Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is a non-final office action in response to the election filed on 01/12/2026, in which Invention II (claims 12 – 21) was elected and claims 2 – 11 were added.
Claims 12 – 21 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted from 11/27/2024 to 01/12/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention II (claims 12 – 21) as stated in the response received 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, the requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 12 & 15 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9846854 B1) in view of Friedrich (“How to Move a Hot Tub,” uship.com, published 04/27/2012, attached, retrieved from https://www.uship.com/guides/how-to-move-a-hot-tub/).
As per claim 12, Lee discloses a system for monitoring a spa, the system comprising:
Regarding the following limitation,
• an accelerometer mounted to the spa for monitoring movement of the spa,
Lee, in C 2, L 28 – 31, discloses a “smart electronic tracking tag” which may be mounted to an item being shipped. As per C 4, L 4 – 5, the “smart tag 112 may include… one or more sensor(s) 118.” As per C 13, the sensors include an “inertial sensor” which, as per C 20, L 61 – 67, “may include accelerometers.” To the extent to which Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the shipped item is a spa, Friedrich, on pg. 2, first paragraph, titled “shipping a new hot tub,” first three sentences, teaches that a shipped item can be a hot tub (i.e., spa), and can be shipped in a crate or pallet by a “shipping company.” Friedrich, on pg. 2, final paragraph, first and third sentences, further teaches that damage may occur “during transport.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Friedrich in the system of Lee with the motivation to “ensure a smooth transport,” as evidenced by Friedrich (pg. 1, first sentence).
Lee further discloses:
• a communications interface comprising a cellular transceiver configured to communicate only with a central server (C 7, L 41 – 44, “FIG. 1 includes a dataflow 172 illustrating communications from the smart tag 112 to the remote server 170”; C 8, L 11 – 25, “the smart tag 112 may send package information to the remote server 170 at operation 176”; C 16, L 7 – 19, “in the illustration of FIG. 8, the smart tag 800 may be configured to communicate with one or more remote server(s) 840… smart tag 800 may be configured to communicate via one or more networks. Such network(s) may include… cellular networks”; C 16, L 41 – 48, “cellular antenna for transmitting or receiving signals to/from a cellular network infrastructure”; C 20, L 11 – 19, cellular transceiver; Also see Fig. 6, step 650 & C 14, L 1 – 4, “the smart tag 620 may send package information to one or more remote server(s) 660” via cellular “base station 610.”);
• and a controller in electrical communication with the accelerometer and the communications interface (Fig. 8 & C 16, L 36 – 55), the controller configured to: receive information from the accelerometer (C 13, L 53 – 66, collecting inertial sensor data; C 18, L 36 – 56, “data collection module(s) 826 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 802 may perform functions including, but not limited to, collecting measurements or output of one or more sensors”; C 4, L 11 – 17 & 43 – 46, generating package information comprising sensor data indicating “drops or shocks.”);
• and cause the communications interface to wirelessly transmit the received information over a cellular network and to be received by the central server (C 8, L 9 – 32, transmitting inertial sensor data to remote server 170; C 14, L 1 – 10, “the smart tag 620 may send package information to one or more remote server(s) 660” via cellular “base station 610” comprising “package information” indicative of whether “the package 602 has suffered drops and/or intense acceleration, deceleration, or shock events that may indicate damage.”).
As per claim 15, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• a battery for providing power to the accelerometer (C 16, L 40 – 42 & Fig. 8, power source 814 and interconnected sensors 810).
As per claim 16, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• a battery for providing power to the accelerometer (C 16, L 40 – 42 & Fig. 8, power source 814 and interconnected transceiver(s) 812).
As per claim 17, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• a Wi-Fi transceiver in communication with and under the control of the controller, the controller configured to cause the Wi-Fi transceiver to wirelessly transmit information to a remote device or the central server (C 16, L 45 – 49 and C 19, L 53 – 56 and C 20, L 44 – 52, Wi-Fi transceiver; As per C 18, L 17 – 51, controller processor causes all functions to be performed including “sending and/or receiving information, such as sending package information.”; Also C 2, L 31 – 40, sending package information to the server via an “other network.”).
As per claim 18, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• a computer memory configured to store motion information detected by the accelerometer (C 13, L 53 – 66, collecting sensor data; C 18, L 36 – 56, “data collection module(s) 826 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 802 may perform functions including, but not limited to, collecting measurements or output of one or more sensors”; C 4, L 11 – 17 & 43 – 46, generating package information comprising sensor data indicating “drops or shocks.”)
As per claim 19, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• wherein the accelerometer is configured to detect if the spa is dropped during shipping (C 14, L 41 – 48, “During transit, an inertial sensor may be activated based at least in part on a transmission profile to collect data. An example inertial sensor output 720 illustrates inertial sensor output over time. While the package is in transit 700, the package may experience changes in inertia that may be captured by an inertial sensor. Inertial data may indicate package drops.”).
As per claim 20, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• wherein the at accelerometer is configured to continuously monitor movement of the spa during shipping (C 4, L 11 – 46, generating sensor data at a high frequency i.e., continuously monitoring for drop movements.).
As per claim 21, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• wherein the accelerometer is configured to periodically monitor movement of the spa during shipping (C 4, L 11 – 46, generating sensor data at a high low frequency with periodic sleep/power-off sessions between data generation and transmission i.e., periodically monitoring for drop movements.).
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee / Friedrich, in further view of Vock et al. (US 20080030330 A1).
As per claim 13, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lee further discloses:
• wherein the controller is configured to: receive movement information for the spa from the accelerometer (C 13, L 53 – 66, collecting inertial sensor data; C 18, L 36 – 56, “data collection module(s) 826 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 802 may perform functions including, but not limited to, collecting measurements or output of one or more sensors”; C 4, L 11 – 17 & 43 – 46, generating package information comprising sensor data indicating “drops or shocks.”);
Regarding the following limitations, Lee, in C 14, L 1 – 10, discloses wherein the remote server receives sensor data and determines whether the spa has been dropped. To the extent to which Lee / Friedrich does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein this functionality can be performed by the smart tag (tracker) controller, Vock teaches this functionality:
• process the received information to detect if the spa has been dropped ([0028], [0042], [0211] – [0212], an MMD determines an impact metric above a threshold and determines a drop distance.);
• and upon a determination that the spa has been dropped, cause the communications interface to wirelessly transmit a notification to the central server comprising information about a condition of the spa ([0212] – [0213], an MMD determines an impact metric above a threshold and determines a drop occurred and “a MMD may communicate the event at the time of occurrence” “to the receiver.”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the server of Lee for the receiver of Vock. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 14, Lee / Friedrich / Vock disclose the limitations of claim 13. To the extent to which Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Vock teaches
• wherein the notification comprises an indication that the spa has been dropped ([0212] – [0213], an MMD determines an impact metric above a threshold and determines a drop occurred and “a MMD may communicate the event at the time of occurrence” “to the receiver.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Vock in the system of Lee / Friedrich / Vock so that “responsibility for any damages can be assessed to the party responsible,” as evidenced by Friedrich ([0212]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628