modified by Jam et al as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Sarma et al (US 2008/0198001).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 11, Velusamy modified by Jam et al do not explicitly the communication connection is established based on a strength of a signal broadcast by the device satisfying one or more signal criteria as claimed. Sarma et al teach in the same field of endeavor such communication connection is established based on a strength of a signal broadcast by the device satisfying one or more signal criteria ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Velusamy modified by Jam et al in view of Sarma et al to incorporate the communication connection is established based on a strength of a signal broadcast by the device satisfying one or more signal criteria as taught by Sarma et al to gain the advantages of properly establishing communication among the devices to properly identifying and tracking items and their locations in a tracking area; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,740,892 discloses a method and system for tracking an asset in an indoor facility. The method includes receiving, from a first mobile device, an asset tracking tag collision report, the asset tracking tag collision report including a tag identifier of an asset tracking tag associated with an asset; determining a new location of the asset based on the received asset tracking tag collision report; updating an asset location database to indicate the new location of the asset; and, in response to determining the new location of the asset, transmitting an instruction message to a mobile device to cause the mobile device to direct the asset tracking tag to cease broadcasting the wireless signal. The method and system use crowd-sourcing to determine a new location of an asset that has moved in an indoor facility.
US 9,658,310 discloses systems and methods for facilitating the sorting of assets to sort. In various embodiments, a sort employee scans an asset indicia using a user device, which stores asset data corresponding to the stored asset. As the sort employee nears a sort location (e.g., a delivery vehicle) with the asset and the user device, the user device automatically communicates wirelessly with a sort location receiver to associate the asset data with data indicative of the sort location where the user deposits the asset. In various embodiments, a device may determine whether the user device is proximate the appropriate sort location for the item, and may generate an alert upon a determination that the user device is proximate an incorrect sort location.
US 8,884,744 discloses a portable data tag method, device and system for identifying a location of a data tag. The method comprises reading the data tag by a portable data tag reader device; determining, by a processor in operative communication with the reader device, a location of the portable data tag reader device; determining, by the processor, a read zone of the portable data tag reader device, relative to the location of the portable data tag reader device; and determining, by the processor, the location of the data tag using the location of the portable data tag reader device and the read zone of the portable data tag reader device.
US 8,253,538 discloses apparatus having corresponding methods and computer programs comprise: a mobile RFID reader adapted to receive radio-frequency (RF) signals from a plurality of RFID tags, wherein each RF signal represents a tag identifier associated with the respective RFID tag, and wherein the RFID tags include a plurality of asset tags and a plurality of location tags, wherein each of the asset tags is associated with a respective one of a plurality of assets, and wherein each of the location tags is associated with a respective one of a plurality of first locations; and an association module adapted to generate first associations between each of the assets and one or more of the first locations based on the tag identifiers.
US 2009/0091450 discloses systems and methods for a distributed safety apparatus which provides location tracking for assets. Assets are associated with asset tags which transmit data to receiver/transmitter units and which are tracked by a processing center. Communications for location tracking as well as wireless communications are provided through vertical shafts of multi-story buildings. Locations of assets may be depicted in two or three-dimensional models of the surroundings of the tracked assets. Devices used within the tracking systems may incorporate other emergency or event response materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights