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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed July 20, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claim 7, 14, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments. As explained in Applicant’s remarks filed July 20, 2026, on p. 1-2, the claims are a technological solution to a technological problem wherein conventional alert systems condition workers to ignore all alerts because of a high instance of premature alerts (e.g. false alerts) and the instant claims provide a solution to that problem by reducing false alerts.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed July 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2014/0209676 A1), hereinafter Reynolds, in view of DeLuca (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0012123 A1), hereinafter DeLuca.
Claim 1.
Reynolds discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device and during a first period, first information of at least one first element associated with a user within a first area and second information of at least one second element associated with an object positioned within the first area (Reynolds [0023] asset includes a vehicle; [0025], [0050] vehicle is a kinematic asset that holds other assets; [0029] fixed and mobile locations have asset identifications and hold other assets with their own identifications; [0051] the relationship between objects in a system is called an Association; [0052] an Operation Association occurs when an RFID reader detects an object is nearby; [0063], [0088] asset registry; [0089] reader in vehicle; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining, based on the second information, whether the object is associated with the first area (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets);
identifying the at least one second element as anomalous when the object is not associated with the first area (Reynolds [0054] do not report ambiguous assets; [0087] asset transfer; [0098] erroneously state that the asset is missing);
determining whether the first device receives the first information during a second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0064] if by 9:00 AM four assets with the attribute of employee are not associated with any assets with the attribute of vehicle, reports engine will generate a report of this information; [0078] convey which assets are missing in the latest inventory from previous inventories); and
Regarding the following limitation:
transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area; and
Reynolds discloses transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area (Reynolds [0061], [0064], [0069] reports engine can generate a report conveying that a vehicle moves a predetermined time and/or distance without the detection of an asset by the reporting system of that vehicle; [0078], [0092] polling for assets and report inventory discrepancy). However, Reynolds does not disclose transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area, but DeLuca does (DeLuca [0029] When the mobile device detector 102 no longer detects the person 106 as being located in the vehicle 104, the mobile device detector 102 transitions the mobile device wireless transceiver of the vehicle 104 to the low-power transmission mode to reduce a communication range (e.g., a reduced communication range within the distance D2 or any other suitable distance shorter than D1) of the mobile device wireless transceiver of the vehicle 104. In this manner, if the person 106 is in possession of the mobile device 108 when the person 106 is outside of the vehicle 104, the vehicle 104 loses a connection with the mobile device 108 and, thus, the mobile device detector 102 does not incorrectly determine that the mobile device 108 is in the vehicle 104). The known technique using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications of DeLuca, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Reynolds as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are wirelessly tracking different objects in specific areas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications of DeLuca to the RFID tracking system of Reynolds would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of DeLuca to the teaching of Reynolds would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications feature into RFID tracking systems. Further, applying the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications to Reynolds, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient generating of leave behind alerts because the system wide polling, used in Reynolds, is not required to logically conclude an item has been left behind thereby reducing the delay for leave behind alerts.
Reynolds does not disclose the following limitation, but DeLuca does:
suppressing transmission of the notification when the first device receives the first information and the second information during the second time period to prevent a false alert while the user is within the first area, wherein (DeLuca [0029] reduce false alerts by switching between high power mode and low power mode when a user departs an area. As such, when the mobile device detector 102 detects that the person 106 is located in the vehicle 104 (e.g., based on detecting the identification tag 110), the mobile device detector 102 transitions the mobile device wireless transceiver of the vehicle 104 to the high-power transmission mode.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of DeLuca in the system of Reynolds for the same reasons discussed above.
Reynolds discloses:
the first device is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader or transceiver and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) equipped device, the first device being positioned proximate to or within the first area (Reynolds [0030] asset identification is implemented using RFID; [0032], [0033], [0057] reader is an RFID reader in a fixed location; [0059] reader is placed to provide complete coverage of the interior of the vehicle), and
each of the first element and the second element is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon (Reynolds [0029]-[0030] assets are identified using machine readable identification and detection technology, such as RFID; [0051] the relationship between objects in a system is called an Association and an infrastructure association occurs when an asset is assigned an RFID label through provisioning).
Claim 2.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
removing the identification of the at least one second element as anomalous when the first device does not receive the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0061] driver can resolve why the missing asset has not been detected; [0087] asset transfer; [0099], [0100] avoid false reporting using location history).
Claim 3.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
determining whether an elapsed time period exceeds a threshold when the first device receives the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the elapsed time period exceeds the threshold (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets); and
determining the object is not positioned within the first area and removing the identification of the at least one second element as anomalous when the first device does not receive the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0084] asset moved from fixed location to a mobile location is reported as removed from the fixed asset inventory and added to the mobile location inventory; [0061] driver can resolve why the missing asset has not been detected; [0087] asset transfer; [0099], [0100] avoid false reporting using location history).
Claim 4.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
determining whether an elapsed time period exceeds a threshold when the first device receives the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the elapsed time period exceeds the threshold (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets); and
determining whether the first device receives the first information during another period subsequent to the second time period when the first device receives the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0098] inventory may erroneously state that the asset is missing when in fact it is simply obscured; [0099] if an asset is detected and reported while a vehicle is moving, it is unlikely that the asset has been removed from the vehicle while it is still moving).
Claim 5.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses wherein transmitting the notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period comprises:
transmitting the notification to at least one of the first device, a device of the user, a device of another user, a device of the first area, a display of the first area, a display proximate to the first area, and a display of a second area different than the first area, the notification being one or more of an audible indication, text, graphical indication, and a text to voice message (Reynolds [0061] notify a driver using a display device; [0065] presentation component).
Claim 6.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses wherein the first area is one of
a storage unit affixed to or stored in a vehicle (Reynolds Fig. 3, [0057], [0059] reader is placed to provide complete coverage of the interior of a vehicle), and
a storage area integrated in at least a portion of a vehicle.
Claim 8.
Reynolds discloses a device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer executable instructions (Reynolds [0072]); and
a processor configured to interface with the memory and execute the computer executable instructions to cause the processor to (Reynolds [0072]):
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches the remaining limitations of claim 8 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 9.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 9 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 10.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 10 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 11.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 11 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 12.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 13.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 13 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 15.
Reynolds discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which (Reynolds [0072]), when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the steps of:
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 16.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 16 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 17.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 18.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 19.
Reynolds in view of DeLuca teaches all the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mei et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2018/0152809 A1)
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
