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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, covered by claims 1-17 and 29 in the reply filed on 15 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 18-28 and 30 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-17 and 29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11-12, filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Although the claims recite the abstract idea of asset tracking, the claims also recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by applying the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the claims recite at each wakeup time: obtaining one or more positioning measurements, transmitting the one or more positioning measurements, synchronizing a local clock of the asset tracking device to a global time protocol, and transitioning to a sleep mode. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 12-14, filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the combination of Korneluk and Antony does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations because Korneluk describes the operations of a single asset tracking device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Korneluk: ¶33-37 discloses that the asset tracking system provides administrative control and management capabilities over a plurality of managed mobile transceivers, i.e., asset tracking devices.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 17, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180041944), in view of Antony (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210289319).
In regards to claim 1, Korneluk teaches:
A method of wireless communication performed by an asset tracking device (Korneluk: ¶15-17), comprising:
receiving a set of group scheduling parameters for a plurality of asset tracking devices, including the asset tracking device, assigned to a plurality of assets in a shipment (Korneluk: ¶33-37, ¶47-49, ¶68),
wherein the set of group scheduling parameters comprises a global wakeup start time and a time interval between consecutive wakeup times (Korneluk: ¶33-37, ¶47-49, ¶50-52, ¶68),
wherein the shipment comprises a plurality of stops, wherein the plurality of stops comprises a starting stop, one or more intermediate stops, and an ending stop (Korneluk: ¶18, ¶65-68, ¶78-80), and
wherein each of the plurality of asset tracking devices has a target stop of the plurality of stops (Korneluk: ¶18, ¶65-68, ¶78-80).
Although Korneluk teaches scheduling wakeup times for asset tracking devices, the reference does not explicitly state synchronizing a local clock to a global time.
However, Korneluk and Antony together teach:
at each wakeup time of at least a set of wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times:
obtaining one or more positioning measurements (Korneluk: ¶23, ¶35-37, ¶48-49, ¶63);
transmitting the one or more positioning measurements (Korneluk: ¶35-40, ¶48-49);
synchronizing a local clock of the asset tracking device to a global time protocol (Antony: ¶56, ¶157); and
transitioning to a sleep mode (Korneluk: ¶35, ¶39, ¶48-49, ¶62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the clock synchronization, as taught by Antony, into the system and method of Korneluk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “update a local real-time clock that has become out of sync, such that relative time may be kept” (Antony: ¶157).
In regards to claim 7, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Korneluk further teaches at each wakeup time of at least the set of wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times: obtaining one or more sensor measurements from one or more sensors of the asset tracking device; and transmitting the one or more sensor measurements (Korneluk: ¶23, ¶35-40, ¶47-49, ¶63-64).
In regards to claim 8, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 7. Korneluk further teaches wherein obtaining the one or more sensor measurements comprises: obtaining one or more temperature measurements from one or more temperature sensors of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more humidity measurements from one or more humidity sensors of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more accelerometer measurements from one or more accelerometers of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more gyrometric measurements from one or more gyroscopic sensors of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more barometric measurements from one or more barometric sensors of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more light measurements from one or more light sensors of the asset tracking device; obtaining one or more noise measurements from one or more microphones of the asset tracking device; or any combination thereof (Korneluk: ¶21, ¶23, ¶35-40, ¶47-49, ¶54-56 ¶63-64).
In regards to claim 9, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Korneluk further teaches wherein obtaining the one or more positioning measurements comprises: obtaining one or more global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurements; obtaining one or more measurements of one or more cellular base stations; obtaining one or more measurements of one or more wireless local area network (WLAN) access points; obtaining one or more measurements of one or more BLUETOOTH® beacons; or any combination thereof (Korneluk: ¶23-28, ¶35-40, ¶44-45, ¶47-49, ¶61, ¶63-66).
In regards to claim 17, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Korneluk further teaches wherein: the set of group scheduling parameters is received from a server or a lead asset tracking device of the plurality of asset tracking devices, and the one or more positioning measurements are transmitted to the server or the lead asset tracking device for forwarding to the server (Korneluk: ¶33-37, ¶47-49, ¶68).
In regards to claim 29, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Korneluk further teaches An asset tracking device, comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (Korneluk: ¶15-19, ¶21-28). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 29.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180041944), in view of Antony (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210289319), in further view of Vos (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200275240).
In regards to claim 2, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a plurality of asset tracking devices with defined wakeup times, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Vos teaches wherein the time interval is a smallest time interval between consecutive wakeup times supported by the plurality of asset tracking devices (Vos: ¶56-57, ¶60-62, ¶65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wakeup times, as taught by Vos, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine whether it should wake-up, and update its part record” (Vos: ¶65).
In regards to claim 3, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a plurality of asset tracking devices with defined wakeup times, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Vos teaches wherein: a first subset of the plurality of asset tracking devices is configured to wake up every N wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times, and N is greater than or equal to 1 (Vos: ¶56-57, ¶60-62, ¶65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wakeup times, as taught by Vos, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine whether it should wake-up, and update its part record” (Vos: ¶65).
In regards to claim 4, Korneluk, Antony, and Vos teach the method of claim 3. Vos further teaches wherein: a second subset of the plurality of asset tracking devices is configured to wake up every M wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times, and M is greater than or equal to 1 (Vos: ¶56-57, ¶60-62, ¶65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wakeup times, as taught by Vos, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine whether it should wake-up, and update its part record” (Vos: ¶65).
In regards to claim 5, Korneluk, Antony, and Vos teach the method of claim 4. Vos further teaches wherein: the first subset of the plurality of asset tracking devices is configured to report a first type of positioning measurements, and the second subset of the plurality of asset tracking devices is configured to report a second type of positioning measurements different than the first type of positioning measurements (Vos: ¶56-58, ¶60-62, ¶65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wakeup times, as taught by Vos, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine whether it should wake-up, and update its part record” (Vos: ¶65).
In regards to claim 6, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a plurality of asset tracking devices with defined wakeup times, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Vos teaches wherein: the set of wakeup times comprises every N wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times until the target stop of the asset tracking device, where N is greater than 1, or the set of wakeup times comprises all wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times until the target stop of the asset tracking device (Vos: ¶56-57, ¶60-62, ¶65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wakeup times, as taught by Vos, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine whether it should wake-up, and update its part record” (Vos: ¶65).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180041944), in view of Antony (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210289319), in further view of Subramanian (U.S. Patent No. 11277740).
In regards to claim 10, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a shipment comprising a plurality of stops, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Subramanian teaches transmitting, based on a location of the asset tracking device being within a threshold distance of the target stop of the asset tracking device, positioning measurements independently of the group scheduling parameters (Subramanian: Col. 6, Lines 20-39; Col. 7, Lines 55-67; Col 10, Line 51 – Col. 11, Line 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the threshold distance, as taught by Subramanian, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “regulate battery usage based on the location of the wireless tracker” (Subramanian: Col. 5, Lines 25-26).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180041944), in view of Antony (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210289319), in further view of Feldman (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230379666).
In regards to claim 11, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a shipment comprising a plurality of asset tracking devices for delivery to a plurality of stops, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Feldman teaches triggering an alert in response to: the asset tracking device not reaching the target stop of the asset tracking device while remaining asset tracking devices of the plurality of asset tracking devices have passed the target stop of the asset tracking device, the asset tracking device continuing on the shipment after the target stop of the asset tracking device, a location of the asset tracking device being at a distance greater than a threshold distance from locations of remaining asset tracking devices of the plurality of asset tracking devices, or the asset tracking device ceasing to transmit at each wakeup time of at least the set of wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times while remaining asset tracking devices of the plurality of asset tracking devices transmit at each wakeup time of at least the set of wakeup times of the consecutive wakeup times (Feldman: ¶48, ¶59-61, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triggered alert, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
In regards to claim 12, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a shipment comprising a plurality of asset tracking devices for delivery to a plurality of stops, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Feldman teaches wherein the asset tracking device is added to the plurality of asset tracking devices based on the asset tracking device being on the shipment for greater than a threshold period of time (Feldman: ¶33, ¶59-61, ¶80, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset tracking devices, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
In regards to claim 13, Korneluk, Antony, and Feldman teach the method of claim 12. Korneluk and Feldman together further teach wherein the asset tracking device is determined to be on the shipment based on pattern matches between measurements reported by the asset tracking device and measurements reported by remaining asset tracking devices of the plurality of asset tracking devices of: sensor shock events, temperature changes, light exposures, humidity levels, noise detections, amplitude changes, or any combination thereof (Korneluk: ¶21, ¶36, ¶47, ¶52; Feldman: ¶33, ¶59-61, ¶80, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset tracking device allocation, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
In regards to claim 14, Korneluk, Antony, and Feldman teach the method of claim 12. Feldman further teaches wherein the asset tracking device is determined to be on the shipment based on: a breach of a geofence breached by the remaining asset tracking devices, a manifest of the shipment, a route, a speed, or both of the asset tracking device matching a route, a speed, or both of the remaining asset tracking devices for at least the threshold period of time, a relative distance between the asset tracking device and the remaining asset tracking devices being less than a threshold for at least the threshold period of time detection by the asset tracking device and the remaining asset tracking devices of the same cellular base stations, BLUETOOTH® beacons, Wi-Fi access points, or any combination thereof, detection by the asset tracking device and the remaining asset tracking devices of each other, or any combination thereof (Feldman: ¶33, ¶48, ¶59-61, ¶80, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset tracking device allocation, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
In regards to claim 15, Korneluk and Antony teach the method of claim 1. Although the references teach a shipment comprising a plurality of asset tracking devices for delivery to a plurality of stops, the references do not explicitly state the following claimed limitations.
However, Feldman teaches determining one or more distances between the asset tracking device and one or more remaining asset tracking devices of the plurality of asset tracking devices; and transmitting the one or more distances (Feldman: ¶33, ¶48, ¶59-61, ¶80, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance determination, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
In regards to claim 16, Korneluk, Antony, and Feldman teach the method of claim 15. Feldman further teaches wherein: a location of the asset tracking device is updated based on the one or more distances, a confidence in the location of the asset tracking device is increased based on the one or more distances, the one or more distances between the asset tracking device and the one or more remaining asset tracking devices are updated based on reported locations of the one or more remaining asset tracking devices, or any combination thereof (Feldman: ¶33, ¶48, ¶59-61, ¶80, ¶84-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset tracking devices, as taught by Feldman, into the system and method of Korneluk and Antony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect possible theft of an asset tag—and the associated object—from the target environment based on abnormal or atypical motion behaviors, positions, or locations of the asset tag” (Feldman: ¶48).
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 WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights