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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks p. 9, Applicant contends neither reference teaches or suggests using geo-location coordinates to determine that a TRU has boarded a marine vessel and to trigger power-source switching in response thereto.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Saenz (para 58-60) describes the use of a GPS transceiver to determine the location of a unit, including if it is onboard a ship/"marine vessel", and combined with the teaching of Bates (para 21) of "A TRS controller 214 of the TRS 200 can determine the availability of the various modes and toggle between the modes to provide power to the TRU 210", the combination can then provide the ability to switch power modes based on boarding a ship/"marine vessel" as determined by the coordinate location of the GPS system.
In Remarks p. 9, Applicant contends "Such modifications require transforming a geographically-driven control system into a vessel-detection system and further into a power-source switching control scheme, which are distinct control paradigms not suggested in the cited references."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Bates and Saenz are directed to systems that use geo-fencing and GPS coordinates to determine the location of the transported unit, which align with the claim limitations of "the activation of the geo-fencing mode triggers a continuous and automatic determination of geo-location coordinates of the TRU".
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates et al, US Patent Pub US 20150338858 A1 (hereinafter Bates) in view of Saenz et al, US Patent Pub US 20130271290 A1 (hereinafter Saenz).
Claim 1
Bates teaches a system for automatically switching from a first power mode to a second power mode of a transport refrigeration unit (TRU) (Bates, para 34 – Modifying TRU control parameters to control power usage/”switch from a first mode to a second mode”.), the system comprising: a processor communicably coupled to a memory storing instructions executable by the processor and configured to: activate a geo-fencing mode of the TRU operating in the first power mode, wherein the activation of the geo-fencing mode triggers a continuous and automatic determination of geo-location coordinates of the TRU (Bates, para 27, 33-34, 40 – Dynamic/”continuous and automatic” updating of the location system/”active geo-fencing mode” while being powered by an internal combustion engine by the controller/”processor and memory”.); automatically switch from the first power mode to the second power mode for the TRU based on a positive determination (Bates, para 40 - The TRU controller can switch the operation modes when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.), wherein the first power mode corresponds to a combustion-driven power source (Bates, para 45 - Power take-off directly from tractor engine/”combustion driven power source”.) and the second power mode corresponds to a stand-by power source. (Bates, para 21 – A second power source that is a battery/”stand-by power source”.)
But Bates fails to specify determine if the TRU is on board a marine vessel in a first geographical region responsive to the activation of the geo-fencing mode.
However Saenz teaches determine if the TRU is on board a marine vessel in a first geographical region responsive to the activation of the geo-fencing mode. (Saenz, para 58-60 – Determining if the refrigeration unit is on board a ship/”marine vessel” using coordinates from a GPS transceiver.)
Bates and Saenz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to transport refrigeration unit systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above transport refrigeration unit system, as taught by Bates, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Saenz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide communication and control of a TRU through the entire transit time by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Saenz (para 10).
This rejection also applies to claims 12 and 20.
Claim 2
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches determine the geo-location coordinates of the TRU based on a first set of data received from a geo-positioning server in communication with the system; and determine whether the geo-location coordinates indicate a location of the TRU within the first geographical region. (Bates, para 40 - The TRU controller determines the geo-location coordinates of the TRU to determine if the operation modes need to be switched when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.)
This rejection also applies to claim 13.
Claim 3
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Saenz further teaches the first set of data comprises global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the TRU and geo-fencing metadata associated with the first geographical region. (Saenz, para 62, 66 – GPS coordinates of the TRU and positioning data/metadata associated with the geographical position/region.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above transport refrigeration unit system, as taught by Bates and Saenz, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Saenz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide communication and control of a TRU through the entire transit time by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Saenz (para 10).
Claim 4
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches determine whether the geo-fencing mode is activated or not during the operation of the TRU in the first power mode. (Bates, para 40 – Switching/activating the operation modes when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.)
Claim 6
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches activates the geo-fencing mode of the TRU in response to an automatic determination of whether the TRU is within the first geographical region. (Bates, para 14 – The geo fencing is activated based on if the TRS is operating within a predefined geographic region.)
This rejection also applies to claim 15.
Claim 7
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches the stand-by power source comprises at least one of: a generator and a grid network onboard the marine vessel, or a stand-alone power storage device associated with the TRU. (Bates, para 19-21 - The transport refrigeration unit includes a generator and a battery/”stand alone power storage”.)
Claim 8
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Saenz further teaches display on a display device information associated with a current mode of operation of the TRU, wherein the current mode of operation corresponds to one of the first power mode or the second power mode. (Saenz, para 31 – Displaying the conditions/power mode of the TRU on a mobile device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above transport refrigeration unit system, as taught by Bates and Saenz, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Saenz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide communication and control of a TRU through the entire transit time by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Saenz (para 10).
This rejection also applies to claim 16.
Claim 9
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Saenz further teaches provide one or more of an audio annunciator output and a visual annunciator output when the processor automatically switches from the first power mode to the second power mode for the TRU. (Saenz, para 31 – Displaying/”visual annunciator” the conditions/power mode of the TRU on a mobile device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above transport refrigeration unit system, as taught by Bates and Saenz, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Saenz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide communication and control of a TRU through the entire transit time by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Saenz (para 10).
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 10
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches determine if the TRU is outside of the first geographical region; and automatically switch from the second power mode to the first power mode for the TRU based at least in part on the determination that the TRU is outside of the first geographical region. (Bates, para 40 - The TRU controller determines the geo-location coordinates of the TRU to determine if the operation modes need to be switched when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.)
This rejection also applies to claim 18.
Claim 11
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches automatically switch from the second power mode to the first power mode for the TRU based at least in part on the determination that the combustion-driven power source is connected to the TRU subsequent to a positive determination that the TRU is outside of the first geographical region. (Bates, para 40 - The TRU controller determines the geo-location coordinates of the TRU to determine if the operation modes need to be switched when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.)
This rejection also applies to claim 19.
Claim 14
The combination of Bates and Saenz teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Bates and Saenz further teaches wherein the method further comprising determining, by the geo-fencing activation engine, whether the geo-fencing mode is activated or not during the operation of the TRU in the first power mode. (Bates, para 40 – Switching/activating the operation modes when the TRU is in different geo-fence zones.)
Saenz further teaches the first set of data comprises global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the TRU and geo-fencing metadata associated with the first geographical region. (Saenz, para 62, 66 – GPS coordinates of the TRU and positioning data/metadata associated with the geographical position/region.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above transport refrigeration unit system, as taught by Bates and Saenz, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Saenz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide communication and control of a TRU through the entire transit time by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Saenz (para 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach the first geographical region corresponds to a waterbody, and wherein the processor is configured to determine that the transport refrigeration unit is on board the marine vessel by determining geo-location coordinates from a geo-positioning server and identifying that the geo-location coordinates fall within the waterbody based on geo-fencing metadata associated with the first geographical region.
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 extension fee 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 DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights