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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2024, 04/16/2025, 07/08/2025, 07/14/2025, 09/17/2025, and 11/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks have been given full consideration, as such this Office Action has been modified in view of Amendments filed on 05/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "Remarks" on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 17, “Robbins fails to disclose or suggest a management controller or any second processor that operates as a separate computing device (i.e., independently of the processor 201, storage device 203, network interface controller 205, etc.) within the device 200,” and “Monteleone, Kariman, and Howe fail to disclose or suggest at least these above emphasized…” However, Monteleone teaches as such, referring to FIG. 1, secondary mobile device 180, which includes at least one processor, separate from mobile device’s 110 processor(s), according to [0061] and further explained in the amended sections of Claim 1 below.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding dependent claim 8, “…all of these cited prior art references are silent with regard to a data processing system having a single network module configured as required in the above emphasized limitations of amended dependent claim 8.” However, Monteleone teaches as such, referring to FIG.1, a singular network 120, wherein communications may be performed via cellular service 160, i.e. never flowing through secondary device 180 nor mobile device 110 (read as management controller) and therefore never flowing through the hardware resources, [0049] specifically states, “the geographic location of one or more of the mobile devices 110 may be provided or confirmed using one or more cellular towers of a cellular service 160.”
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 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) in view of Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins teaches a method for managing operations of a data processing system ([0022-0023] FIG. 1 depicts Gateway 102 which may include any system or device (e.g., an Information Handling System (IHS)), and the IHS [0018] operable to compute, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, entertainment, or other purposes, i.e. managing operations of a data processing system), the method comprising: obtaining a location log ([0004] in asset tracking, enterprises, hospitals, factories, etc. may accurately track the location of equipment, shipped items, persons, vehicles, and so on, i.e. obtain/monitor locations and save said locations in memory, i.e. obtaining a location log), by the data processing system and via the internal management controller and an out-of-band communication channel of the data processing system ([0006] may include broadcasting, by a gateway which may include the IHS, IHS read as controller, a wireless beacon that is out-of-band with respect to communications between the gateway and a plurality of devices over a network, for securing IoT devices through the use of an out-of-band beacon, i.e. data processing system via out-of-band communication channel, additionally, [0018] describes “referring to FIG. 1, secondary device 180, in the case where secondary mobile device 180 is being used as the “management controller” or tracking device, wherein [0100] describes “the formula or output calculations 1396B may be the result of many different sequential or parallel calculations performed on a device such as, but not limited to a computing device or other device having at least one processor,” i.e. in this scenario the management controller is operating as a separate and independent operating computing device, i.e. the IHS may be an internal management controller within, or not included, a user device for example), by the internal management controller and using the location log ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log), and providing, by the internal management controller and via the out-of-band communication channel ([0040 and 0042] depicted in FIG. 2, RF controller 206 is coupled to an RF antenna, and it may include any RF transceiver capable of transmitting out-of-band beacon 114, which is received from Gateway 102, which is connected to the IHS, IHS read as controller, and at block 301, gateway 102 transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114 containing a token, for example, using RF controller 206 of FIG. 2, and [0044] gateway 102 transmits the resulting payload to IoT device 104), the location report to an external device- (the transmissions described above may include [0004] asset tracking, enterprises, hospitals, factories, etc. for accurately tracking the location of equipment, shipped items, persons, vehicles, and so on, and shown in FIG. 1 Gateway 102 may transmit via an out-of-band communication channel 114 transmissions to a plurality of IoT devices, i.e. a location report being transmitted to an external device).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specially teach the data processing system comprising hardware resources and an internal management controller that is physically installed within the data processing system and that operates as a separate and independently operating computing device from the hardware resources, the location log indicating validated location data for the data processing system obtained over a period of time; generating a location report, the location report indicating geographical locations at different points in time of the data processing system; and -usable to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path. However, Monteleone teaches [abstract] a tracking method using geolocation data and the method comprises obtaining a set of predetermined GPS locations representing a course/path/map, tracking movements of a user using a GPS controller, authenticating the movements of the user against the set of predetermined GPS locations while the client terminal is within a predetermined distance of at least one of the set of predetermined GPS locations, and presenting consolidated timing information about the user's movements along the set of predetermined GPS locations. Monteleone also teaches the data processing system comprising hardware resources and an internal management controller that is physically installed within the data processing system (referring to FIG. 1, mobile device 110, in the case where the mobile device 110 is being used as the “management controller” or tracking device, [0102] describes “the at least one client terminal may be a mobile device, a data logger, or other computing device having at least one processor,” i.e. mobile device 110, mobile device 110 read as management controller, may be a tracking aspect located within mobile device 110, wherein mobile device 110 is capable of having the management controller internally on mobile device 110 through the use of a plurality of possible processors, i.e. in this scenario the management controller is operating as a separate entity within mobile device 110, but still from the hardware resources of mobile device 110 such as the plurality of processors) and that operates as a separate and independently operating computing device from the hardware resources (referring to FIG. 1, secondary device 180, in the case where secondary mobile device 180 is being used as the “management controller” or tracking device, [0100] describes “the formula or output calculations 1396B may be the result of many different sequential or parallel calculations performed on a device such as, but not limited to a computing device or other device having at least one processor,” i.e. in this scenario the management controller is operating as a separate and insentiently operating computing device), the location log indicating validated location data for the data processing system obtained over a period of time ([0065] the system 100 retrieves the geolocation position of the user to compare against any of the set of geolocation positions 210-230, as shown in FIG. 2, and [0029] the user's geolocation and time at the geolocation is recorded and tracked, and this tracked information is authenticated against the set of geolocation positions to ensure that the user is moving to locations as prescribed by the set of geolocation positions); generating a location report ([0072] FIG. 3-10 depict a graphical user interface, in which the user may obtain a screen 300 which provides an exemplary image/map/report 310 of the course with the course's location, and [0076] FIG. 5/6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a screenshot 500 of a graphical user interface for deactivating the tracking of the user's movements on a course, where the interface also shows previous lap times on the course, i.e. generating a full location report), the location report indicating geographical locations at different points in time of the data processing system (FIG. 3/4 depict geographical locations, and Fig 5/6 depict how these geographical locations may be associated with time stamps or points in time of the data processing system); and -usable to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path ([0031] allows user course and/or lap time to be tracked on the predetermined course, and [0032] the technique can be used for any course and is not limited to race tracks, trails, or path, and [0069] describes a success rate/threshold to verify the data processing system is following the expected path via geolocation positions against the total number of geolocation positions in the set of geolocation positions 210-230 for the course 205, and [0056] describes the messaging server 170 also facilitates messages from users to course proprietors, so that users can report other users, problems with the course, or any other messages meant for the course proprietor, i.e. another technique used to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, and an expected path, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 2, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the external device is a server capable of determining whether the data processing system is following an expected path of one or more expected paths, the expected path indicating a sequence of geographical locations and a duration of time over which the data processing system traverses the expected path to be considered normal. However, Monteleone teaches as such ([0009] the one or more client terminals of the system are configured to obtain, from the central database, a set of predetermined GPS locations representing a course; track movements of a user using a GPS controller, where tracking the movements of the user further comprises timing the movements of the user; authenticate the movements of the user against the set of predetermined GPS locations while the client terminal is within a predetermined distance of at least one of the set of predetermined GPS locations; and upon determining whether successful authentication of the user's movements is greater than a predetermined success threshold, storing timing information in the central database, and retrieving and presenting the timing information on the client terminal, i.e. a server database capable of determining whether the data processing system is following an expected path's threshold via geolocation data in association with time, and calculating a [0068] user success rate and comparing that value to the predetermined success rate/threshold in order to ensure "the expected path to be considered normal").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal,” as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 3, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the external device is a user device that uses the location report to determine whether the geographical locations indicated by the location report are consistent with an external report generated by a user of the data processing system, the external report being considered normal. However, Monteleone teaches the external device is a user device that uses the location report to determine whether the geographical locations indicated by the location report are consistent with an external report generated by a user of the data processing system (FIG. 3-10 depict the external device is a user device that displays the location report to the user, and [0056] describes the messaging server 170 of the user tracking system 100, which may be used to report inconsistent times/geolocations or other errors/glitches, i.e. the user may compare the external report (report of others or map expectancies as shown in FIG. 3/10) to their own generated location report), the external report being considered normal ([0068] comparing user success rate to the predetermined success rate/threshold in order to ensure "the expected path to be considered normal").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal,” as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 4, Robbins teaches obtaining the location log comprises: obtaining, by the management internal controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the validated location data for the data processing system at different points in time; and generating the location log using the validated location data. However, Monteleone teaches as such ([0068-0069] describes the system is capable of allowing the timer to create track cut penalties based on geolocations, and the system 100 resets the set of geolocation positions to incomplete, or when the system 100 determines that the user has completed the lap, then the lap is counted, lap information is recorded, and the timer for the lap is reset for the next geolocation dataset, and this information will be used to validate the location data for the location log and display said location log to the external device, i.e. validating data and generating the location log based on validated data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 5, Robbins teaches obtaining the validated location data comprises: obtaining, by the internal management controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel), obtaining, by the internal management controller and using at least a private key of a public private key pair ([0006] describes decrypting the encrypted packet into an intermediate payload by the gateway, which may include [0022-0023] the IHS, IHS read as management controller, using a public key, where the public key corresponds to a certificate provisioned to each of the plurality of devices, i.e. using at least a private key of a public private key pair).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach first location data for the data processing system; performing, by the internal management controller, a comparison process using the first location data and second location data to determine whether the first location data is consistent with the second location data, the second location data being a different type of data than the first location data; in a first instance of the comparison process in which the first location data is determined to be consistent with the second location data: and the validated location data based on the first location data and the second location data. However, Monteleone teaches first location data for the data processing system; performing, by the management controller, a comparison process using the first location data and second location data to determine whether the first location data is consistent with the second location data ([0063] first geolocation is the start/finish point for the proprietor. As the proprietor moves along the course, the system 100 records the proprietor's geolocation at certain intervals on his mobile device 110, and the set of geolocation positions 210-230 are made, and in creating the set of geolocation positions 210-230, proprietors use a similar tracking technique to the tracking of users, as shown in FIG. 1/2), the second location data being a different type of data than the first location data ([0065-0068] FIG. 2 shows geolocation positions 211-230, all being a different type of data than the first location data 210); in a first instance of the comparison process in which the first location data is determined to be consistent with the second location data ([0065] describes if the calculated distance between the user's current geolocation position and a particular geolocation position of the set 210-230 is equal to or less than a predetermined distance/threshold, then the system 100 marks the particular geolocation position as complete): and the validated location data based on the first location data and the second location data ([0065-0069] describes validating location data, based on a plurality of validated locations, as shown in FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 6, Robbins teaches obtaining, by the internal management controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach performing the comparison process comprises: and the second location data for the data processing system; and making a determination, based on the first location data and the second location data, regarding whether a difference between the first location data and the second location data falls within a threshold. However, Monteleone teaches performing the comparison process comprises ([0065-0069] describes the comparison process): and the second location data for the data processing system; and making a determination, based on the first location data and the second location data, regarding whether a difference between the first location data and the second location data falls within a threshold (Fig. 2 depicts geolocations 210-230 with geolocation 210 being the first location data and geolocation 211 being the second location data for the data processing system and [0068] each established course in the system 100 has a success rate (also referred herein as a predetermined success threshold). The success rate is used to make sure that users do not cut the course or cheat. The success rate may be defined by the course proprietor or by the system, based on an ongoing aggregation and normalization of the completion rates by users. In one embodiment, the success rate is set at a default of 70%. The success rate is the threshold for the system 100 to consider a lap or stage as complete, and the success rate is based on the number of completed geolocation positions against the total number of geolocation positions in the set of geolocation positions 210-230 for the course 205, i.e. ensuring location data and timestamps fall within a threshold for a plurality of locations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets and a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 7, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach obtaining additional validated location data for the data processing system; updating the location log using the additional validated location data to obtain an updated location log; and providing the updated location log to the external device to use for computer-implemented services. However, Monteleone teaches obtaining additional validated location data for the data processing system; updating the location log using the additional validated location data to obtain an updated location log (Fig. 2 depicts geolocations 210-230 with geolocations 212-230 being additional validated location data, and [0063] the system 100 records the proprietor's geolocation at certain intervals when creating the map/path/course, and the proprietor can add additional validated location data to an updated location log such as geolocations 212-230); and providing the updated location log to the external device to use for computer-implemented services (FIG. 3/4 depict the updated location log being displayed on an external device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path, the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets and a predetermined threshold value, and update/display a location log accordingly, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 8, Robbins teaches the data processing system comprises a network module adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the internal management controller and hardware resources of the data processing system (FIG. 1 depicts a plurality of network endpoints advertising for the network module 102 and other hardware), the network endpoints being usable by a server to address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and the internal management controller using the out-of-band communication channel- ([0018] describes an Information Handling System (IHS), which may include or utilize a network server or storage device to address communications to the hardware resources as shown in FIG. 1, and [0031] in-band (or ordinary) communications take place via LAN 113, while out-of-band beacon 114 provides additional security measures, gateway 102 transmits out-of-band beacon 114 to any IoT device in its vicinity also shown in FIG. 1, the Gateway 102 may still transmit via in-band communication channels via LAN connection 113, and may also transmit via out-of-band communication channels via the out-of-band communication system 103 and out-of-band beacon 114).
Robbins is not relied on for the claim language -such that first communications meant for the hardware resources never flow through the management controller and second communications meant for the management controller never flow through the hardware resources. However, Monteleone teaches as such, (referring to FIG.1, a singular network 120, wherein communications may be performed via cellular service 160, i.e. never flowing through secondary device 180 nor mobile device 110 (read as management controller) and therefore never flowing through the hardware resources, [0049] specifically states, “the geographic location of one or more of the mobile devices 110 may be provided or confirmed using one or more cellular towers of a cellular service 160,” i.e. provided by cellular towers instead of the management device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to a singular network configured so that communications never flow through the management controller/hardware resources, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 10, Robbins teaches the out-of-band communication channel runs through the single network module (FIG. 1 depicts the out-of-band communication channel 114 runs through the network module 102, wherein said network 102 contains a single network module as explained in [0009] wherein the IHS may be capable of “transmitting, by the gateway as part of the communications over the network,” i.e. making it a single network module since the IHS device may need a gateway to perform communications between other networks), and an in-band communication channel that services the hardware resources also runs through the single network module (FIG. 1 depicts the in-band communication channel (not labeled) running through the LAN 113 to the Internet 115 and to hardware resources such as 118 and 116, originating from the network module 102).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Robbins teaching a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein- ([0010] device may include a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, perform the operations explained in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) and Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Kariman (US 2015/0208195 A1, hereinafter Kariman).
Regarding claim 9, Robbins teaches -single network module- ([0009] the IHS may be capable of “transmitting, by the gateway as part of the communications over the network,” i.e. making it a single network module since the IHS device may need a gateway to perform communications between other networks).
The combination of Robbins and Monteleone differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the internal management controller and the- -network module are on separate power domains from the hardware resources so that the internal management controller and the- -network module are operable while the hardware resources are inoperable. However, Kariman teaches a method for [abstract] facilitating acquisition and transmission of location-based data out-of-band, and the internal management controller and the- -network module are on separate power domains from the hardware resources so that the internal management controller and the- -network module are operable while the hardware resources are inoperable ([0017] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the disclosed invention, where the circuitry that operates the network access software 3 and/or the out-of-band operating system 2 is powered from a separate power source 8 than the electronic device 7, i.e. FIG.4 depicts separate power sources for the management controller and the network module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Robbins and Monteleone to include separate power domains, as taught by Kariman, in order to [0017] allow the in-band operating system 1 and the out-of-band operating system 2 to exchange data with the location detection system 4 while it is communicatively coupled with the electronic device and therefore [0011] improve facilitating persistent Location-Based Services and [abstract] transmission of location-based data.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) and Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Howe (US 2005/0058149 A1, hereinafter Howe).
Regarding claim 11, Robbins teaches -to facilitate network communications via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG. 1 depicts network communications via the out-of-band communication channel 114).
The combination of Robbins and Monteleone differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the single network module hosts a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack-. However, Howe teaches [abstract] capabilities for synchronizing data networks and/or data network links, establishing time-schedules, time-reservations, time-schedule reservations, and/or reservation time-slots for packets, cells, frames, and/or datagrams, and for transferring, transmitting, switching, routing, and/or receiving time-sensitive data over networks. Howe also teaches the single network module hosts a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack- ([0034 and 0367] FIG. 49 illustrates the control plane and user plane for Time-Scheduled packet switching using the TCP/IP reference model, i.e. the tracking system works in allocation with transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Robbins and Monteleone to include the network communications of the time associated location data to be transmitted in accordance with a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack, as taught by Howe, in order to [0069] alleviate delay problems and [0123] increase efficiency for various timing and scheduling improvements having to do with data transfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jantzi, Jason Wayne et al. (2024). Asset tracking devices and mobile network coverage (US 2024/0292369 A1). Filed 2023-02-28. Discloses methods and systems for building a coverage map for a mobile network operator based on a plurality of location reports received from a plurality of deployed asset tracking devices. (abstract)
Viitala, Mika Ahti Petteri et al. (2022). Method, apparatus, and system for shipment tracking (US 2022/0276061 A1). Filed 2021-02-26. Discloses a method which includes receiving a tracking device report at least indicative of a position of a tracking device. (abstract)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights