DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 17-32 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 17, 25, 27, 29-32 were amended. Claim 33 is newly added. Claims 17-33 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, the present application is a national phase application of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2022/055704, filed Jun. 20, 2022, which claims the benefit of Austrian Patent Application No. A 116/2021, filed June 21, 2021.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 27 and 29-32 were previously objected to. Claims 27 and 32 are amended to correct the second instance of “a transport container” to “the transport container.” Claims 27 and 29-32 are amended to recite ““the electronic data processing unit” where appropriate. Claim 30 is amended to recite “and compares the user identification…” to correct the previous issue. Therefore, the previous objections to claims 27 and 29-32 are withdrawn.
35 USC § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 112(b) rejections of claims 25-26 (pg. 12, remarks filed 1/22/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 25 is amended to clarify the intended interpretation of the claim. Therefore, the previous § 112(b) rejection of claims 25-26 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 17-32 (pgs. 12-14, remarks filed 1/22/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 17, that “the creation of digital images of a seal is a concrete, physical act which is further tied to the concrete, physical incarnation of the seal before and after transportation. Applicant submits that the capturing of a digital image of the seal, both before and after transportation, and the comparison of these two images, amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception also recited in the claim” (pg. 12, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Creating a digital image describes generic computer implementation to capture/collect data that at most, describes the ordinary functions of any generic camera or imaging device (noting that the claim does not even require such a device, but instead simply describes the functions of creating digital images), and does not provide an inventive concept or other meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. The claim does not describe an improvement to image capturing devices or an improvement to how digital images are created, but instead requires generic computer implementation to capture data used for comparison in the performance of the abstract idea. The comparison of the two images before and after transportation squarely describes an abstract idea, as it is part of the commercial interaction recited in the claims (i.e. tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container by comparing recorded origin/destination locations to target origin/destination locations, and comparing a first image of a seal associated with the transport container at an origin to a second image of the seal associated with the transport container at the destination).
Applicant further argues, regarding claim 18, that the limitations "the data processing unit provides a user interface on which the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image and the result of the comparison algorithm are displayed", and "a user confirms or corrects the result of the comparison algorithm via the user interface" are additional features that are significantly more than any judicial exception (pg. 13, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. These argued limitations describe no more than the basic functioning of a generic user interface to display (output) data and to receive user input. They do not recite improved user interface functionality, represent an improvement to any other technology, or otherwise add anything meaningful that would add significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, these limitations describe the use of generic computer implementation (displaying an output and receiving an input on a user interface) to apply the abstract idea within a computer environment.
Applicant further argues that claim 27 recites a further limitation for generating "a user interface to output the location deviation and a result of the comparison algorithm determining if the consignment of goods remains intact" that is not abstract as it provides a concrete output that is actionable by a user (pg. 13, remarks). However, this is not the test for eligibility, and similar to above, generating a user interface to output the location deviation and a result of the comparison algorithm merely adds generic computer implementation (use of a generic user interface in its ordinary capacity to display information and receive user input) used to apply the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, generating a generic user interface to output results associated with the performance of the abstract idea does not render the claim eligible under § 101.
Therefore, the previous § 101 rejection in maintained. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 17-33 below, which is updated based on the amendments and to include new claim 33.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 17-32 (pgs. 14-17, remarks filed 1/22/2026) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the updated § 103 rejections below in response to applicant’s amendments. Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 17-33 (including new claim 33) below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitations is/are:
“authentication means are provided to authenticate an authorized user of the sender and the recipient…” of claim 19
“location comparison means for comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values” of claim 27
“means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image…” of claim 27
“location comparison means for comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values…” of claim 32
“means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image …” of claim 32
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…authenticate an authorized user of the sender and the recipient using a mobile telecommunications unit” of claim 19 (note that the modifier(s) “mobile communications” do not connotate sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, without the need to resort to the specification – the same reasoning applies to the other limitations involving a mobile telecommunications unit or fixed telecommunications unit which are interpreted as invoking § 112(f))
“the mobile telecommunications unit is used to create at least one of the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image” of claim 20
“wherein at least one of the first geographical position and the second geographical position is recorded by a mobile telecommunications unit” of claim 22
“wherein at least one of the origin position data and the destination position data are read out from the data logger by a fixed telecommunications unit or the mobile telecommunications unit…” of claim 24
“the status data are…read out from the data logger at at least one of the place of origin and at the destination by a fixed telecommunications unit or a mobile telecommunications unit” of claim 25
“an authentication arrangement for authenticating authorized users of the sender and the recipient using a mobile telecommunications unit” and “the authentication arrangement being adapted to cooperate…” of claim 29
“a comparison arrangement for determining…” and “the comparison arrangement cooperates…” of claim 31
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following portions of applicant’s published specification (US20240370814A1) describe the corresponding structure as performing claimed functions:
authentication means - ¶ 0030, ¶ 0042
location comparison means – ¶ 0040
means for executing a comparison algorithm, and a comparison algorithm – ¶ 0040, ¶ 0028-0029
authentication arrangement - ¶ 0030, ¶ 0042
comparison arrangement – ¶ 0040, ¶ 0044
mobile telecommunications unit – ¶ 0025, ¶ 0030-0033, ¶ 0035, ¶ 0050-0051
fixed telecommunications unit - ¶ 0035-0036
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 17-26 and 33 recite “A method for tracking and for verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods…” (i.e. process); claims 27-31 recite “A device for tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container, comprising: an electronic data processing unit…and a data interface…” (i.e. a machine); and claim 32 recites “A system for tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container, comprising: an electronic data processing unit…a data interface…at least one transport container…a mobile telecommunications unit…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 17 recites limitations for:
tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container […], the transport container being dispatched from a place of origin to a destination as part of a transport order, comprising the following steps:
recording a first geographical position of the transport container at the place of origin in order to obtain origin position data;
recording a second geographical position of the transport container at the destination in order to obtain destination position data;
comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination […] assigned to the transport order, and detecting any location deviation;
comparing, by a comparison algorithm…to determine an extent to which images match, of at least one first digital image of the seal and at least one second digital image of the seal,
outputting any location deviation; and
outputting a result of the comparison algorithm
Independent claim 27 recites similar limitations for:
tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container, comprising:
[…] storing data associated with a transport order, the data including a place of origin and a destination; and
[…] receiving data, via which origin position data and destination position data of the transport container and at least a first digital image of at least one of a seal of the transport container at the place of origin and at least a second digital image of at least one of the seal of the transport container at the destination are received;
[…] comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination […] assigned to the transport order and for detecting a location deviation;
[…] executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image to determine an extent to which the images match; and
[…] output the location deviation and a result of the comparison algorithm determining if the consignment of goods remains intact
Independent claim 32 also recites similar limitations for:
tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container, comprising:
[…] storing data associated with a transport order, the data including a place of origin and a destination; and
[…] receiving data, via which origin position data and destination position data of the transport container and at least a first digital image of a seal of the transport container at the place of origin and at least a second digital image of the seal of the transport container at the destination are received;
[…] comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination […] assigned to the transport order and for detecting a location deviation;
[…] executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image to determine an extent to which the images match; and
[…] output the location deviation and a result of the comparison algorithm determining if the consignment of goods remains intact
The limitations of independent claims 17, 27, and 32 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container by comparing recorded origin/destination locations to target origin/destination locations, and/or comparing one or more first digital images of a seal of the transport container to one or more second digital images of the seal of the transport container) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis.
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. The processes described by the limitations above amount to commercial interactions (i.e. tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container by comparing recorded origin/destination locations to target origin/destination locations, and/or comparing one or more first digital images of a seal of the transport container to one or more second digital images of the seal of the transport container – which recites commercial interactions for tracking and verifying container shipments). Therefore, as the processes described by the limitations above recite commercial interactions, the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 17, 27, and 32 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container by comparing recorded origin/destination locations to target origin/destination locations, and/or comparing one or more first digital images of a seal of the transport container to one or more second digital images of the seal of the transport container) using generic computers/computer implementation (i.e. “transmitting” data, a data processing unit, and a data logger of claim 17; “A device…comprising: an electronic data processing unit storing data…a data interface for receiving data…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing…and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface” of claim 27; and “A system…comprising: an electronic data processing unit storing data…a data interface for receiving data…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing…and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface” of claim 32). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Claim 17 specifies that the transport container “has a data logger for recording status data,” which at best, generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim 17 further specifies “creating at least a first digital image…,” “creating at least a second digital image,” “transmitting the origin position data, the destination position data, the at least one first digital image, and the at least one second digital image to a data processing unit,” and data being “stored in the data processing unit” – however, creating a digital image of a seal of the transport container describes the ordinary functions of any generic camera/imaging device, while transmitting and storing data to a data processing unit also describes nothing more than use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity. Claims 27 and 32 similarly recites the use of the electronic data processing unit for storing data, using a data interface for receiving data, and using the electronic data processing unit to generate a user interface – however, these limitations further amount to the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity to store, receive, or transmit data, or otherwise amount to the generic computer implementation (e.g. generating a user interface to output information) to apply the abstract idea above within a computer environment. Nothing in the claims recites an inventive concept that improves the functioning of computers, an improvement to any of the additional elements above, or an improvement to any other technology. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Claim 32 also recites “at least one transport container provided with a seal and equipped with a data logger; and a mobile telecommunications unit” to describe the system – however, these limitations merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, as the claims considered as a whole do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 17, 27, and 32 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking and verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods with a transport container by comparing recorded origin/destination locations to target origin/destination locations, and/or comparing one or more first digital images of a seal of the transport container to one or more second digital images of the seal of the transport container) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “transmitting” data, a data processing unit, and a data logger of claim 17; “A device…comprising: an electronic data processing unit storing data…a data interface for receiving data…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing…and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface” of claim 27; and “A system…comprising: an electronic data processing unit storing data…a data interface for receiving data…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means…wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing…and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface” of claim 32).
As mentioned above, claim 17 specifying that the transport container “has a data logger for recording status data” at best generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The further limitations of claim 17 for “creating at least a first digital image…” and “creating at least a second digital image,” describes the ordinary functions of a generic camera/imaging device, while the limitations for “transmitting the origin position data, the destination position data, the at least one first digital image, and the at least one second digital image to a data processing unit,” and data being “stored in the data processing unit” – describes the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. tools to apply the abstract idea). Claims 27 and 32 similarly recites the use of the electronic data processing unit for storing data, using a data interface for receiving data, and using the data processing unit to generate a user interface – which also amount to the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity to store, receive, or transmit data, or otherwise amount to the generic computer implementation (e.g. generating a user interface to output information) to apply the abstract idea above. Nothing in the claims recites an inventive concept that improves the functioning of computers, an improvement to any of the additional elements above, or an improvement to any other technology. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not add significantly more (Note: MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) also identifies that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities). As above, claim 32 also recites “at least one transport container provided with a seal and equipped with a data logger; and a mobile telecommunications unit” to describe the system – however, these limitations do not add anything to the claims other than generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 17, 27, and 32 do not recite anything that adds significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Dependent Claims 18-26, 28-31, and 33:
Dependent claims 18-26, 28-31, and 33 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 17 and 27 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 18 and 28 recite that the data processing unit provides a user interface displaying one of the digital images and receiving user input confirming or correcting a comparison result, wherein the comparison algorithm is a self-learning algorithm that is updated/adapted based on user input – however, the limitations merely add generic computer implementation used to apply the abstract idea (i.e. generic application of machine learning models such as training, and using a user interface to display information and receive input information). See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., holding that “[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
Claims 19 and 29 recites additional limitations/steps describing the abstract idea (“wherein: a sender and a recipient are assigned to the consignment of goods...authenticate an authorized user of the sender and the recipient” of claim 19; and “wherein: the stored data associated with the transport order comprises a sender and a recipient of the consignment of goods; and…authenticating authorized users of the sender and the recipient to authenticate the user as an authorized user of the sender and the recipient” of claim 29) and being applied using generic computers/computer components or computer elements operating in their ordinary capacity (i.e. “in the data processing unit” and “authentication means” and “using a mobile telecommunication unit” of claim 19; and “the electronic data processing unit comprises an authentication arrangement for...,” “using a mobile telecommunications unit,” “the authentication arrangement being adapted to cooperate with the mobile telecommunications unit via a telecommunications link” of claim 29).
Claim 20 recites “wherein the mobile telecommunications unit is used to create one of the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image” which describes the use of a generic computing device recited a high level of generality (e.g. a camera or mobile device with a camera) in its ordinary capacity to create an image.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the one of the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image is cryptographically linked to a user identification of the authorized user” at a high level of generality without describing any technical details of how cryptographic linking occurs. The specification does not provide any further detail about cryptographic linking, therefore, it is clear that this element does not provide an improvement to cryptography or any other technology, but instead generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 22 further describes the abstract idea (“wherein at least one of the first geographical position and the second geographical position is recorded”) being implemented using generic computers (“by a mobile telecommunications unit separate from the transport container or by the data logger”).
Claim 23 specifies transmitting the position data from the data logger to the data processing unit, and claim 24 specifies reading the position data from the data logger by a mobile/fixed telecommunications unit and transmitting it to the data processing unit, and claim 25 specifies the status data either being transmitted from the data logger to the data processing unit or read out from the data logger by a fixed/mobile telecommunications unit and transmitted to the data processing unit. These limitations describe the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive/transmit data), which does not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Claim 25 further describes the abstract idea (“records the status data a plurality of times during the consignment of goods”) being applied using generic computer components (i.e. the data logger. The claim further describes using computers (the data logger, the data processing unit, and a fixed telecommunications unit or mobile telecommunications unit) in their ordinary capacity to exchange information (e.g. receive, transmit, or store data) by transmitting the status data, and reading out information from the data logger by a fixed telecommunications unit or mobile telecommunications unit and transmit it to the data processing unit.
Similarly, claims 26 and 31 further describe the abstract idea (“wherein: a target range of the internal temperature of the transport container is assigned to the consignment of goods…compares whether the temperature data recorded…are within the target range; and the result of the comparison is output as whether or not the consignment of goods has remained within the target range” of claim 26 and “wherein: the stored data associated with the transport order comprises a target range of the internal temperature of the transport container…determining whether temperature data of the transport container is within the target range; and…cooperates with the user interface to output as a result of the comparison whether or not the consignment of goods has remained within the target range) being applied using generic computers or using computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. the data processing unit and data logger of claim 26; and “the electronic data processing unit comprises a comparison arrangement for…,” “detected by a data logger… and received via the data interface,” of claim 31).
Claim 30 recites limitations further describes the abstract idea (i.e. “reads out a user identification of an authorized user of the sender or the recipient from the at least one first digital image or the at least one second digital image, and compares the user identification with the sender or the recipient”) being applied using generic computers (i.e. “the electronic data processing unit”).
Claim 33 describes the “wherein the seal is irreversibly destroyed when the transport container is opened” – however, these limitations are merely descriptive of the seal itself and at best generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technological environment (tracking/verifying shipping containers with single use seals).
None of the limitations of claims 18-26, 28-31, and 33 above recite anything beyond generic computer implementation, or otherwise indicate in the claims or specification that they improve the functioning of computers or any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, claims 17-33 are ineligible under § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 17, 19, 22-27, 29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160026973 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US 11222486 B1 to Subramanian et al. (Subramanian), and further in view of US 20190279153 A1 to Ovadia.
Claim 17: Chen teaches:
A method for tracking and for verifying an integrity of a consignment of goods (Chen: ¶ 0071, ¶ 0083 Figs. 5-6, and ¶ 0110/Fig. 10 showing methods for customs in-transit supervision) with a transport container which has a data logger for recording status data of the transport container (Chen: ¶ 0058, ¶ 0066-0068 in-transit supervision apparatus for tracking the supervised object ¶ 0080 specifying the in-transit supervision apparatus mounted to the container), the transport container being dispatched from a place of origin to a destination as part of a transport order (Chen: ¶ 0058, ¶ 0064 showing the supervised object/goods are monitored from an origin port to a destination port, which in ¶ 0080 may be a container), comprising the following steps:
With respect to the limitations:
recording a first geographical position of the transport container at the place of origin in order to obtain origin position data;
recording a second geographical position of the transport container at the destination in order to obtain destination position data;
Chen teaches an in-transit supervision apparatus that records position information of the supervised object, i.e. transport container, from the origin to the destination (Chen: ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0106), and identifying whether a location deviation from a planned route occurs (Chen: ¶ 0130) but does not explicitly teach recording the position of the transport container at the origin and at the destination specifically.
However, Subramanian teaches using a wireless tracker that transmits location updates corresponding to an origin position and a destination position and determining when the tracked location indicates the transport container is located at the origin or destination (Subramanian: Col. 5: 26-37, Col. 5: 65 – Col. 6: 3, Col. 6: 35-39, Col. 10: 12-59, and Col. 15: 58-64 receiving location updates of the shipment at the origin and destination from wireless tracker when within threshold distance of a the stored/pre-determined origin or destination; alternatively also see Col. 8: 52-63 storing RFID tag scan at origin and destination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included recording the geographical position of the shipment at the origin and destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “there is a need for systems, methods, and devices for improved techniques to track loads from an origin to a destination using a tracking device such that the load and available shipping space is automatically updated without the need for human intervention” (Subramanian: Col. 1: 36-40).
With respect to the limitations:
creating at least a first digital image of a seal at the place of origin;
creating at least a second digital image of the seal at the destination;
Chen teaches creating at least a first digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the place of origin (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0084-0085 showing capturing an electronic image, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the origin/origin port), and creating at least a second digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0091 showing capturing an image electronically, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the destination/destination port). Chen also further suggests a customs lock associated with the shipment container that is sealed at the origin and checked after transit at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0004, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0084-0091) – but Chen does not explicitly teach that the digital image at the origin and the digital image at the destination includes the seal in the images.
However, Ovadia teaches capturing and comparing a plurality of images at an origin and a destination to detect a mismatch, wherein the images may include images of a seal, a door, and/or any other component of a shipping container (Ovadia: ¶ 0066, ¶ 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included capturing origin and destination images including a seal of the container of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering,” i.e. to detect tampering of a shipment container (Ovadia: ¶ 0116). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Chen teaches capturing origin/destination images of the container, while Ovadia further teaches the images as including the seal of the container), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the limitation:
transmitting the origin position data, the destination position data, the at least one first digital image, and the at least one second digital image to a data processing unit;
Chen teaches transmitting the first digital image and the second digital image (which as per Ovadia, may include images of a seal) to a central server/apparatus, i.e. a data processing unit (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0085, ¶ 0091 collecting before-transit and after-transit information including the X-ray image; and ¶ 0071 showing the information is collected by port-clearance subsystem and provided to central supervision subsystem; ¶ 0062 “Such an arrangement enables the central supervision subsystem 30 to serve as a hub, via which collected information is transmitted”), but does not explicitly teach transmitting the origin/destination position data to a central server/apparatus.
However, Subramanian teaches transmitting location tracking updates, which may include origin and destination location updates (Subramanian: Col. 5: 26-37, Col. 6: 35-39, Col. 10: 12-59, Col. 15: 58-64), to a computer server (Subramanian: Col. 5: 44-46, Col. 5: 55-58, Col. 5: 65 – Col. 6: 3, Col. 6: 51 – Col. 7: 25 showing wireless tracker location information is transmitted to the server and/or received by management module of the server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the transmission of the location updates of the wireless tracker to the server of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitation(s) above.
With respect to the following limitations, Chen teaches monitoring locations during transit and comparing against a planned route in order to detect deviations from the route (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0130), but does not explicitly teach comparing origin/destination position values against target values for an origin and a destination. However, Subramanian teaches:
comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination stored in the data processing unit and assigned to the transport order, and detecting any location deviation (Subramanian: Col. 10: 12-59, Col. 7: 57-60, Col. 8: 1-3 determining whether the transmitted location of the wireless tracker is at an origin and/or destination by comparing the transmitted wireless tracker location against a stored origin and location, i.e. target values, for the shipment; and Col. 7: 20-30, Col. 11: 36-39 showing using the locations of the wireless tracker device to detect trigger events such as route deviations);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the comparison of the current location updates of the wireless tracker to the shipment origin/destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitation(s) above.
With respect to the limitation:
comparing, by a comparison algorithm of the data processing unit to determine an extent to which images match, of the at least one first digital of the seal and the at least one second digital image of the seal;
Chen teaches comparing, by a comparison algorithm of the data processing unit to determine an extent to which images captured at the origin and the destination match (Chen: ¶ 0085-0092 showing series of method steps for collecting and comparing before-transit information to after-transit information, i.e. comparison algorithm; see ¶ 0064 showing “ the origin collection module and the destination collection module may be implemented with data collection devices such as Computed Tomography (CT) imaging devices, radiation imaging devices, scanners, cameras,” i.e. the data corresponds to images of the supervised object, and “an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the origin, and an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the destination once again and compared with the information collected at the origin to judge whether there is difference therebetween” and ¶ 0070 “judging whether there is a difference between the scanning images of the supervised object before and after transit”; also see ¶ 0085, ¶ 0091-0092) – but Chen/Subramanian merely lacks an explicit teaching that the images may include an image of the seal of the container.
However, Ovadia teaches capturing images at an origin and a destination that may include a seal of the container such that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering” (Ovadia: ¶ 0116; also see ¶ 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included capturing origin and destination images including a seal of the container for comparison of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the limitations above.
Chen, as modified above (such that as per Ovadia origin/destination images including a container seal may be compared), further teaches:
outputting any location deviation (Chen: ¶ 0130 “the supervision center receives position information of the vehicle and status information of the customs lock. If a deviation from the prescribed route occurs or the customs lock is illegally opened, an alarm will be generated” and ¶ 0143 “the travelling track of the vehicle is checked and it is judged whether there is a route deviation alarm”; note this limitation is not necessarily tied to any of the location comparisons above under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
outputting a result of the comparison algorithm (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0070 showing outputting judgement result of whether or not the before-transit information and after-transit information (which as per above includes images) is consistent, i.e. the images match)
Claim 19: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 17. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein: a sender and a recipient are assigned to the consignment of goods in the data processing unit (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 showing both the shipper, i.e. sender, and receiver, i.e. recipient, enter an authentication code that is transmitted to an authentication module of the computer server, which updates the stored chain of custody; also see Col. 7: 43-57); and
authentication means are provided to authenticate an authorized user of the sender and the recipient (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 and Col. 7: 43-57 showing authenticating the code provided by a sender and recipient as shown above, using authentication module 204 and authentication/tracker management module 320) using a mobile telecommunications unit (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 showing wireless tracker may transmit the authentication code to the computer server, wherein as per Col. 5: 3-6 the wireless tracker is in communication with the computer server(s) over the mobile network 106 and as per Fig. 2 includes communications module 210; alternatively, also note that within Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 “a notification may be sent to the wireless tracker or the user device that the chain of custody of the shipment has been verified” wherein in Col. 4: 66 – Col. 5 3 the user device may be a smartphone in communication via the mobile network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included registering the authentication code from sender and recipient to update the chain of custody of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim Interpretation Note: The term mobile telecommunications unit is interpreted under § 112(f) as per above, but is still not defined in the specification beyond potential examples such as a smartphone). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it describes any device capable of mobile telecommunications. Additionally, the “using a mobile telecommunications unit” limitation above indicates that a mobile telecommunications unit is somehow involved in the authentication, but does not specify exactly what functions it actually performs (authentication means are provided to authenticate an authorized user of the sender and the recipient using a mobile telecommunications unit).
Claim 22: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 17. Chen, as modified above (such that the first/second geographical positions are collected as origin and destination position information as per Subramanian), further teaches:
wherein at least one of the first geographical position and the second geographical position is recorded by a mobile telecommunications unit separate from the transport container or by the data logger (Chen: ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0106 showing the in-transit supervision apparatus 10, i.e. a data logger, records and transmit position information when in-transit starting from the origin to the destination; also note that as per the citations to Subramanian in the rejection of claim 17, Subramanian teaches a wireless tracker/data logger recording the geographical positions)
Claim 23: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 22. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein the origin position data and the destination position data (Subramanian: Col. 5: 26-37, Col. 6: 35-39, Col. 10: 12-59, Col. 15: 58-64 origin and destination location/position information collected and transmitted by wireless tracker) are transmitted from the data logger to the data processing unit (Subramanian: Col. 5: 44-46, Col. 5: 55-58, Col. 5: 65 – Col. 6: 3, Col. 6: 51 – Col. 7: 25 showing wireless tracker location information is transmitted to the server and/or received by management module of the server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the transmission of the location updates of the wireless tracker to the server of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 17 above. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 24: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 22. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein at least one of the origin position data and the destination position data are read out from the data logger by a fixed telecommunications unit or the mobile telecommunications unit and transmitted to the data processing unit (Subramanian: Col. 6: 31-38 and Col. 7: 14-28, showing communications module 210 retrieves, i.e. reads out the location information of the wireless tracker, and transmits the information to the computer server)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included retrieving location information of the wireless tracker and transmitting it to the computer server of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 17 above. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 25: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 17. Chen, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein: the data logger records the status data a plurality of times during the consignment of goods (Chen: ¶ 0067, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0110 showing in-transit supervision apparatus records various status information, position information, etc. which is collected and transmitted at a determined collection frequency);
and the status data are one of: transmitted from the data logger to the data processing unit (Chen: ¶ 0024, ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0110 in-transit supervision apparatus collects and transmits the in-transit status information to the central supervision center apparatus/server) and read out from the data logger at at least one of the place of origin and at the destination by a fixed telecommunications unit or a mobile telecommunications unit and are transmitted to the data processing unit
Claim 26: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 25. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein: a target range of the internal temperature of the transport container is assigned to the consignment of goods (Subramanian: Col. 12: 58-62 “The computer server 305 may have configuration information that includes that the shipment may be temperature sensitive and cannot be in environment less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit”);
the data processing unit compares whether the temperature data recorded by the data logger (Subramanian: Col. 7: 3-5 wireless tracker includes temperature sensors) are within the target range (Subramanian: Col. 8: 47-49, Col. 12: 3-6 showing the wireless tracker provides information indicating a condition such as a shipment is not within its shipping temperature limits; and Col. 12: 62 – Col. 13: 4 showing “the computer server may have additional configuration information that if the shipment is at a location above a certain latitude or in a certain geographical area, to request the wireless tracker take a temperature reading with its temperature sensor and provide such temperature sensor information to the computer server 305. Further, if the computer server 305 is notified that the temperature is less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit”); and
the result of the comparison is output as whether or not the consignment of goods has remained within the target range (Subramanian: Col. 12: 3-6 “a wireless tracker provides to the computer server 305 the condition of the shipment in transit such as if the shipment is not within its shipping temperature”; and also Col. 8: 47-49, Col. 12: 62 – Col. 13: 4 as per above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included tracking whether the temperature of a shipment is maintained within the required temperature limits for the shipment of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Conventional load tracking does not provide automated feedback of the available space within the shipping structure or the condition of the shipment in transit such as if the shipment is not within its shipping temperature, humidity, moisture limits, or if the shipment was moved from one transport carrier to another, or the shipment was not handled properly. Accordingly, there is a need for systems, methods, and devices for improved techniques to track loads from an origin to a destination using a tracking device such that the load and available shipping space is automatically updated without the need for human intervention” (Subramanian: Col. 1: 29-40)
Claim 27: Chen teaches:
A device (Chen: ¶ 0010, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0067-0068 showing central supervision subsystem; ¶ 0068 showing “ The central supervision subsystem 30 may be implemented in various forms, for example, by an electronic device with a processor, a communication device and a user interface device”) for tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container (Chen: ¶ 0068 “The central supervision subsystem 30 may be a platform for supervising the supervised object” and ¶ 0058, ¶ 0064 showing the supervised object/goods are monitored from an origin port to a destination port, which in ¶ 0080 may be a container), comprising:
an electronic data processing unit (Chen: ¶ 0068 processor) storing data associated with a transport order, the data including a place of origin and a destination (Chen: ¶ 0082 central supervision subsystem stores all port inspection and measurement data, position, status, alarm information; wherein as per ¶ 0058, ¶ 0064, corresponds to data collected at origin and destination port clearance subsystems and transmitted to the central supervision subsystem); and
a data interface for receiving data (Chen: ¶ 0068 communication device; see Fig. 1 showing communication between the central supervision subsystem and other subsystems; also see ¶ 0062, Fig. 4 showing “Such an arrangement enables the central supervision subsystem 30 to serve as a hub, via which collected information is transmitted and risk information is acquired between the port clearance subsystem 20 and the risk management subsystem 40,” i.e. all data is transmitted to the central supervision subsystem),
With respect to the limitations:
via which origin position data and destination position data of the transport container…are received
Chen teaches receiving position information from an in-transit supervision apparatus that records position information of the supervised object, i.e. transport container, from the origin to the destination (Chen: ¶ 0064-0067, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0106), and identifying if a location deviation from a planned route occurs (Chen: ¶ 0130) but does not explicitly teach recording the position of the transport container at the origin and at the destination specifically.
However, Subramanian teaches receiving position information at an origin and destination using a wireless tracker that transmits location updates, and determining when the tracked location indicates the transport container is located at the origin or destination (Subramanian: Col. 5: 26-37, Col. 5: 65 – Col. 6: 3, Col. 6: 35-39, Col. 10: 12-59, and Col. 15: 58-64 receiving location updates of the shipment at the origin and destination from wireless tracker when within threshold distance of a the stored/pre-determined origin or destination; alternatively also see Col. 8: 52-63 storing RFID tag scan at origin and destination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving a recorded geographical position of the shipment at the origin and destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “there is a need for systems, methods, and devices for improved techniques to track loads from an origin to a destination using a tracking device such that the load and available shipping space is automatically updated without the need for human intervention” (Subramanian: Col. 1: 36-40).
With respect to the limitations:
(via which…) at least a first digital image of a seal of the transport container at the place of origin and at least a second digital image of the seal of the transport container at the destination are received
Chen teaches receiving at least a first digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the place of origin (Chen: ¶ 0071 showing receiving before transit information at an origin port, and after transit information at a destination port, which is analyzed by central supervision subsystem and/or risk management subsystem; also see ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0084-0085 showing capturing an electronic image, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the origin/origin port), and a second digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0071 showing receiving before transit information at an origin port, and after transit information at a destination port, which is analyzed by central supervision subsystem and/or risk management subsystem; ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0091 showing capturing an image electronically, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the destination/destination port). Chen also further suggests a customs lock associated with the shipment container that is sealed at the origin and checked after transit at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0004, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0084-0091) – but Chen does not explicitly teach that the digital image at the origin and the digital image at the destination includes the seal in the image.
However, Ovadia teaches receiving and comparing a plurality of images at an origin and a destination to detect a mismatch, wherein the images may include images of a seal, a door, and/or any other component of a shipping container (Ovadia: ¶ 0066, ¶ 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving origin and destination images including a seal of the container of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering,” i.e. to detect tampering of a shipment container (Ovadia: ¶ 0116). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Chen teaches capturing origin/destination images of the container, while Ovadia further teaches the images as including the seal of the container), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the following limitations, Chen teaches monitoring locations during transit and comparing against a planned route in order to detect deviations from the route (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0130), but does not explicitly teach comparing origin/destination position values against target values for an origin and a destination. However, Subramanian teaches:
wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means for comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination stored in the electronic data processing unit and assigned to the transport order and for detecting a location deviation (Subramanian: Col. 10: 12-59, Col. 7: 57-60, Col. 8: 1-3 determining whether the transmitted location of the wireless tracker is at an origin and/or destination by comparing the transmitted wireless tracker location against a stored origin and location, i.e. target values, for the shipment; and Col. 7: 20-30, Col. 11: 36-39 showing using the locations of the wireless tracker device to detect trigger events such as route deviations);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the comparison of the current location updates of the wireless tracker to the shipment origin/destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitation(s) above.
With respect to the limitation:
wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image to determine an extent to which the images match;
Chen teaches wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the first digital image at the origin and the second digital image at the destination to determine an extent to which the images match (Chen: ¶ 0085-0092 showing series of method steps for collecting and comparing before-transit information to after-transit information, i.e. comparison algorithm; see ¶ 0064 showing “ the origin collection module and the destination collection module may be implemented with data collection devices such as Computed Tomography (CT) imaging devices, radiation imaging devices, scanners, cameras,” i.e. the data corresponds to images of the supervised object, and “an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the origin, and an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the destination once again and compared with the information collected at the origin to judge whether there is difference therebetween” and ¶ 0070 “judging whether there is a difference between the scanning images of the supervised object before and after transit”; also see ¶ 0085, ¶ 0091-0092) – but Chen/Subramanian merely lacks an explicit teaching that the images may include an image of the seal of the container.
However, Ovadia teaches analyzing and comparing images at an origin and a destination that may include a seal of the container such that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering” (Ovadia: ¶ 0116; also see ¶ 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included capturing origin and destination images including a seal of the container for comparison of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the limitations above.
Chen, as modified above (such that as per Ovadia origin/destination images comprising a container seal may be compared), further teaches:
and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface (Chen: ¶ 0068 showing central supervision subsystem includes user interface to display operating state of the supervision system and condition of the supervised object) to output the location deviation (Chen: ¶ 0130 “the supervision center receives position information of the vehicle and status information of the customs lock. If a deviation from the prescribed route occurs or the customs lock is illegally opened, an alarm will be generated” and ¶ 0143 “the travelling track of the vehicle is checked and it is judged whether there is a route deviation alarm”) and a result of the comparison algorithm determining if the consignment of goods remains intact (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0070 showing outputting judgement result of whether or not the before-transit information and after-transit information is consistent, i.e. the images match)
Claim 29: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 27. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein: the stored data associated with the transport order comprises a sender and a recipient of the consignment of goods (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 showing both the shipper, i.e. sender, and receiver, i.e. recipient, enter an authentication code that is transmitted to an authentication module of the computer server, which updates the stored chain of custody; also see Col. 7: 43-57); and
the electronic data processing unit comprises an authentication arrangement for authenticating authorized users of the sender and the recipient (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 and Col. 7: 43-57 showing authenticating the code provided by a sender and recipient as shown above, using authentication module 204 and authentication/tracker management module 320) using a mobile telecommunications unit (Subramanian: Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 showing wireless tracker may transmit the authentication code to the computer server, wherein as per Col. 5: 3-6 the wireless tracker is in communication with the computer server(s) over the mobile network 106 and as per Fig. 2 includes communications module 210; alternatively, also note that within Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 “a notification may be sent to the wireless tracker or the user device that the chain of custody of the shipment has been verified” wherein in Col. 4: 66 – Col. 5 3 the user device may be a smartphone in communication via the mobile network),
the authentication arrangement being adapted to cooperate with the mobile telecommunications unit via a telecommunications link to authenticate the user as an authorized user of the sender and the recipient, respectively (Subramanian: same as above, Col. 9: 48 – Col. 10: 7 showing wireless tracker may transmit the authentication code to the computer server, wherein as per Col. 5: 3-6 the wireless tracker is in communication with the computer server(s) over the mobile network 106 and as per Fig. 2 includes communications module 210)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included registering the authentication code from sender and recipient to update the chain of custody of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 27 above.
Claim Interpretation Note: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a mobile telecommunications unit describes any device capable of mobile telecommunications. Additionally, the “using a mobile telecommunications unit” limitation above indicates that a mobile telecommunications unit is somehow involved in the authentication, but does not specify exactly what functions it actually performs (using a mobile telecommunications unit).
Claim 31: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 27. With respect to the following limitations, Chen does not explicitly teach, however, Subramanian teaches:
wherein: the stored data associated with the transport order comprises a target range of the internal temperature of the transport container (Subramanian: Col. 12: 58-62 “The computer server 305 may have configuration information that includes that the shipment may be temperature sensitive and cannot be in environment less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit”);
the electronic data processing unit comprises a comparison arrangement for determining whether temperature data detected by a data logger of the transport container and received via the data interface is within the target range (Subramanian: Col. 7: 3-5 wireless tracker includes temperature sensors) are within the target range (Subramanian: Col. 8: 47-49, Col. 12: 3-6 showing the wireless tracker provides information indicating a condition such as a shipment is not within its shipping temperature limits; and Col. 12: 62 – Col. 13: 4 showing “the computer server may have additional configuration information that if the shipment is at a location above a certain latitude or in a certain geographical area, to request the wireless tracker take a temperature reading with its temperature sensor and provide such temperature sensor information to the computer server 305. Further, if the computer server 305 is notified that the temperature is less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit”); and
the comparison arrangement cooperates with the user interface to output as a result of the comparison whether or not the consignment of goods has remained within the target range (Subramanian: Col. 12: 3-6. Col. 8: 47-49, Col. 12: 62 – Col. 13: 4 showing providing notifications when the temperature of the goods is not within the required temperature range, wherein as per Col. 14: 19-23 showing the notifications are output from the computer server via user interface/via the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included tracking and notification of whether the temperature of a shipment is maintained within the required temperature range of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Conventional load tracking does not provide automated feedback of the available space within the shipping structure or the condition of the shipment in transit such as if the shipment is not within its shipping temperature, humidity, moisture limits, or if the shipment was moved from one transport carrier to another, or the shipment was not handled properly. Accordingly, there is a need for systems, methods, and devices for improved techniques to track loads from an origin to a destination using a tracking device such that the load and available shipping space is automatically updated without the need for human intervention” (Subramanian: Col. 1: 29-40)
Claim 32: Chen teaches:
A system for tracking and verifying the integrity of consignments of goods with a transport container (Chen: ¶ 0058-0059, Fig. 1 and 4 system for in-transit supervision; Chen: ¶ 0068 for supervising supervised object during transit and ¶ 0058, ¶ 0064 showing the supervised object/goods are monitored from an origin port to a destination port, which in ¶ 0080 may be a container), comprising:
an electronic data processing unit storing data associated with a transport order, the data including a place of origin and a destination (Chen: ¶ 0082 central supervision subsystem stores all port inspection and measurement data, position, status, alarm information; wherein as per ¶ 0058, ¶ 0064, corresponds to data collected at origin and destination port clearance subsystems and transmitted to the central supervision subsystem); and
a data interface for receiving data (Chen: ¶ 0068 communication device; see Fig. 1 showing communication between the central supervision subsystem and other subsystems; also see ¶ 0062, Fig. 4 showing “Such an arrangement enables the central supervision subsystem 30 to serve as a hub, via which collected information is transmitted and risk information is acquired between the port clearance subsystem 20 and the risk management subsystem 40,” i.e. all data is transmitted to the central supervision subsystem),
With respect to the limitation:
via which origin position data and destination position data of the transport container…are received
Chen teaches receiving position information from an in-transit supervision apparatus that records position information of the supervised object, i.e. transport container, from the origin to the destination (Chen: ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0073, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0089, ¶ 0106), and identifying if a location deviation from a planned route occurs (Chen: ¶ 0130) but does not explicitly teach recording the position of the transport container at the origin and at the destination specifically.
However, Subramanian teaches receiving position information at an origin and destination using a wireless tracker that transmits location updates, and determining when the tracked location indicates the transport container is located at the origin or destination (Subramanian: Col. 5: 26-37, Col. 5: 65 – Col. 6: 3, Col. 6: 35-39, Col. 10: 12-59, and Col. 15: 58-64 receiving location updates of the shipment at the origin and destination from wireless tracker when within threshold distance of a the stored/pre-determined origin or destination; alternatively also see Col. 8: 52-63 storing RFID tag scan at origin and destination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving a recorded geographical position of the shipment at the origin and destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “there is a need for systems, methods, and devices for improved techniques to track loads from an origin to a destination using a tracking device such that the load and available shipping space is automatically updated without the need for human intervention” (Subramanian: Col. 1: 36-40).
With respect to the limitations:
(via which…) at least a first digital image of a seal of the transport container at the place of origin and at least a second digital image of the seal of the transport container at the destination are received
Chen teaches receiving at least a first digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the place of origin (Chen: ¶ 0071 showing receiving before transit information at an origin port, and after transit information at a destination port, which is analyzed by central supervision subsystem and/or risk management subsystem; also see ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0084-0085 showing capturing an electronic image, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the origin/origin port), and a second digital image of at least one supervised object (a shipment/cargo container) at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0071 showing receiving before transit information at an origin port, and after transit information at a destination port, which is analyzed by central supervision subsystem and/or risk management subsystem; ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0091 showing capturing an image electronically, i.e. digital image, of the supervised objected at the destination/destination port). Chen also further suggests a customs lock associated with the shipment container that is sealed at the origin and checked after transit at the destination (Chen: ¶ 0004, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0084-0091) – but Chen does not explicitly teach that the digital image at the origin and the digital image at the destination includes the seal in the image.
However, Ovadia teaches receiving and comparing a plurality of images at an origin and a destination to detect a mismatch, wherein the images may include images of a seal, a door, and/or any other component of a shipping container (Ovadia: ¶ 0066, ¶ 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving origin and destination images including a seal of the container of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering,” i.e. to detect tampering of a shipment container (Ovadia: ¶ 0116). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Chen teaches capturing origin/destination images of the container, while Ovadia further teaches the images as including the seal of the container), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Chen, as modified above, further teaches:
at least one transport container provided with a seal and equipped with a data logger (Chen: ¶ 0058, ¶ 0066-0068 in-transit supervision apparatus for tracking the supervised object ¶ 0080 specifying the in-transit supervision apparatus mounted to a container; ¶ 0084, ¶ 0110, ¶ 0066-0067 showing seal/customs lock on the vehicle container); and
a mobile telecommunications unit (Chen: ¶ 0058 in-transit supervision apparatus, wherein ¶ 0067 “the in-transit apparatus 10 may comprise…an in-transit communication module configured to transmit the collected in-transit-information to the central supervision subsystem…The in-transit communication module may comprise a communication device that performs information interaction according to any suitable communication scheme, for example, uploads information and download instructions from the central supervision subsystem by means of short messaging”);
With respect to the following limitations, Chen teaches monitoring locations during transit and comparing against a planned route in order to detect deviations from the route (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0130), but does not explicitly teach comparing origin/destination position values against target values for an origin and a destination. However, Subramanian teaches:
wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises location comparison means for comparing the origin position data and the destination position data with target values for the place of origin and the destination stored in the electronic data processing unit and assigned to the transport order and for detecting a location deviation (Subramanian: Col. 10: 12-59, Col. 7: 57-60, Col. 8: 1-3 determining whether the transmitted location of the wireless tracker is at an origin and/or destination by comparing the transmitted wireless tracker location against a stored origin and location, i.e. target values, for the shipment; and Col. 7: 20-30, Col. 11: 36-39 showing using the locations of the wireless tracker device to detect trigger events such as route deviations);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the comparison of the current location updates of the wireless tracker to the shipment origin/destination of Subramanian in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitation(s) above.
With respect to the limitation:
wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image to determine an extent to which the images match;
Chen teaches wherein the electronic data processing unit comprises means for executing a comparison algorithm, the comparison algorithm configured to compare the first digital image at the origin and the second digital image at the destination to determine an extent to which the images match (Chen: ¶ 0085-0092 showing series of method steps for collecting and comparing before-transit information to after-transit information, i.e. comparison algorithm; see ¶ 0064 showing “ the origin collection module and the destination collection module may be implemented with data collection devices such as Computed Tomography (CT) imaging devices, radiation imaging devices, scanners, cameras,” i.e. the data corresponds to images of the supervised object, and “an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the origin, and an X-ray scanning image, physical information, etc. of the supervised object may be collected at the destination once again and compared with the information collected at the origin to judge whether there is difference therebetween” and ¶ 0070 “judging whether there is a difference between the scanning images of the supervised object before and after transit”; also see ¶ 0085, ¶ 0091-0092) – but Chen/Subramanian merely lacks an explicit teaching that the images may include an image of the seal of the container.
However, Ovadia teaches analyzing and comparing images at an origin and a destination that may include a seal of the container such that “a mismatch between the images may be detected, indicating a possibility of tampering” (Ovadia: ¶ 0116; also see ¶ 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included capturing origin and destination images including a seal of the container for comparison of Ovadia in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the limitations above.
Chen, as modified above (such that as per Ovadia origin/destination images comprising a container seal may be compared), further teaches:
and wherein the electronic data processing unit is configured to generate a user interface (Chen: ¶ 0068 showing central supervision subsystem includes user interface to display operating state of the supervision system and condition of the supervised object) to output the location deviation (Chen: ¶ 0130 “the supervision center receives position information of the vehicle and status information of the customs lock. If a deviation from the prescribed route occurs or the customs lock is illegally opened, an alarm will be generated” and ¶ 0143 “the travelling track of the vehicle is checked and it is judged whether there is a route deviation alarm”) and a result of the comparison algorithm determining if the consignment of goods remains intact (Chen: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0070 showing outputting judgement result of whether or not the before-transit information and after-transit information is consistent, i.e. the images match)
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160026973 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US 11222486 B1 to Subramanian et al. (Subramanian), further in view of US 20190279153 A1 to Ovadia, and further in view of US 20170249766 A1 to Namiki et al. (Namiki).
Claim 18: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 17. With respect to the following limitation(s), while Chen teaches a comparison method, i.e. algorithm, for comparing images of a supervised object (shipping container) and determining a result (Chen: Chen: ¶ 0085-0092), Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia do not explicitly teach the following specific of the comparison algorithm and displaying the result for confirmation by a user. However, Namiki teaches:
wherein: the comparison algorithm is a self-learning algorithm (Namiki: ¶ 0007 “improving an object detection probability and statistical processing for improving a model pattern may be preferably performed on the basis of a detection result and a correctness and incorrectness determination result”; also see ¶ 0164, ¶ 0202-0205 showing object detection unit uses a machine learning algorithm to improve detection of the object over time based on feedback; see image comparison result determined in ¶ 0074 and ¶ 0098);
the data processing unit provides a user interface on which the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image and the result of the comparison algorithm are displayed (Namiki: Fig. 10, ¶ 0125-0150 showing detection results screen showing a first image and a plurality of second images which are compared against the first image and showing “OK” to indicate a match; see ¶ 0098 specifying that “ the first labels L1_jg of the images of all the objects of which degree of match is equal to or more than the threshold value are changed to “OK”. From among the images of the detected objects, the first labels L1_jg of the images of the objects of which degree of match is less than a threshold value are changed to “NG”.”);
a user confirms or corrects the result of the comparison algorithm via the user interface (Namiki: ¶ 0099, Fig. 10 and ¶ 0146-0150 showing user may correct any incorrect image matching labels determined by the model);
and the confirmation or correction is fed to the comparison algorithm in order to adapt the comparison algorithm (Namiki: ¶ 0164, ¶ 0202-0205 showing learning unit performs machine learning based on the feedback (which labels are changed/corrected))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the improvement of a machine-learning based detection algorithm based upon user confirmation/correction of Namiki in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia (such that the image comparison accuracy as described by Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia may be improved via the machine-learning methods of Namiki) with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “improving an object detection probability and statistical processing for improving a model pattern may be preferably performed on the basis of a detection result and a correctness and incorrectness determination result” (Nakimi: ¶ 0007) and “the precision of the detection is further improved” (Namiki: ¶ 0199).
Claim Interpretation Note: Given that the described “self-learning algorithm” relies upon user confirmation or correction of a result in order to adapt the algorithm, it is only considered “self-learning” to the extent that it is able to generate learn/update the algorithm based on the feedback from a user.
Claim 28: See the rejection of claim 18 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160026973 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US 11222486 B1 to Subramanian et al. (Subramanian), further in view of US 20190279153 A1 to Ovadia, and further in view of WO 2021015673 A1 to Foong.
Claim 20: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 19. With respect to the following limitations, though Subramanian mentions that the wireless tracker 200 may have one or more sensors for imaging (Subramanian: Col. 7: 3-41), Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia do not teach a mobile telecommunications unit being used to create the first and second digital images. However, Foong teaches:
wherein the mobile telecommunications unit is used to create one of the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image (Foong: ¶ 0037-0044 showing process in which least a first digital image is taken using a mobile device and transmitted to a server)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use a mobile device to capture an image at an origin/source location of Foong in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the issues in goods tracking systems that “The problems faced by the current technology is that it relies on specific types of special hardware and standalone special cameras (not mobile devices) to take the photographs, images or videos for image recognition processes” (Foong: ¶ 0011).
Claim 21: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia/Foong teach claim 20. With respect to the following limitations, Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia do not explicitly teach, however, Foong teaches:
wherein the one of the at least one first digital image and the at least one second digital image is cryptographically linked to a user identification of the authorized user (Foong: ¶ 0039 “After the environment is authenticated with AR, the user may proceed to capture the image of the goods. Verification data may be encoded into the image. Verification data may be associated with the image by overlaying the image as a mark, hash, label, digital certification etc. or linking it to the image. Verification data may be integrated with a user account information, e.g. user ID, before being associated with the image” – note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understanding attaching verification data to the image via a hash or digital signature to be equivalent to cryptographically linking it to the image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included linking verification information including a user identification of an authorized user to the captured image via a hash/digital signature of Foong in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “In order to prevent fraud, it is important that the image taken of the goods is authentic, i.e. it is the actual image of the goods” (Foong: ¶ 0036) and “By verifying or authenticating the scene of the goods to be in a 3D environment and determine the location where the image is taken, it is possible to trace or track the origin of the goods in the value chain at its origin location. When the goods arrive at a destination location, the goods may be verified against the image to ascertain that goods are from the origin” (Foong: ¶ 0042).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160026973 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US 11222486 B1 to Subramanian et al. (Subramanian), further in view of US 20190279153 A1 to Ovadia, and further in view of US 20220027844 A1 to Miller et al. (Miller).
Claim 30: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 29. With respect to the following limitation, Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia do not explicitly teach, however, Miller teaches:
wherein the data processing unit reads out a user identification of an authorized user of the sender or the recipient from the at least one first digital image or the at least one second digital image, and compares the user identification with the sender or the recipient (Miller: ¶ 0011, ¶ 0027, ¶ 0061 showing reading name/identification information of a recipient of a shipment from at least a first captured digital image and comparing against order information including address/name information of the intended recipient to verify the information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include comparing recipient identification from a captured image to stored recipient information as taught by Miller in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160026973 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US 11222486 B1 to Subramanian et al. (Subramanian), further in view of US 20190279153 A1 to Ovadia, and further in view of US 7740292 B1 to Fattori et al. (Fattori).
Claim 33: Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia teach claim 17. With respect to the following limitation, while Chen teaches a transport customs lock/seal (Chen: ¶ 0026, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0066-0067), and Ovadia teaches a seal of a container (Ovadia: ¶ 0116), Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia do not explicitly teach the following. However, Fattori teaches:
wherein the seal is irreversibly destroyed when the transport container is opened (Fattori: Col. 4: 31-56, Col. 6: 38-50 showing mechanical seal kit where any attempt to remove the security seal (and therefore open the container) results in destroying or crushing components of the seal; and see Col. 3: 2-39, Col. 6: 51- Col. 7: 39 showing the kit further includes an adhesive label/seal with a depiction of a mechanical security seal which fractures upon opening the container door)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the seal kit including a single use mechanical seal and adhesive label which are both destroyed if the container is opened of Fattori in the shipment tracking system of Chen/Subramanian/Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to provide “an improved security seal and method for sealing shipping containers to prevent unauthorized tampering with shipping containers” (Fattori: Col. 2: 1-3) and “thus indicate an attempt to tamper with security seal” (Fattori: Col. 4: 55-56).
Conclusion
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights