Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 02/05/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application as ADS filed on 02/05/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (c) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365 (c), or 386(c) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is punctuation mark mission after “a movement determination circuit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is also objected to because there is “ … 20.” at the last line of the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiewski Pub. No.: US 2020/0305076 A1 in view of Buck, Jr. et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0359172 A1.
Claim 1
Chapiewski discloses a method (fig. 1-7 for tracking devices) for tracking an individual (tracking device in fig. 1 and tracking device 106 in fig. 5), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving a location of a monitoring device (tracking device in fig. 1-7) from a location determination circuit (sensors 508 and GPS 510 in fig. 5) in the monitoring device (fig. 6A and see par. 0055);
transmitting the location to a receiving device at a first time (710 in fig. 7A and 726 in fig. 7B);
after the first time (par. 0044, let’s assume 5 minute between the first time and the next time), receiving an indication of insignificant movement (par. 0056, within a threshold proximity distance) from a movement determination circuit in the monitoring device (whether there’s an indication of insignificant movement or note, the next 5 minutes, the current location will be reported);
PNG
media_image2.png
654
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
reducing power consumption of the location determination circuit (par. 0054-0055 for power saving mode, see fig. 6A-B for GPS off and disabling the GSM transceiver and GPS unit are reducing power consumption); and
re-transmitting the location to the receiving device at a second time (updating the location in fig. 7A-B would be 5 minutes after the previous location report in par. 0044, 0047 and a threshold amount of time in par. 0056).
Although Chapiewski does not explicitly disclose: “after the first time, receiving an indication of insignificant movement from a movement determination circuit in the monitoring device; based at least in part upon the indication of insignificant movement: replacing the indication of insignificant movement with the location”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image3.png
772
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations: “after the first time, receiving an indication of insignificant movement from a movement determination circuit in the monitoring device; based at least in part upon the indication of insignificant movement”, recall that Chapiewski discloses GPS unit and sensors (fig. 5) for detecting movement with motion sensor, gyroscope or accelerator (par. 0053) such as the tracking device is within a threshold proximity distance (par. 0056). It means fig. 5 of Chapiewiski would be able to detect if the movement is a significant or not. Further evidence could be seen in Buck, Jr. In particular, Buck, Jr. teaches determining if proximity results indicate no proximity or not (304 in fig. 3b), or moving or not (312-314 in fig. 3b).
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “replacing the indication of insignificant movement with the location”, recall that Chapiewiski discloses updating location based on within the distance and time (fig. 6-7). It means that if the movement is insignificant or no movement or movement, the tracking device location or position will be updated. Indeed, it’ll renders the addressing claim limitation obvious. Further evidence could be seen in Buck, Jr. In particular, Buck, Jr. teaches detecting GPS location of monitored device within limit (408 in fig. 4b, limit is a threshold distance as explained in par. 0086) and recording continuously the motion with time stamp (fig. 6). Additionally, the above teaching from Buck, Jr. would have read on the claim limitations “replacing the indication of insignificant movement with the location; re-transmitting the location to the receiving device at a second time.
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 power reservation in GPS-equipped tracking device of Chapiewski by providing a system equipment for monitoring as taught in Buck, Jr. Such a modification would have provided a monitoring system equipment to track a monitored device in various ways so that a monitoring agency could have reported the behavioral pattern of the tracked device within the monitoring system limit as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Buck, Jr.
Claim 2
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the movement determination circuit comprises: an accelerometer (Chapiewski, sensors 508 in fig. 5 such as gyroscopes and accelerators in par. 0053; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of insignificant movement indicates that the tracking device has moved less than a defined distance from the location (Chapiewski, a threshold proximity distance of the tracking device in par. 0056; Buck, Jr., GPS locations within a defined distance in 408 of fig. 4b and par. 0086; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the defined distance is less than fifty feet (Chapiewski, threshold distance in par. 0056; Buck, Jr., a defined distance in par. 0086; a threshold or a defined value is seeking for an optimal value; and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980; see other evidence for finding an optimum value, [in this evidence, 8 feet in par. 0052], in Buck, Jr. et al. Pub. No: US 2017/0339519 A1).
Claim 5
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the location determination circuit is selected from a group consisting of: a satellite-based position circuit (Chapiewski, GPS in fig. 6-7 and see fig. 5 and WiFi in par. 0050); and a WiFi-based position circuit (Buck, Jr., GPS and Wi-Fi in fig. 1a and thus, the combined prior art anticipates the claim requirement).
Claim 6
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking device is a user attached monitor device secured to the individual (Chapiewski, tracking device owned by one or more user in par. 0017 and associated with the user or the community users in par. 0021; Buck, Jr., user attached monitoring device in fig. 1a and see fig. 1b; and hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 7
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the tracking device further comprises a tamper detection circuit (Buck, Jr., tamper sensor 151 in fig. 1c) configured to detect removal of the tracking device from the individual (Buck, Jr., to monitor whether the device has been removed from the individual other wished tampered in par. 0029 & 0038 and see fig. 3a; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking device is a user detached monitor device (Buck, Jr., user detached monitor device in fig. 1; and hence, the combined prior art anticipates the claim).
Claim 9
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the user detached monitor device comprises a cellular telephone assigned to the monitored individual (Chapiewski, tracking device 16 in fig. 5 including transceiver for LTE or GSM; Buck, Jr., user detached monitor device 110 in fig. 1a includes wide area transceiver in fig. 1b-c and par. 0020 describes that the user detached monitor device is a cellular telephone; accordingly, the combined prior renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10-18
Claims 10-18 are device claims corresponding to method claims 1-9. All of the limitations of claims 10-18 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1-9. Accordingly, claims 10-18 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the claim rejection section set forth below.
PNG
media_image4.png
452
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Chapiewski discloses a monitoring device (tracking device 104 in fig. 50, the monitoring device comprising: a location determination circuit (GPS 501 and Sensors 508 in fig. 5); a transmitting circuit (transceiver 504 in fig. 5); a movement determination circuit (sensors 508 in fig. 5 such as motion sensors, gyroscope and accelerator in par. 0053); a controller circuit (controller 506 in fig. 5).
Claim 19
Chapiewski discloses a system (tracking system in fig. 1-7) for tracking an individual (tracking device 106 in fig. 1 & 5), the system comprising:
a location determination circuit (GPS 510 in fig. 5);
a transmitting circuit (transceiver 504 in fig. 5);
a movement determination circuit (sensors 508 in fig. 5 such as motion sensors, gyroscope and accelerator in par. 0053);
a processor (controller 506 in fig. 5) and a computer readable medium (par. 0067) communicatively coupled to the processor and including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (par. 0051-0052 explains how controller would execute the instructions to perform steps in fig. 6-7) to:
receive a location of a monitor device attached to an individual from the location determination circuit (sensors 508 and GPS 510 in fig. 5, see fig. 6A and par. 0055);
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (710 in fig. 7A and 726 in fig. 7B);
after receiving the location, receive an indication of movement from the movement determination circuit (par. 0056, within a threshold proximity distance);
reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (par. 0054-0055 for power saving mode, see fig. 6A-B for GPS off and disabling the GSM transceiver and GPS unit are reducing power consumption); and
re-transmit the location to the receiving device (updating the location in fig. 7A-B would be 5 minutes after the previous location report in par. 0044, 0047 and a threshold amount of time in par. 0056).
Although Chapiewski does not explicitly disclose: “after receiving the location, receive an indication of insignificant movement from the movement determination circuit; based at least in part upon the indication of insignificant movement: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit; and re-transmit the location to the receiving device”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations: “after the first time, receiving an indication of insignificant movement from a movement determination circuit in the monitoring device; based at least in part upon the indication of insignificant movement”, recall that Chapiewski discloses GPS unit and sensors (fig. 5) for detecting movement with motion sensor, gyroscope or accelerator (par. 0053) such as the tracking device is within a threshold proximity distance (par. 0056). It means fig. 5 of Chapiewiski would be able to detect if the movement is a significant or not. Further evidence could be seen in Buck, Jr. In particular, Buck, Jr. teaches determining if proximity results indicate no proximity or not (304 in fig. 3b), or moving or not (312-314 in fig. 3b).
Secondly, Buck, Jr. teaches re-transmitting the location to the receiving device ( detecting GPS location of monitored device within limit in 408 in fig. 4b, limit is a threshold distance as explained in par. 0086, recording continuously the motion with time stamp in fig. 6).
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 power reservation in GPS-equipped tracking device of Chapiewski by providing a system equipment for monitoring as taught in Buck, Jr. Such a modification would have provided a monitoring system equipment to track a monitored device in various ways so that a monitoring agency could have reported the behavioral pattern of the tracked device within the monitoring system limit as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Buck, Jr.
Claim 20
Chapiewski, in view of Buck, Jr., discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the movement determination circuit comprises: an accelerometer (Chapiewski, sensors 508 in fig. 5 such as gyroscopes and accelerators in par. 0053; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643