DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6-11 in the reply filed on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The tracking system of claim 15” should be --The tracking system of claim 6--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0332326 A1 to Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”).
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Raghavan includes:
A tracking system comprising (Raghavan: Abstract):
a plurality of tracking devices, each tracking device attached to a container asset, associated with the container asset, and configured to wirelessly communicate with wireless nodes of the tracking system including other tracking devices (Raghavan: ¶¶ 0015-0016 “shipment items may be a package, a container, or any other type of item that is being shipped from a source to a destination. The shipment items may or may not be of the same type. Each of the shipment items 105, 115, and 125 is associated with a respective tracking device”, 0033, 0036-0040 “a second tracking device, such as the tracking device 117 (or 127) implements upon receipt of the group-discovery message from a first tracking device, such as the tracking device 107, as shown at block 510. The second tracking device generates and sends, in response, a group-information message, which may include different information based on whether the second tracking device is part of an existing status-transmission group of tracking devices” and 0050-0051);
a tracking application on a server associated with the tracking system configured to track the location of each container asset, based on wireless communications between the plurality of tracking devices and other wireless nodes of the tracking system, wherein (Raghavan: ¶¶ 0033 “the tracking device 107 may send a tracking status message 120 to the shipment-tracking server 110 using the long-range protocol L, and send a group message 130 to other tracking devices 117 and 127 using the short-range protocol K. The tracking status message 120 from includes among other information, a geographic location of the tracking device 107, and an identity of the corresponding shipment item 115”
each of the plurality of tracking devices is configured to detect when a respective associated container asset is grouped with one or more other container assets based on wireless communications between the tracking devices in a group (Raghavan: ¶¶ 0036-0040 “the first tracking device, the tracking device 107 in the example scenario, receives the group-information message from the second tracking device, the tracking device 117 in the example scenario, as shown at block 414. The tracking device 107 may also receive group-information messages from other tracking devices that are in the communication range of the short-range protocol used for broadcasting the group-discovery message. Depending on whether a status-transmission group already exists, the tracking device 107 may broadcast a group-confirmation message using the short-range protocol, K to request membership for the tracking device 107 in the status-transmission group and use a status-transmission schedule of the existing group, which may be received in the group-information message, as shown at blocks 420 and 422. In case the group-information message indicates that a status-transmission group does not already exist, a status-transmission group is created, as shown at blocks 420 and 424”and 0050-0051).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0039512 A1 to Jones et al. (“Jones”).
As per claim 7, Raghavan fails to specifically teach wherein the tracking application determines that a first group of container assets is ready for being resupplied based on the location of the first group of assets. The Examiner provides Jones to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Jones includes:
wherein the tracking application determines that a first group of container assets is ready for being resupplied based on the location of the first group of assets (Jones: ¶¶ 0027 “item 90 is perceived to be in the stock room 170, on the sales floor 180, or not present at the retail sales facility 110. Such an alert would signal to the stocking associate to take appropriate action (e.g., retrieve the item 90 from the perceived location for the consumer)”, 0028 and 0033 “inventory management electronic device 120 indicates (e.g., via a displayed message, beep, or spoken words as discussed above) to the stocking associate that the item 90 is present in the stock room 170 (step 465), the tracking process ends (step 470), enabling the stocking associate to physically check the stock room 170 in an attempt to find the item 90 and provide it to the customer”)
Raghavan teaches a system for tracking items. Jones teaches a comparable system for tracking items that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Jones offers the embodiment of wherein the tracking application determines that a first group of container assets is ready for being resupplied based on the location of the first group of assets. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the specific predefined location as disclosed by Jones to the locations as taught by Raghavan for the predicted result of improved systems for tracking items. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Raghavan and Jones includes:
wherein the location corresponds to a designated location for being resupplied (Jones: ¶¶ 0027, 0028 and 0033 “inventory management electronic device 120 indicates (e.g., via a displayed message, beep, or spoken words as discussed above) to the stocking associate that the item 90 is present in the stock room 170 (step 465), the tracking process ends (step 470), enabling the stocking associate to physically check the stock room 170 in an attempt to find the item 90 and provide it to the customer”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Raghavan and Jones are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, the claimed subject matter that is met by Raghavan and Jones includes:
wherein each of the plurality of tracking device stores an identifier for the type of container asset that the respective tracking device is associated with, and the tracking application determines the first group is ready for being resupplied based on each container asset of the first group being a first type of container asset (Jones: ¶¶ 0027, 0028 and 0033).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Raghavan and Jones are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0200487 A1 to O’Donnell et al. (“Donnell”).
As per claim 10, Raghavan fails to specifically teach wherein a respective tracking device of the plurality of tracking device is configured to detect if an associated container asset has been grouped with another container asset by determining a distance between the associated container asset and the other container assets based on wireless communications between the respective tracking device and another tracking devices associated with the other container asset, and wherein if the determined distance between the associated container asset and the other container asset is below a threshold value, the respective tracking device determines that the associated container asset and the other container asset are in a group. The Examiner provides Donnell to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Donnell includes:
wherein a respective tracking device of the plurality of tracking device is configured to detect if an associated container asset has been grouped with another container asset by determining a distance between the associated container asset and the other container assets based on wireless communications between the respective tracking device and another tracking devices associated with the other container asset, and wherein if the determined distance between the associated container asset and the other container asset is below a threshold value, the respective tracking device determines that the associated container asset and the other container asset are in a group (Donnell: ¶ 0049 “a group 36 having members 38, 40, 42, and 44 according to another aspect of the invention. FIG. 3 illustrates the aspect of the invention whereby one or more subgroups may be formed from a group 36. As before, members 38, 40, 42, and 44 each bear a monitor 18. Members 38 and 42 are separated by a representative distance 46 and members 40 and 44 are separated by a representative distance 48. The respective distances between other members of the group are omitted from FIG. 3 for the sake of clarity. According to this aspect of the invention, at least one member of group 36 may separate from group 36 to create one or more subgroups, for example, subgroups 50 and 52 demarcated by phantom ovals in FIG. 3. For example, in the aspect of the invention shown in FIG. 3, members 42 and 44 may separate from group 36 to create subgroup 52, while the remaining members 38 and 40 in group 36 may define a subgroup 50 of group 36. According to this aspect of the invention, subgroups 50 and 52 may comprise substantially independent subgroups. For example, though once members 42 and 44 may have been members of group 36 whereby when distances of separation 46 and 48 exceeded a predetermined distance whereby at least one monitor 18 may emit a signal, according to one aspect of the invention, monitors 18 may be adapted to recognize independent subgroups 50 and 52 whereby no signal is initiated when distances 46 and/or 48, for example, exceed a predetermined distance”)
Raghavan teaches a system of grouping tracking devices. Donnell teaches a comparable system of grouping tracking devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Donnell offers the embodiment of wherein a respective tracking device of the plurality of tracking device is configured to detect if an associated container asset has been grouped with another container asset by determining a distance between the associated container asset and the other container assets based on wireless communications between the respective tracking device and another tracking devices associated with the other container asset, and wherein if the determined distance between the associated container asset and the other container asset is below a threshold value, the respective tracking device determines that the associated container asset and the other container asset are in a group. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the determined distance for group placement as disclosed by Donnell to the group placement as taught by Raghavan for the predicted result of improved systems of grouping tracking devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0303052 A1 to Aklepi et al. (“Aklepi”).
As per claim 11, Raghavan fails to specifically teach wherein at least one of the container assets is a pallet. The Examiner provides Aklepi to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Aklepi includes:
wherein at least one of the container assets is a pallet (Aklepi: ¶ 0047 and Fig. 4)
Raghavan teaches an inventory tracking system. Aklepi teaches a comparable inventory tracking system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Aklepi offers the embodiment of wherein at least one of the container assets is a pallet. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the tracked pallets as disclosed by Aklepi to the tracked items as taught by Raghavan for the predicted result of improved inventory tracking systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627