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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 2/2/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-20 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On remarks pages 14-17 Applicant argues the 101 rejection, in particular Applicant argues that the claims as a whole do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner has reconsidered the claims as a whole in view of Applicant’s amendments and as required by MPEP 2106, and is persuaded by Applicant’s arguments on Remarks pages 14-17 that considering the claims as a whole (in view of the combination of elements in the claims) that the claims as a whole do not recite an abstract idea as defined in MPEP 2106.05.
Further even if the claims were to be considered as falling within an abstract idea, the Examiner is further persuaded by Applicant’s arguments regarding the deactivation of the smart phone in combination with the rest of the elements of the claim results in a practical application (see Remarks pages 18-20).
Therefore the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
On Remarks pages 24-26 Applicant argues the combination of Davis in view of Young. Upon further consideration of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
The Examiner has applied a new reference of Rakshit et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0069834) further rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Rakshit teaches using a convolutional neural network (see paragraphs 0058-0060) in association with package sensors (see paragraph 0062) to make a determination with respect to package delivery (see paragraph 0070) to then make a determination of whether to stop the shipment (see abstract)
On Remarks page 26, Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Davis does not teach the amended “cause the user device to transmit an activation signal to the smartphone in response to the user device receiving the action notification and when the user device is within a range associated with a near field connection between the smartphone and the user device” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The primary reference of Davis is about tracking a package over time according to various constraints like location and light to detect an anomaly (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0088) and then providing an alert based on the anomaly where then the package can be disabled or enabled by a user (See paragraphs 0183 and 0200-0201). Here the user can interact with the package via a phone by way of wireless or cellular communication (see paragraph 0163) or near field communication (see paragraph 0181 and 0183). Therefore Davis teaches disabling or enabling a smartphone by a user device via near field communication.
It is specifically and importantly noted that the sensor system that is part of the packaging here is interpreted as the “smart phone” as claimed. The definition of a smart phone is broad, which can include a small computer that connects to the internet (see the two cited NPL smartphone references dated 6/12/2026 and 6/15/2026 attached to this office action, it is noted that these NPLs are not relied upon for prior art purposes rather just provided here to respond to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Davis).
Davis teaches this as Davis teaches the sensor system mechanism includes a processor (see paragraph 0167), sends updates of location and other sensor information over a network which can be cellular and or WIFI (see paragraphs 0074 and 0097), the sensor can be inside and or outside the package (see paragraph 0138) and further teaches it can include a speaker, touchscreen and microphone for communication (see paragraph 0134).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further though not relied upon for prior art purposes a device using near field communication (NFC) to disable or deactivate devices or parts of devices in response to an anomaly or restricted detection is known in other references of the art (see below reference in the efforts of compact prosecution):
Shen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0228129):
Paragraph 0037 “ In addition, in one example implementation, the moviegoers' mobile phones are submissively triggered by the NFC radio frequencies to enter into a vibrating and/or silent mode and also disable the camcorder function.”
Paragraph 0066 “At block 507, if employees enter in restricted areas, NFC censors even send RF signals to request employees' phones to be in airplane mode as well as disable their camera, camcorder, and recorder functions.”
Paragraph 0068 “At block 509, when employees leave restricted areas, NFC sends RF signals to request employees' phones to disable airplane mode as well as enable their camera, camcorder, and recorder functions.”
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 are interpreted as a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor. Claims 8-13 are recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 14-20 recite an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium being executed by a processor.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0051015) further in view of Rakshit et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0069834).
As per claim 1, Davis et al. teaches A system for detecting tampering of a smartphone during transit, the system comprising: (see paragraphs 0074, 0097, 0134, 0138, and 0167, Examiner’s note: the sensor system that is part of the packaging herein is interpreted as a “smart phone”, the definition of a smart phone is broad, which can include a small computer that connects to the internet. Davis teaches this as Davis teaches the sensor system mechanism includes a processor (see paragraph 0167), sends updates of location and other sensor information over a network which can be cellular and or WIFI (see paragraphs 0074 and 0097), the sensor can be inside and or outside the package (see paragraph 0138) and further teaches it can include a speaker, touchscreen and microphone for communication (see paragraph 0134)).
a memory configured to store: (see paragraph 0210-0211, Examiner’s note: computer readable medium including software running on a computer (see paragraphs 0210-0211) and or alternatively databases to implement the embodiments of the invention (see paragraph 0208)).
geolocation data and ambient sensor data related to the smartphone; (see paragraphs 0079-0080, 0087, and 0105, Examiner’s note: sensor can receive light and location information, it is noted here that light is considered ambient sensor data (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0087). Alternatively with respect to ambient Davis teaches collecting many other types of information via sensors including air pressure, water quality, humidity etc. (see paragraphs 0105)).
a first expected geolocation measurement and a first expected level of light measurement associated with the smartphone at a first timestamp; a second expected geolocation measurement and a second expected level of light measurement associated with the item smartphone at a second timestamp; and a third expected geolocation measurement and a third expected level of light measurement associated with the smartphone at a third timestamp; (see paragraphs 0015, 0107-0108, and 01096, Examiner’s note: here teaches receiving a level of service parameters for a shipment and the sensor monitoring for conformance the level of service parameters (see paragraph 0015), paragraph 0196 teaches this level of service is with respect to any parameter supported by the sensors (and as noted in the section above geolocation and light are supported by the sensors). Further paragraphs 0107-0108 teaches monitoring the level of service over time during shipment along a route and or light detection over a threshold).
and a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to: (see paragraph 0210-0211, Examiner’s note: computer readable medium including software running on a computer).
Wherein the software comprises the first expected level of light measurement, the second expected level of light measurement, and the third expected level of light measurement; (see paragraphs 0108, 0196-0197, and 0252, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking them against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor information which can including measurements like light).
receive from the smartphone, geolocation data, wherein the geolocation data comprises: a first geolocation measurement of the smartphone at the first timestamp; a second geolocation measurement of the smartphone at the second timestamp; and a third geolocation measurement of the smartphone at the third timestamp; wherein the first geolocation measurement, second geolocation measurement, and the third geolocation measurement define a route that the smartphone traversed during transit; (see paragraphs 0087, 0107, 0183, and 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: here teaches reporting location information where one of the sensors may be GPS, and this includes route information and route deviations).
cause the smartphone to measure ambient sensor data at a predetermined schedule and transmit the ambient sensor data; receive from the smartphone, the ambient sensor data, wherein the ambient sensor data comprises: a first level of light measurement of an environment surrounding the smartphone at the first timestamp; a second level of light measurement of the environment surrounding the smartphone at the second timestamp; and a third level of light measurement of the environment surrounding the smartphone at the third timestamp; wherein the first level of light measurement, the second level of light measurement, and the third level of light measurement are received from the smartphone periodically at a predetermined schedule; (see paragraphs 0080, 0107-0108, 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking them against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor information which includes light.)
detect at least one anomaly associated with the smartphone, wherein the detecting at least one anomaly associated with the smartphone comprises:
detecting a first anomaly in the geolocation data, wherein the first anomaly occurs when the first geolocation measurement is different from the first expected geolocation measurement at the first timestamp, the second geolocation measurement is different from the second expected geolocation measurement at the second timestamp, or the third geolocation measurement is different from the third expected geolocation measurement at the third timestamp; (see paragraphs 0087, 0183, 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: teaches reporting location information where one of the sensors may be GPS, and this includes route information and determining deviation from the route (e.g. anomaly)).
and detecting a second anomaly in the ambient sensor data, wherein the second anomaly occurs when the first level of light measurement is different from the first expected level of light measurement at the first timestamp, the second level of light measurement is different from the second expected level of light measurement at the second timestamp, or the third level of light measurement is different from the third expected level of light measurement at the third timestamp; (see paragraphs 0079-0080, 0108, 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor previously discussed above like light).
in response to detecting the first anomaly in the geolocation data, determine a first difference between any of the first geolocation measurement and the first expected geolocation measurement, the second geolocation measurement and the second expected geolocation measurement, and the third geolocation measurement and the third expected geolocation measurement; (see paragraphs 0087, 0183, 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: teaches reporting location information where one of the sensors may be GPS, and this includes route information and determining deviation from the route (e.g. anomaly)).
in response to detecting the second anomaly in the ambient sensor data, determine a second difference between any of the first level of light measurement and the first expected level of light measurement, the second level of light measurement and the second expected level of light measurement, and the third level of light measurement and the third expected level of light measurement; (see paragraphs 0079-0080, 0108, 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor previously discussed above like light).
determine if one of the first difference or the second difference is greater than a predetermined threshold; (see paragraphs 0076, 0080, 0094, and 0196-0197, Examiner’s note: light exceeds a threshold (see paragraph 0080), package delivered to wrong address (see paragraph 0076), maximum orientation or spatial position, alarm if outside normal range (see paragraphs 0075, 0094,and 0196-0197)).
in response to determining that the second difference is greater than the predetermined threshold, analyze, by utilizing the software, the ambient sensor data to determine if the ambient sensor data indicates that the smartphone has been tampered in transit from a source to a destination; in response to determining that the item smartphone has been tampered in transit from the source to the destination, perform an action (see paragraphs 0085, 0107-0108, 0183, and 0196-0197,Examiner’s note: teaches checking sensor data against level of service and contract terms to determine if an alert should be generated or logged (see paragraphs 0085, 0107-0108,and 0196-0197). Further teaches alerts may be sent out at predefined intervals (see paragraph 0183)).
transmit an action notification to a user device associated with the smartphone, wherein the action notification is to deactivate the smartphone; cause the user device to transmit an activation signal to the smartphone in response to the user device receiving the action notification and when the user device is within a range associated with a near field connection between the smartphone and the user device; and perform an action to deactivate the smartphone in response to the smartphone receiving the activation signal (see paragraphs 0163, 0181, 0183, 0198, 0200-0201, Examiner’s note: it is noted that this claim limitation is not tied to the previous limitations above, rather this limitation merely recites deactivating the package by near field communication untied to the location and light analysis previously discussed above. Davis teaches this regardless as Davis teaches a user communicating with the sensor of the package by means of a cell phone through wireless systems (see paragraph 0163), communicating with the package via NFC and disabling electronics in the package (see paragraph 0181 and 0183), enforcing delivery restrictions via NFC tags (see paragraph 0198), and the authorized receiving person reenabling or disabling the electronics of the smart package (see paragraphs 0200-0201)).
While Davis clearly teaches using machine learning in shipping and logistics to identify and quantity the likelihood of future outcomes (see paragraph 0250) Davis does not expressly teach train a convolutional neural network by using training data stored in the memory, wherein the training data comprises information and in response to a determination/detection retrain the trained convolutional neural network.
However, Rakshit et al. which is in the art of tracking packages through the supply chain to determine if the packages are handled in accordance with the handing requirements and performing an action of stopping product distribution in response to interactions with the packages failing to meet the handling requirements (see abstract) teaches train a convolutional neural network by using training data stored in the memory, wherein the training data comprises information and in response to a determination/detection retrain the trained convolutional neural network (see paragraphs 0059, 0062, 0060, 0066-0068, and 0070, Examiner’s note: here a region based convolutional neural network (RCNN) is a type of convolution neural network (CNN) which is a type of artificial neural network (ANN)(See paragraphs 0059-0060), these are trained based on training data and comparing known outputs, and then tested to see if the ANN can generalize new inputs, if not additional training data may be needed or hyperparameters of the ANN may need to be adjusted (this interpreted as the broadly recited retraining above (see paragraphs 0066-0068)). Further teaches using this information to make a package handling confirmation or delivery problem determination (see paragraph 0070). Further teaches the RCNN works with the sensors to confirm proper handling of packages (see paragraph 0062)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis with the aforementioned teachings from Rakshit et al. with the motivation of providing a way to use artificial intelligence make determinations regarding shipped items as well as providing a way to spot problems in a supply chain failing to meet handling requirements (See Rakshit et al. abstract and paragraphs 0001-0002), when Davis clearly teaches that modern shipping and logistics systems rely heavily on predictive analysis through the use of data and statistical algorithms and machine learning techniques to identify and quantify the likelihood of future outcomes (see Davis et al. paragraphs 0250-0251) and the system being software running on a computer (see Davis et al. paragraphs 0236, 0238, and 0210-0211) are both known.
Further with respect to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 (related to a corresponding method claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with claim 1 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1. It is noted that the Davis reference teaches this can also be a method (see paragraph 0015, Examiner’s note: method for tracking a shipping package).
Further with respect to claim 14, Examiner notes claim 14 (related to a corresponding computer readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter (with one additional element) as detailed above with claim 1 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1 with respect to those elements. With respect to the one additional element in claim 14 beyond that recited in claim 1, Davis teaches this invention can also be a computer readable medium (see paragraphs 0209-0211).
Davis does not expressly teach that the computer readable medium is non-transitory as claimed.
However, Rakshit et al. which is in the art of determining failure to meet handling requirements of a package during shipment (See abstract) teaches the computer readable medium is (1) non-transitory (see paragraphs 0094-0096, Examiner’s note: computer readable medium includes a disk).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis with the aforementioned teachings from Young with the motivation of providing a common type of computer readable medium of a disk that can be used in multiple devices for reusability purposes (see Rakshit et al. paragraphs 0094-0096), when the system being software running on a computer (see Davis et al. paragraphs 0236, 0238, and 0210-0211) and a computer including a computer readable medium executing the functions (see Davis et al. paragraphs 0210-0211) are all known.
As per claim 2, Davis teaches
further comprising wherein the processor performs a second action to activate the smartphone when the determined second difference is less than the predetermined threshold. (see paragraphs 0163, 0181, 0183, 0198, 0200-0201, Examiner’s note Davis teaches this as Davis teaches a user communicating with the sensor of the package by means of a cell phone through wireless systems (see paragraph 0163), communicating with the package via NFC and disabling electronics in the package (see paragraph 0181 and 0183), enforcing delivery restrictions via NFC tags (see paragraph 0198), and the authorized receiving person reenabling or disabling the electronics of the smart package (see paragraphs 0200-0201)).
Examiner notes claim 9 (related to a corresponding method claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 2 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Examiner notes claim 15 (related to a corresponding computer readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 2 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
As per claim 3, Davis teaches
wherein the action further comprises sending, to the user device associated with the smartphone, a notification indicating that the smartphone has been tampered in transit from the source to the destination (see paragraphs 0181,0197, and 0199, Examiner’s note: shipper, receiver, or other authorized parties are able to receive package status updates from a website).
Examiner notes claim 10 (related to a corresponding method claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 3 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Examiner notes claim 16 (related to a corresponding computer readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 3 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
As per claim 5, Davis teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to determining that the second difference is not greater than the predetermined threshold and in response to determining that that the smartphone has not been tampered in transit from the source to the destination, perform a second action to activate the smartphone. (see paragraphs 0163, 0181, 0183, 0198, and 0200-0201, Examiner’s note: Davis teaches this as Davis teaches a user communicating with the sensor of the package by means of a cell phone through wireless systems (see paragraph 0163), communicating with the package via NFC and disabling electronics in the package (see paragraph 0181 and 0183), enforcing delivery restrictions via NFC tags (see paragraph 0198), and the authorized receiving person reenabling or disabling the electronics of the smart package (see paragraphs 0200-0201)).
Examiner notes claim 12 (related to a corresponding method claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 5 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Examiner notes claim 18 (related to a corresponding computer readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 5 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 5.
As per claim 6, Davis teaches
wherein the ambient sensor data further comprises: a plurality of additional measurements of the environment surrounding the smartphone at subsequent timestamps and wherein the plurality of additional measurements are made periodically based on a predetermined schedule (see paragraphs 0108, 0196-0197, and 0252, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking them against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor information which includes things like light, humidity, or noise).
Examiner notes claim 13 (related to a corresponding method claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 6 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Examiner notes claim 19 (related to a corresponding compute readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 6 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
As per claim 7, Davis teaches
wherein the ambient sensor data is periodically received by the processor from the smartphone using a wireless network (see paragraphs 0074, 0077, 0108, 0196-0197, and 0252, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving reporting parameters at intervals and checking them against known parameters at a point in shipment, where this can be for location and any other sensor information which includes things like light, humidity, or noise (see parameters 0108,0196-0197, and 0252). Further teaches sending and receiving position updates over a wireless network (see paragraphs 0074 and 0077)).
Examiner notes claim 20 (related to a corresponding computer readable medium claim) recites substantially the same subject matter as detailed above with respect to claim 7 and is accordingly rejected under the same grounds as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0051015) further in view of Rakshit et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0069834) further in view of Volkerink et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0286814).
As per claim 4, Davis teaches
wherein the user device associated with the smartphone includes a graphical user interface, and the notification causes the graphical user interface to display an indication that the smartphone has been tampered in transit from the source to the destination and to provide a user with information (see paragraph 0156, 0181, 0197, and 0199, Examiner’s note: shipper, receiver, or other authorized parties are able to receive package status updates from a website).
Davis in view of Rakshit et al. does not expressly teach with a selectable option to request a replacement smartphone.
Volkerink et al. which is in the art of tracking delivery of items (see abstract and paragraphs 0192) teaches with a selectable option to request a replacement smartphone (see paragraphs 0192-0194, Examiner’s note: tracking package delivery through the network, then providing by the client device a notification that the package does not meet requirements and providing a replacement using the app (see paragraphs 0193-0194) where this can be performed via emails, phone calls, dashboards, etc. further teaches a user can be near an item and make an intervention (see paragraph 0194)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis in view of Rakshit et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Volkerink et al. with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to have a new package delivered when the previous package does not meet requirements (see Volkerink et al. paragraphs 0192-0194), when providing various information to the user including alerts, activations, and deactivations in response to tampering or damage on shipment is known (see Davis paragraphs 0182-0183 and 0200-0201).
As per claim 11, Davis teaches
further comprising causing updates to be sent to a user. (see paragraph 0156, 0181, 0197, and 0199, Examiner’s note: shipper, receiver, or other authorized parties are able to receive package status updates from a website).
Davis in view of Rakshit et al. does not expressly teach a replacement smartphone to be sent to the user.
Volkerink et al. which is in the art of tracking delivery of items (see abstract and paragraphs 0192) teaches a replacement smartphone to be sent to the user. (see paragraphs 0192-0194, Examiner’s note: tracking package delivery through the network, then providing by the client device a notification that the package does not meet requirements and providing a replacement using the app (see paragraphs 0193-0194) where this can be performed via emails, phone calls, dashboards, etc. further teaches a user can be near an item and make an intervention (see paragraph 0194)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis in view of Rakshit et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Volkerink et al. with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to have a new package delivered when the previous package does not meet requirements (see Volkerink et al. paragraphs 0192-0194), when providing various information to the user including alerts, activations, and deactivations in response to tampering or damage on shipment is known (see Davis paragraphs 0182-0183 and 0200-0201).
As per claim 17, Davis teaches
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to provide updates to be sent to a user. (see paragraph 0156, 0181, 0197, and 0199, Examiner’s note: shipper, receiver, or other authorized parties are able to receive package status updates from a website).
Davis in view of Rakshit et al. does not expressly teach a replacement smartphone to be sent to the user.
However, Volkerink et al. which is in the art of tracking delivery of items (see abstract and paragraphs 0192) teaches a replacement smartphone to be sent to the user. (see paragraphs 0192-0194, Examiner’s note: tracking package delivery through the network, then providing by the client device a notification that the package does not meet requirements and providing a replacement using the app (see paragraphs 0193-0194) where this can be performed via emails, phone calls, dashboards, etc. further teaches a user can be near an item and make an intervention (see paragraph 0194)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis in view of Rakshit et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Volkerink et al. with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to have a new package delivered when the previous package does not meet requirements (see Volkerink et al. paragraphs 0192-0194), when providing various information to the user including alerts, activations, and deactivations in response to tampering or damage on shipment is known (see Davis paragraphs 0182-0183 and 0200-0201).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Franzo (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0051183) teaches techniques for verifying the state of items during transit where this information can take into consideration things like light (see paragraphs 0016 and 0020) and location (see paragraph 0020 and 0023).
Barton et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,257,024) teaches a system for tracking location and environmental conditions of items during transit where these can include things like light exposure (See abstract and title)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights