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
Claims 12 – 21 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/10/2026. Claims 12 – 13 & 17 were amended and claims 22 – 23 were added in a reply filed 05/11/2026.
Claims 12 – 23 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 4 – 5, that Lee does “not teach or suggest a communications interface configured to communicate only with a central server.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Lee does not teach “a communications interface comprising a cellular transceiver configured to communicate only with a central server.” For example, Lee discloses, in Fig. 1 & C 7, L 41 – 44, sending “communications from the smart tag 112 to the remote server 170.” Note the direct communication pathway from the smart tag to the remote server. As per C 16, L 45 – 48, the communication can be sent using a communications interface comprising “a cellular antenna for transmitting or receiving signals to/from a cellular network infrastructure.” Additionally, Examiner submits that, even if the tag as in Lee does comprise multiple communications interfaces (e.g., one communications interface comprising local receivers for short-range communications, and another comprising a cellular antenna), the limitation would still be met – as the cellular antenna transmits to the remote server regardless of any other transmitting protocols that may be present. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to omit a short-range communications interface or any other communications interface found in the disclosure of Lee if that feature was not desired (See MPEP § 2144.04 (II.)(A.)). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Lee discloses the contested limitation.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 5, that “the combination of Lee and Friedrich fails to teach or suggest “a spa controller in electrical communication with the accelerometer and the communications interface.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited references do not teach this limitation. Examiner initially submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “spa controller” can be any processing device (e.g., CPU, microprocessor, etc.) which is associated with a spa. The teachings of Lee disclose that a tracking device can be mounted to a shipped device which, as shown by Friedrich, can be a spa in transit. In particular, Lee, in Fig. 8 & C 16, L 36 – 55 discloses wherein a smart tag comprises a controller. Lee, in C 2, L 28 – 31, discloses the “smart electronic tracking tag” can be mounted to an item being shipped. 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 transported by a “shipping company.” Thus, Lee in view of Friedrich teach that a shipped spa can have a mounted tag which comprises a controller i.e., a “spa controller.” Additionally, Lee, in C 16, L 36 – 55, discloses wherein the controller is connected to sensors and a communication interface. As per C 13, the sensors include an “inertial sensor” which, as per C 20, L 61 – 67, “may include accelerometers.” Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Lee in view of Friedrich discloses the contested limitation.
Applicant's argument on pg. 6, that claims 22 & 23 “recite features that represent additional patentable distinctions and/or depend from an allowable base claim” fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks associated with claims 22 & 23 are found unpersuasive.
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 – 22 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, modified by Friedrich, teaching that a tracking device is mounted to a spa as outlined above, further discloses wherein the spa-mounted device comprises:
• 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 spa controller in electrical communication with the accelerometer and the communications interface (Fig. 8 & C 16, L 36 – 55; As outlined above, the controller of Lee can be mounted to the spa of Friedrich, which is interpreted as a spa controller.), the spa 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.).
As per claim 22, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Regarding the following limitation,
• wherein, during shipping and prior to installation of the spa, the accelerometer is configured to be powered by a battery of the spa,
Lee, in at least C 4, L 4 – 5 discloses that the item-mounted tracker comprises a battery which, as per C 7, L 16 – 19, is used to power the tracking functions until it is “delivered in the near future” (i.e., necessarily during shipping). To the extent to which Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery is “a battery of the spa” and wherein the shipping is prior to installation, Friedrich, on pg. 2, first paragraph, titled “shipping a new hot tub,” first three sentences, teaches that a shipped item can be a spa – and thus the battery of the spa-mounted tracker is battery of the spa – which can be shipped to a customer (necessarily prior to installation). Rationale to combine the teachings of Friedrich persists.
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 spa 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]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee / Friedrich, in further view of Farley et al. (US 10724905 B2).
As per claim 23, Lee / Friedrich disclose the limitations of claim 12. Regarding the following limitation,
• wherein the spa controller is further configured to control operation of one or more spa components,
Lee, in Fig. 8 & C 16, L 36 – 55, discloses a controller which, as per C 2, L 28 – 31, may be mounted to an item being shipped. As outlined above, Lee, modified by the teachings of Friedrich, show that the shipped item can be a spa. In other words, the controller of Lee can be mounted to the spa of Friedrich, which is interpreted as a spa controller. Rationale to combine Friedrich persists.
To the extent to which Lee in view of Friedrich do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control operation of one or more spa components, Farley, in the similar field of temperature-controlled liquid-holding tanks, teaches this functionality. For example, Farley, in C 3, L 64 – C 4, L 10, teaches wherein a tub comprises a microprocessor 102 which controls the functions of the tub. As per C 4, L 65 – C 5, L 12, the microprocessor 102 controls operation of the heater circuit 122. Farley, in C 6, L 37 – 44, additionally discloses wherein the microprocessor 102 is communicatively connected to an accelerometer, and wherein the microprocessor 102 is operable to receive the detected accelerometer data.
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 Farley in the system of Lee / Friedrich with the motivation to maintain the fluid in the tub at a desired temperature, as evidenced by Farley (C 11, L 26 – 28).
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 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
Prosecution Insights