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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a magnet is affixed to the doorway” and “the magnet that is affixed to the frame of a doorway”. It is suggested to amend the limitations to “a magnet is affixed to a frame of the door” and “the magnet that is affixed to the frame of the door”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcala et al. (US 2018/0041895 A1) in view of Patrick et al. (US 2015/0159401 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barcala discloses a device (e.g. Fig. 1: 102) for detecting if a door (e.g. Fig. 4: container door) obstructing a doorway (e.g. Fig. 4: entrance of the container) has been opened (e.g. Fig. 4 & [0063, 0065, 0076]: detect door open/close status), the device being removably connected to the door (e.g. Fig. 4 & [0076]: mobile transceiver 102 being mounted on door, i.e. removably connected), comprising:
at least one sensor (e.g. Fig. 2: 130) configured to detect when the door is manipulated from a closed position in which the doorway is obstructed, to an open position enabling access through the doorway (e.g. Fig. 4);
a processor (e.g. Fig. 2: 104) configured to generate a first alert message when sensor data indicative of the barrier being manipulated from the closed position to the open position, is received ([0037-0039, 0042, 0049, 0063, 0065, 0076, 0127]); and
a communication module (e.g. Fig. 1: 118, 114) for wirelessly transmitting the first alert message to a remote entity (e.g. Fig. 1: 200).
Barcala fails to disclose, but Patrick teaches the at least one sensor is configured to change data output in a magnetic field (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0036, 0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Barcala with the teachings of Patrick to utilize a magnetic sensor to determine door open/close status since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Barcala discloses the communication module comprises a first communication module (e.g. Fig. 1: 114) and a second communication module (e.g. Fig. 1: 118), the first communication module enabling long range wireless communications (e.g. [0052, 0053]), and the second communication module enabling short-range wireless communications (e.g. [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Barcala discloses the first communication module enables communication over a mobile telephone network (e.g. [0052, 0053]), and the second communication module enables communication via Bluetooth® (e.g. [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Barcala discloses the mobile telephone network comprises any one or more of: 2G, 3G, 4G,5G, LTE-M, or NB-IoT (e.g. [0052, 0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Barcala discloses the at least one sensor comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the door when it is manipulated from the closed position to the open position; and the processor is configured to generate the first alert message when motion sensor data indicative of the door being manipulated from the closed position to the open position is received (e.g. [0037, 0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Barcala discloses the motion sensor comprises an accelerometer (e.g. Fig. 2: 130 & [0037, 0049]) configured, when the device is at least partly affixed to the door (e.g. Fig. 4 & [0076]), to measure an acceleration of the door when the barrier is manipulated from the closed position to the open position (e.g. [0037, 0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Barcala discloses the accelerometer comprises a gyroscope (e.g. Fig. 2: 130 & [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Barcala fails to disclose, but Patrick teaches the at least one sensor comprises a magnetic sensor configured, when the device is at least partly affixed to the door, to measure a change in earth’s magnetic field strength along an axis having a component in a direction of displacement of the door when it is manipulated from the closed position to the open position; and the processor is configured to generate the first alert message in response to receipt of the measured change in earth’s magnetic field strength (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0036, 0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Barcala with the teachings of Patrick to utilize a magnetic sensor to determine door open/close status since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Barcala fails to disclose, but Patrick teaches the device is at least partly affixed to the door, a magnet is affixed to the doorway, and the at least one sensor comprises: a reed switch (e.g. Fig. 2: reed switch sensor 214) located within the device at least partly affixed to the door and adjacent to the magnet that is affixed to the frame of a doorway (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0045]: magnetized strickplate 220 affixed to door frame 202) and configured to be in a closed position when the door is in the closed position and the reed switch experiences the magnetic field strength of the magnet; the reed switch is configured to be in an open position when the door is in the open position where the magnetic field strength of the magnet is insufficient to close electrical contacts of the reed switch; and wherein the processor is configured to generate the first alert message when the reed switch is in the open position (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0036, 0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Barcala with the teachings of Patrick to utilize a magnetic sensor to determine door open/close status since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Barcala discloses the at least one sensor comprises a position sensor (e.g. Fig. 1: 120 & [0051]) configured, when the device is at least partly affixed to the door (e.g. Fig. 4 & [0076]), to measure a position of the device; and the processor is configured to generate the first alert message when position sensor data indicative of the position of the device having changed, is received (e.g. [0063, 0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Barcala discloses the position sensor comprises a Global Positioning System “GPS” sensor (e.g. [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Barcala discloses a tamper sensor configured to detect if the device has been removed from a surface to which it was affixed; and the processor is configured to generate a second alert message when tamper sensor data indicative of the device having been removed from the surface to which it was affixed is received (e.g. [0080]: sensor 137 capable of determine whether the mobile transceiver 102 has been tampered).
Regarding claim 13, Barcala discloses the tamper sensor comprises a limit switch (e.g. [0080]: sensor 137 capable of determine whether the mobile transceiver 102 has been tampered, and the sensor 137 is broadly interpreted as limit switch).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1, the examiner disagrees with the following reasons:
Barcala at least in [0076] discloses the mobile transceiver is mounted on a container door; thus, the mobile transceiver is “removably connected” to the door since the mobile transceiver and the door are not originally formed as a single piece;
The communication capability of the mobile transceiver does not change the fact that the mobile transceiver is mounted on the door; thus, removably connected to the door;
Argument regarding “magnetic field” is moot since it is now rejected in view of combination of Barcala and Patrick;
Barcala at least in [0037, 0049] discloses a plurality of sensors, including door contact switch, within the mobile transceiver for determining status of the container door. Door contact switch seems to be a type of mechanical sensor, and the teachings of Barcala with the use of combination of sensors to determine door status also suggests it would be obvious to add another type of sensor with the mobile transceiver.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to claims 8-9 regarding to Patrick, the examiner disagrees because Patrick at least in [0036, 0044, 0045, 0049] teaches a reed switch and magnet on a door frame that in combination detect magnetic field changes.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688