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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "Remarks" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that: “Applicant has amended the claims to expedite the prosecution. Viitala fails to disclose multiple features set forth in independent claims 1, 10, and 17” and “Viitala also fails to disclose numerous features as set forth in the dependent claims.” Applicant’s remarks have been given full consideration, as such this Office Action has been modified in view of Amendments filed on 02/25/2026.
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIITALA et al. (US 2022/0276061 A1, hereinafter Viitala) in view of DANIEL (US 2010/0141393 A1, hereinafter Daniel).
Regarding claim 1, Viitala teaches a method comprising: receiving, at an access node of a wireless network ([Figure 1, 171-1, 171-2, 172-1, 172-2, 173-1, 172-2] and [0122] satellites 171-1, 171-2, base stations 172-1, 172-2, and beacon/access points 173-1, 173-2, act as access points of a cellular communication network, i.e. a plurality of access nodes of a wireless network, capable of receiving signals), a signal indicating a location from a tracking device ([Figure 1] and [0119 and 0122] the tracking device 130 may be attached to transportable asset 140, and may determine one or more position estimates, and described in [0123] the transportable asset 140 comprising the tracking device 130 gathers information (e.g. its position and one or more further information gathered by one or more sensors that are comprised by the tracking device (e.g. temperature, shock information)) and provides such information as tracking device reports to the server 110, through the various access nodes described above); comparing the location to stored locations ([0123] the server 110, coupled with an optional database 120, may determine if the tracking device is located in a segment, and [0126] further describes the determining and/or the adapting of the configuration may be done by an operator, e.g. by entering one or more segment specific settings. The configuration may then be stored in a memory, e.g. database 120 of FIG. 1 that is connectable to or comprised by server 110 of FIG. 1, i.e. comparing the location of the tracking device to stored segments, segments read as stored locations); identifying the location as one of the stored locations ([0122] FIG. 1 depicts the following example, "The first segment of a plurality of segments is fulfilled by the transportation vehicle 150-1 transporting the transportable asset 140 from its origin location (e.g. factory where the respective good(s) is (are) manufactured) to its destination location in the factory 160. The second segment of the plurality of segments is fulfilled by the transportation vehicle 150-2. The third segment of the plurality of segments is fulfilled by the transportation vehicle 150-3. The fourth segment of the plurality of segments is fulfilled by the transportation vehicle 150-4." That is, the ability to identify the location as one of the stored locations in database 120); monitoring the tracking device for movement from the location ([0060] the tracking device (e.g. tracker) may be configured (e.g. by the configuration) e.g. to wake up in response to experiencing movement(s), and [0075] further describes a respective geofence may be understood as a virtual border of a geographical area, wherein the tracking device is enabled to determine when a current location of the tracking device has crossed between inside and outside of such a geofence, i.e. capable of detecting movement from the location); and responsive to detecting the movement from the stored location ([0125] the flowchart 200 may for instance be performed by a server, a radio unit, and/or an electronic device, e.g. server 110, radio unit 150-1, 150-2, or electronic device 130 of FIG. 1, i.e. any of the access nodes previously listed, and [0126-0127] describes how step 202, receiving/sending a tracking device report, is based on step 201, determining or adapting a configuration mentioned above in [0075], i.e. a tracking report may be sent via the tracking device to the access node in response to detecting said tracking device movement from the stored location),
Viitala is not relied on for the claim language sending an instruction from the access node to the tracking device to generate a visible or audible alert while the tracking device is enabled, the visible or audible alert detectable at the tracking device. However, Daniel teaches [abstract] a system and method for group tracking wherein at least one individual within a tracked group is provided with a wireless tracking device, wherein the wireless tracking device is configured for bi-directional communications with a monitoring center via a plurality of access nodes. Daniel also teaches sending an instruction from the access node to the tracking device to generate a visible or audible alert while the tracking device is enabled ([0044] referring to FIG. 4, if monitoring center 122 in step 406 determines that an individual has strayed beyond the pre-defined geo-fencing limitations for the group, an alarm will be triggered (step 408) at monitoring center 122, wherein monitoring center 122 or the portable monitoring unit 206 may transmit a message (step 410) via SMS text through a GSM communications network 208, and/or an encrypted alarm signal (step 412) over the satellite network system 118 (network systems 208 or 118 read as "access node") notifying the group leader of the potentially alarming condition, and [0046] describes upon receipt of the said encrypted alarm signal mentioned in step 412, wireless tracking device's 104 microcontroller 136 activates the alarm notification means 130 (not shown), causing for example, the sounding of an audio alarm or flashing a light, thereby alerting, further described in [0036]), the visible or audible alert detectable at the tracking device ([0036 and 0046] as mentioned above, visible or audible alert detectable at the tracking device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viitala to include the ability for the access node to send instructions to the tracking device to perform an audible or visual alert, as taught by Daniel, in order to [0003] fulfill the need to transmit or receive external communications in regards to a tracking device.
Regarding claim 2, Viitala teaches responsive to detecting the movement from the location ([0060 and 0075] the tracking device may be configured to detect movement from a geofence/location) and the notification including an option to disable the tracking device (referring to FIG. 3, various configurations may be set for the tracking device (configurations: 380-1, 380-2, 380-3, 380-4), and described in [0153], said configurations may be an instruction/option to disable the tracking device).
Viitala is not relied on for the claim language providing a notification to a wireless device paired with the tracking device, and sending the instruction to the tracking device to generate the alert within a predetermined time after sending the notification to the paired wireless device. However, Daniel teaches providing a notification to a wireless device paired with the tracking device ([Figure 4, step 410] and [0044]monitoring center 122 or the portable monitoring unit 206 may transmit a message (step 410) via SMS text through a GSM communications network 208), and sending the instruction to the tracking device to generate the alert within a predetermined time after sending the notification to the paired wireless device ([Figure 4, step 412] and [0044] an encrypted alarm signal (step 412) over the satellite network system 118, occurring after step 410 (sending the notification to the paired wireless device), which may be associated with suitable predetermined conditions, such as time as described in [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viitala to include the ability to provide a notification to a wireless device paired with the tracking device, and send an instruction to said tracking device to generate an alert within a predetermined time after sending said notification, as taught by Daniel, in order to [0003] fulfill the need to transmit or receive external communications in regards to a tracking device.
Regarding claim 3, Viitala is not relied on for the claim language sending the instruction to the tracking device to generate the alert within a predetermined time after sending the notification to the paired wireless device. However, Daniel teaches as such ([Figure 4, step 412] and [0044] an encrypted alarm signal (step 412) over the satellite network system 118, occurring after step 410 (sending the notification to the paired wireless device), which may be associated with a suitable predetermined condition, such as time as described in [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viitala to include the ability to provide a notification to a wireless device paired with the tracking device, and send an instruction to said tracking device to generate an alert within a predetermined time after sending said notification, as taught by Daniel, in order to [0003] fulfill the need to transmit or receive external communications in regards to a tracking device.
Regarding claim 4, Viitala teaches maintaining a database of the stored locations at the access node ([Figure 1, 120] database 120 capable of storing locations as described in claim 1, capable of being accessed via access nodes 171-1, 171-2, 172-1, 172-2, 173-1, and 172-2, as depicted in FIG. 1 and further described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Viitala teaches the instruction causing the alert to be generated repeatedly ([0083] if the position that does not match to an expected position along the transportation route, e.g. the position is way off (e.g. based on a pre-defined threshold), the position that does not match to an expected position may be considered to represent an outlier. In that case, the configuration applied by the tracking device may be changed so that the tracking device gathers (e.g. collects) location information using (e.g. all) the possible methods (by utilizing its one or more sensors) and reporting back in a short interval, e.g. by providing a tracking device report. Alternatively, a last known position may be assumed to be the correct position of the tracking device, i.e. if the location does not match the correct location, the tracking device will report its current location in short intervals, short intervals read as repeatedly, i.e. the current location of the tracking device will be continuously reported, i.e. repeatedly alerting).
Viitala is not relied on for the claim language sending the instruction to the tracking device from the access node. However, Daniel teaches as such ([0044 and 0046] describes network systems 208 or 118, read as "access node," may send instructions to tracking device 104 in step 412, further described in claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viitala to include the ability for the access node to send instructions to the tracking device, as taught by Daniel, in order to [0003] fulfill the need to transmit or receive external communications in regards to a tracking device.
Regarding claim 6, Viitala teaches the signal indicating the location includes global positioning system (GPS) coordinates ([0035] a respective (e.g. coarse) position (e.g. estimate) may be determined by the tracking device based on GNSS-based and/or non-GNSS-based positioning. Examples for GNSS-based positioning are GPS (Global Positing System)).
Regarding claim 8, Viitala teaches the stored locations include a destination location ([0122] referring to FIG. 1 the first segment of a plurality of segments is fulfilled by the transportation vehicle 150-1 transporting the transportable asset 140 from its origin location (e.g. factory where the respective good(s) is (are) manufactured) to its destination location in the factory 160, i.e. the stored locations/segments may be destination locations).
Regarding claim 9, Viitala teaches -and is generated repeatedly until a tracker battery is drained ([0080] if a tracking device report is received, wherein the position of the tracking device report does not match to an expected position along the transportation route, the tracking device may apply a configuration (e.g. default configuration) in which e.g. the one or more sensor(s) of the tracking device are turned on. This may allow to obtain an accurate position in a subsequent tracking device report, as previously described in claim 5. However, this may sacrifice battery life of the tracking device, and as also described in claim 5 and [0083], the tracking device will report its current location in short intervals, short intervals read as repeatedly, and [0101] describes how different sensor types may reduce battery consumption and data transfer rates enabling to keep the tracking device alive longer, i.e. the tracking device reports its current location repeatedly until the battery is drained).
Viitala is not relied on for the claim language the alert is one of an audio tone, a vibration, or a flashing light-. However, Daniel teaches as such ([0046] describes upon receipt of the said encrypted alarm signal mentioned in step 412, wireless tracking device's 104 microcontroller 136 activates the alarm notification means 130 (not shown), causing for example, the sounding of an audio alarm or flashing a light, thereby alerting, further described in [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viitala to include the ability for the alert to be one of an audio tone, a vibration, or a flashing light, as taught by Daniel, in order to [0003] fulfill the need to transmit or receive external communications in regards to a tracking device.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Viitala teaches a system comprising: a memory storing data and instructions; a transceiver, receiving a signal indicating a location of a tracking device; a processor accessing the memory to execute the stored instructions and perform operations ([0118] referring to FIG. 1 system 100 is configured to provide a tracking service, and comprises an optional database 120, i.e. memory, that is connected to the server 110, and [0123] describes the tracking device provides various location-related information as tracking device reports to the server 110, and [0018-0020] describes how system 100 may have various processors that execute various instructions for performing operations).
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Viitala teaches the operations further comprising sending the instruction to the tracking device to generate the alert upon failure to disable the tracking device ([0081] describes if a tracking device report/configurations (said configurations may be to disable the tracking device as described in claim 2 and [0153]) do not match that of what said report/configurations are supposed to be, or what said report/configurations used to be and have not updated accordingly, the tracking device may raise (e.g. by outputting or providing) an alarm and/or notification to one or more users, i.e. sending an instruction to the tracking device to generate the alert upon failure to disable the tracking device).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 12.
Claims 7, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIITALA et al. (US 2022/0276061 A1, hereinafter Viitala) and DANIEL (US 2010/0141393 A1, hereinafter Daniel) as applied in claims above, further in view of Fadell et al. (US 2015/0120598 A1, hereinafter Fadell.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Viitala and Daniel is not relied on for the claim language the stored locations include at least one of a post office box or a shipping drop box. However, Fadell teaches a method for [abstract] providing home security/smart home objectives, wherein an example embodiment includes [0005] tracking delivery of a package by a delivery service-provider entity that includes a delivery computing system connected to a smart environment that includes at least one smart device, and may obtain delivery data collected from the smart environment by at least one sensor of the at least one smart device, wherein the delivery data is associated with the delivery of the package, and sharing said data with users. Fadell also teaches the stored locations include at least one of a post office box or a shipping drop box ([0331] the stored location may be “any physical location to which content may be delivered, such as any suitable mailing address, post office box, or the like.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Viitala and Daniel to include the ability for stored locations to be a post office box or a shipping drop box, as taught by Fadell, in order to [0110] increase security-related instances of products or services available to users.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kraft, Randy Allen (2011). Cargo tracking apparatus, system and method (US 8392339 B2). Filed 2013-03-05. Discloses a system for tracking a location having a master unit to communicate with a central processor to provide the shipping information to the central processor (abstract).
De Barros Chapiewski, Guilherme (2022). Power preservation in gps-equipped tracking devices (US 2022/0210734 A1). Filed 2022-06-30. Discloses a method to transmit a determined location of the tracking device to a tracking system configured to inform a user associated with the tracking device of the determined location (abstract).
Levan, Michael Adam et al. (2013). Method, software application, and system for tracking packages by global positioning system (gps) (US 2015/0145650 A1). Filed 2015-05-28. Discloses a reusable tracking device configured to be separable from a package and returned for reuse when the package reaches a predefined destination. (abstract).
Cyman, Jr., Theodore F. et al. (2018). Apparatus and method for monitoring a package during transit (US 10332063 B2). Filed 2019-06-25. Discloses a monitoring device for a package during transit including a processor, a sensor, and a configuration circuit (abstract).
Haynes, Clinton A. et al. (2023). Systems and methods for monitoring, tracking and tracing logistics (US 2023/0237892 A1). Filed 2023-02-28. Discloses a method for tracking a container with a tracking device. (abstract)
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 MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699