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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments of 11/19/2025
The examiner has carefully considered the applicant’s amendments and arguments in the 11/19/2025 communication but finds them unpersuasive.
The examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the core inventive concept of the instant invention, namely (a) selecting tracking devices according to whether they have a battery life suitable to make it to a destination, and (b) re-deploying the tags at a receiving location that becomes a sending location.
Cova et al. (US 2012/0303498) teaches para 0700:
“As another example, if the length of the journey is short, the system can select a tag type with a small battery capacity, while if the length of the journey is long, the system can select a tag type with a larger battery capacity.”
Para 0068 and 0069 teach: “The system receives a request for a tag, the request specifying a origin location for the tag (602). The system can receive the request, for example, through a portal such as the portal 402. In some implementations, the request specifies a particular type of the tag. In other implementations, the request specifies one or more requirements for the requested tag that the system can use to determine acceptable tag types.
The system selects the tag in response to the request (604). In general, each tag has various properties, including, for example, size of the tag, method of connecting to an asset, monitoring capabilities, battery life, size, weight, methods of communicating with the event server, etc. In various implementations, the system selects a tag of a type whose properties will satisfy the request.”
Implicit in selecting a tracking device with sufficient properties such as battery life is comparing among different tracking device and NOT choosing, or rejecting a tracking device that lacks the necessary properties.
In other words, the examiner maintains that the differences that the applicant alleges for the claims are just different ways of saying the same thing. If a tracking device is selected based on properties such as battery life, it is implicit that (1) available tracking devices are compared on the relevant property such as battery life, and (2) a tracking device that fails to satisfy the relevant properties is rejected or not chosen.
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 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cova et al. (US 2012/0303498) in view of Waterhouse et al. (US 7,049,963).
Cova et al. teaches reusable tags that can be deployed multiple times on various items and products. See para 0063, which makes re-usability clear.
The most crucial aspect of Cova et al., that teaches the crux of the invention, is seen at para 0700:
“As another example, if the length of the journey is short, the system can select a tag type with a small battery capacity, while if the length of the journey is long, the system can select a tag type with a larger battery capacity.”
The key aspect above that mirrors the central idea of the instant invention is above. The length of a journey of an asset is determined and tags are judged against their ability to handle a particular journey, based on battery life.
Thus, tags can be reused many times, but only if they meet a journey’s requirements, particularly for battery life but for other things as well.
Para 0068 and 0069 teach: “The system receives a request for a tag, the request specifying a origin location for the tag (602). The system can receive the request, for example, through a portal such as the portal 402. In some implementations, the request specifies a particular type of the tag. In other implementations, the request specifies one or more requirements for the requested tag that the system can use to determine acceptable tag types.
The system selects the tag in response to the request (604). In general, each tag has various properties, including, for example, size of the tag, method of connecting to an asset, monitoring capabilities, battery life, size, weight, methods of communicating with the event server, etc. In various implementations, the system selects a tag of a type whose properties will satisfy the request.”
Lacking in Cova et al. is a teaching of re-deploying a tag at a first destination in order to re-use in making a second deliver to a second destination.
Waterhouse et al. teaches (column 7, lines 59-61): “Alternatively the tag can stay with the freight and the recipient can take the tag, reprogram it for a return or for another shipment.”
In view of the teachings of Waterhouse et al., it would have been obvious that a tag can be re-used by the recipient for the next shipment, for the sake of avoiding the cost and delay of re-sending the tag elsewhere. In this case, the test of the tag’s properties can still be performed as per Cova et al.
Regarding dependent claims, these are generally taught or are obvious within the framework of Cova et al.’s tagging system.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights