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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with “and wherein” with no following clause. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ayoub, US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0340719 (hereinafter Ayoub).
Regarding claim 1, Ayoub discloses a commercial equipment tracking system, comprising: a tracking pod [fig. 2: ref. 200], comprising: a pod body, configured to be coupled to commercial equipment [fig. 3: refs. 40, 200]; wherein the pod body is configured to be disposed within a cavity of a pod housing with a portion of the pod body exposed while within the housing [paragraph 0019, fig. 2: ref. 220 which show a panel that exposed a portion of the pod body]; a first communications module, disposed within the pod body and configured to connect with a user device to provide equipment data to the user device, wherein the first communications module comprises an ultra-wideband (UWB) module [paragraph 0023]; a near-field communications module, disposed within the pod body and configured to communicatively couple with the user device when the user device is disposed within a short range of the tracking pod [paragraph 0023]; and a battery configured to power the first communications module and/or the near-field communications module [paragraph 0024].
Regarding claim 2, Ayoub discloses wherein the pod body is configured to couple to the commercial equipment via a pod housing [paragraph 0019].
Regarding claim 4, Ayoub discloses the pod housing [fig. 2: housing 210; paragraph 0019].
Regarding claim 5, Ayoub discloses wherein the pod housing is configured to fully surround a perimeter of the pod body [fig. 2: housing 210; paragraph 0019].
Regarding claim 15, Ayoub discloses wherein the tracking pod further comprises: a global-positioning system (GPS) module, configured to receive location data from one or more GPS satellites [paragraph 0017].
Regarding claim 16, Ayoub discloses wherein the tracking pod further comprises:
a cellular module, configured to provide the location data to the user device [fig. 4: ref. 264; paragraph 0017].
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) 6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayoub in view of Daoura et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0362994 (hereinafter Daoura).
Regarding claim 6, Ayoub does not specifically disclose wherein the equipment data is configured to cause the user device to provide location data to a server device. However, Daoura discloses this limitation [paragraph 0204]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ayoub to include the teaching of Daoura. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Ayoub does not specifically disclose wherein the near-field communications module is configured to provide equipment data to the user device. However, Daoura teaches this limitation [paragraphs 0014, 0018]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ayoub to include the teaching of Daoura. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Daoura discloses wherein the equipment data is configured to cause the user device to communicate device information [paragraph 0204].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, and 17-21 are allowed based on Applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 6/9/26. No new prior art has been found that suggests or renders obvious the limitations of independent claim 7 disclosing the detailed commercial equipment tracking system including a vibration sensor; determining occurrence of a duty cycle from vibration data in combination with the UWB module and the near-field module. No new prior art has been found that suggests or renders obvious the limitations of independent claim 17 disclosing the detailed commercial equipment tracking system including the detailed battery voltage monitor configured to determine a state of charge of the battery in combination with the with the UWB module and the near-field module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to independent claim 1. The Examiner maintains that Ayoub teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haber, US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0141177, discloses a cargo door seal protector with GPS tracker.
Hopkins et al., US Patent Number 12,393,817, disclose housing for tracking devices. While this patent is not prior art, Applicant is encouraged to review the references cited on the patent.
Hopkins et al., US Patent Number 11,931,643, disclose mounts for tracking devices.
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 ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
July 29, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights