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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiga, III (US 7,855,642) in view of Warren (US 9,972,182).
Regarding claim 1: Veiga, III discloses an attachable movement-notification device comprising:
a body (302) comprised of a fastener (320); a sensor (332); a transmitter (340); and a mobile application (message app, SMS message) in wireless electrical communication with the transmitter (col. 8, line 19-col. 9, line 46; col. 10, lines 23-55).
Veiga, III does not disclose the combo sensor the user setting the threshold distance on the mobile application. Warren discloses movement monitoring security devices comprising the combo sensor (the combination of the same type of sensors or many different combinations and permutations of motions sensors; accelerometers, passive infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, microwave sensors, tomographic sensors; col. 5, lines 42-54; col. 13, lines 26-50); and the mobile device with application (col. 4, lines 55-61) and the user may adjust the predetermined threshold (col. 14, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the combo sensor as taught by Warren in a system as disclosed by Veiga, III to effectively sense different movement of the device.
Regarding claim 3: Veiga, III discloses the body is comprised of an opening (cylindrical tube, 302, with cap, 304, for housing electrical components; col. 8, lines 19-58; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4: Veiga, III discloses the sensor is comprised of a motion sensor (col. 6, lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 5: Veiga, III the transmitter is comprised of a Bluetooth transmitter (col. 10, lines 35-37).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiga, III (US 7,855,642) in view of Warren (US 9,972,182) and further in view of Yang (US 2012/0313783).
Regarding claim 6: Veiga, III discloses an attachable movement-notification device comprising:
a body (302) comprised of a fastener (320); a sensor (332); a battery (306a, 306b); a transmitter (340); and a mobile application (message app, SMS message) in wireless electrical communication with the transmitter (col. 8, line 19-col. 9, line 46; col. 10, lines 23-55).
Veiga, III does not disclose the gyroscope or a suction cup for attaching the body to an object. Warren discloses movement monitoring security devices comprising a gyroscope (col. 13, lines 31-41). Yang discloses a balance detection module that detects a suspicious movement of the movable object comprising a suction cup for attaching the body to an object [0080].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the gyroscope and the suction cup as taught by Warren and Yang in a system as disclosed by Veiga, III to easily attach the sensor to the object to be monitored.
Regarding claim 7: Veiga, III discloses the sensor is comprised of a motion sensor (col. 6, lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 9: Veiga, III does not disclose the Wi-Fi transmitter. Warren discloses utilizing the variety of communication protocols including Wi-Fi (col. 12, lines 2-18). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Wi-Fi communication as taught by Warren in a system as disclosed by Veiga, III for providing an effective and convenient wireless communication.
Regarding claim 10: Veiga, III discloses a GPS tracker (col. 10, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 12: Veiga, III discloses wherein the battery is comprised of a replaceable battery (306b) (col. 8, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 13: Veiga, III discloses, wherein the battery is comprised of a rechargeable battery (306a) (col. 8, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 14: Veiga, III discloses the rechargeable battery is comprised of a USB port (col. 7, lines 45-62; col. 8, lines 28-40).
Regarding claim 15: Veiga, III discloses the mobile application displays the location of the GPS tracker via a map interface (col. 10, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 16: Veiga, III discloses the mobile application produces an alert when the motion sensor detects motion (col. 5, line 65-col. 6, line 23; col. 6, lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 17: Veiga, III discloses the alert is comprised of a mobile application notification, a text, an email, or a phone call (col. 6, lines 1-23; col. 10, lines 35-55).
Regarding claim 18: Veiga, III discloses a method of using an attachable movement-notification device, the method comprising the following steps: providing an attachable movement-notification device comprised of a body (302) comprised of a fastener (320) and a sensor (332), and a mobile application (message app, SMS message); securing the device to an object via the fastener; and downloading the mobile application on a smart device (message app, SMS message is downloaded onto the mobile device as is well-known in the art) (col. 8, line 19-col. 9, line 46; col. 10, lines 23-55). Veiga, III does not disclose the suction cup for attaching the body to an object or adjusting the threshold from an app. Warren discloses the mobile device with application (col. 4, lines 55-61) and the user may adjust the predetermined threshold (col. 14, lines 1-14).
Yang discloses a balance detection module that detects a suspicious movement of the movable object comprising a suction cup for attaching the body to an object [0080].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the app to adjust the threshold and the suction cup as taught by Warren and Yang in a system as disclosed by Veiga, III to easily attach the sensor to the object to be monitored and to adjust the sensitivity of the sensor.
Regarding claim 20: Veiga, III discloses the mobile application alerts a user when the sensor detects motion (col. 5, line 65-col. 6, line 23; col. 6, lines 51-65).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiga, III (US 7,855,642) in view Warren (US 9,972,182) and further in view of Mycek et al. (US 9,622,208).
Regarding claim 2: Veiga, III and Warren does not disclose the fastener is comprised of a peelable adhesive fastener. Mycek discloses an object tracking system comprising the housing with an adhesive backing (col. 8, lines 55-59). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an adhesive backing as taught by Mycek in a system as disclosed by Veiga, III and Warren to conveniently and freely place the housing anywhere the user chooses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 10/30/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12-18 and 20 under Veiga, III (US 7,855,642) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Warren (US 9,972,182).
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 TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 1/16/26