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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapman et al. (Pub # US 2023/0422169 A1), and further in view of Del Toro et al. (Pub # US 2017/0094637 A1).
Consider claim 1, Klapman et al. teaches a transmitter to alert a user of a forgotten item, the transmitter comprising: a transmitter main body (100, Fig. 1); a transmitter universal serial bus (USB) plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a USB port within a vehicle (device) to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle (device) is powered on [0065]; a transmitter central processing unit (CPU) (110, Fig. 1) electrically connected to the transmitter USB plug (106, Fig. 1) to allow the transmitter to BLUETOOTH pair with the forgotten item (140, Fig. 1); and a transmitter speaker (103, Fig. 1) electrically connected to the transmitter CPU (110, Fig. 1) to emit a sound to alert the user when the forgotten item is out of BLUETOOTH connectivity range with respect to the transmitter, such that the transmitter speaker emits the sound in response to the vehicle being powered on when the transmitter USB plug is plugged into the USB port within the vehicle and in response to the forgotten item being out of BLUETOOTH connectivity range with respect to the transmitter [0078].
Klapman et al. does not teach a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port.
In the same field of endeavor, Del Toro et al. teaches a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port [0020] for the benefit of utilizing the common power adapter to supply power to the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to include a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port as shown in Del Toro et al., in Klapman et al. device for the benefit of utilizing the common power adapter to supply power to the device.
Consider claim 2. Klapman et al. clearly shows and disclose the transmitter, wherein the forgotten item is a mobile device [0052].
Consider claim 3, Klpaman et al. clearly shows and discloses the transmitter, wherein the transmitter main body further comprises: a transmitter BLUETOOTH pairing button electrically connected to the transmitter CPU to allow the transmitter to BLUETOOTH pair with the forgotten item in response to the transmitter BLUETOOTH pairing button being pressed when the forgotten item is within a BLUETOOTH connectivity range with respect to the transmitter [0053].
Consider claim 5, Klapman et al. clearly shows and disclose a system to alert a user of a forgotten item, the system comprising: a receiver device having BLUETOOTH connectivity capabilities, the receiver device comprising: receiver device central processing unit (CPU) (110, Fig. 1) to provide the BLUETOOTH connectivity for the receiver device [0052]; and a transmitter, comprising; a transmitter main body (100, Fig. 1), a transmitter universal serial bus (USB) plug (106, Fig. 1) connected to the transmitter main body (100, Fig. 1), such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a USB port within a vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle (device) is powered on [0064], a transmitter central processing unit (CPU) electrically connected to the transmitter USB plug to allow the transmitter to BLUETOOTH pair with the receiver device [0053], and a transmitter speaker (103, Fig. 1) electrically connected to the transmitter CPU (110, Fig. 1) to emit a sound to alert the user when the receiver device is out of BLUETOOTH connectivity range with respect to the transmitter, such that the transmitter speaker emits the sound in response to the vehicle (device) being powered on when the transmitter USB plug is plugged into the USB port within the vehicle and in response to the receiver device being out of BLUETOOTH connectivity range with respect to the transmitter [0074-0075].
Klapman et al. does not teach a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port.
In the same field of endeavor, Del Toro et al. teaches a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port [0020] for the benefit of utilizing the common power adapter to supply power to the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to include a car lighter adapter plug connected to the transmitter main body, such that the transmitter USB plug is insertable into a car lighter adapter port within the vehicle to provide power to the transmitter when the vehicle is powered on and when the vehicle does not have a USB port as shown in Del Toro et al., in Klapman et al. device for the benefit of utilizing the common power adapter to supply power to the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapman et al. (pub # US 2023/0422169 A1) in view of Del Toro et al. (Pub # US 2017/0094637 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coffman et al. (Pub # US 2011/0182441 A1).
Consider claim 4, Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference teaches the transmitter, wherein the transmitter main body further comprises: a transmitter speaker.
Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference does not specifically teach the speaker suppress button electrically connected to the transmitter CPU to cause the transmitter speaker to stop emitting the sound when the transmitter speaker suppress button is pressed.
In the same field of endeavor, Coffman et al. teaches the speaker suppress button (210, Fig, 2) electrically connected to the transmitter CPU to cause the transmitter speaker to stop emitting the sound when the transmitter speaker suppress button is pressed [0027] for the benefit of utilizing the common switch for mode change and energy conservation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the speaker suppress button electrically connected to the transmitter CPU to cause the transmitter speaker to stop emitting the sound when the transmitter speaker suppress button is pressed as shown in Coffman et al., in Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined device for the benefit of utilizing the common switch for mode change and energy conservation.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapman et al. (pub # US 2023/0422169 A1) in view of Del Toro et al. (Pub # US 2017/0094637 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Abramson (Pub # US 2017/0337802 A1).
Consider claim 6, Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference teaches the system, wherein the receiver device CPU is programmable to identify the forgotten item.
Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference does not teach such that the sound emitted by the transmitter speaker identifies the forgotten item by name.
In the same field of endeavor, Abramson teaches the sound emitted by the transmitter speaker identifies the forgotten item by name (pre-recorded message) [0045] for the benefit of distinguishing the item from the list of items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sound emitted by the transmitter speaker identifies the forgotten item by name as shown in Abramson, in Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference device for the benefit of distinguishing the item from the list of items.
Consider claim 7, Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference teaches similar invention.
Klapman et al. and Del Toro et al. combined reference does not teach the system, wherein the forgotten item is one of a purse, a wallet, a laptop, a grocery bag, and a briefcase, and the sound emitted by the transmitter speaker is one of spoken phrases of “purse,”“wallet”, “laptop”, “grocery bag,” and “briefcase,” respectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Abramson teaches the pre-record message in device’s speaker related to the item tracked, wherein when the event triggered the speaker plays the pre-recorded message like “beep beep beep Sarah your iphone Sarah your iphone” [0045].
Although, Abramson did not specifically speak the phrases as claimed, wherein the pre-recorded message could be custom to the user need. The claimed limitation does not enhance the function nor produce any unpredictable result. Therefore, the limitation as claimed is considered as design choice for the particular application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the newly amended claims have been considered and analyzed as shown in the rejection as set forth above.
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 JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687