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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (US 20200337162).
Regarding claim 1, (currently amended) A personal item tracking system comprising: a first location tracking structure engageable with a container for a personal item and a second location tracking structure engageable to a personal item; and an electronic device wirelessly connected to said location tracking structures to monitor the locations thereof, (“For example, a user's smartphone, laptop or desktop computer, or other device may monitor the locations of a user's keys and a user's wallet (each of which may be attached to a tag)” Perkins: paragraph 857)
wherein said electronic device is configured to alert a user when said second location tracking structure is located beyond a threshold distance from said first location tracking structure transmitted to the electronic device through an extrinsic communication network to enable the user to find the personal item and minimize loss thereof. (“and alert the user when the threshold distance between the keys and wallet is reached. A notification may include sending a text message, email, push notification, haptic notification (via the user's phone or watch), or any other suitable notification technique. Distances between any example devices (including between tags) may be monitored (by a smartphone or other device of a user), and the user may be notified if the distance between the devices exceeds a threshold distance (or if any other distance condition is satisfied).” Perkins: paragraph 857)
Regarding claim 2, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 1, wherein said electronic device is programmable to adjust said threshold distance. (“Using the localization features of the wirelessly locatable tags (or other devices that include tags or include the functionality of the tags), a user may be able to establish geographic and/or location-based rules for their devices. For example, a user can establish a rule that if the user's tag (which may be in the user's wallet) and phone are separated by a threshold distance, the user should be alerted.” Perkins: paragraph 856)
Regarding claim 3, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 1, wherein each of said location tracking structures comprises a body and a location module disposed in said body. (“The wireless tag, in some implementations, may be used to determine an absolute location or position by using a global positioning system (GPS) or other locating system that is either integrated with the wireless tag or integrated with a separate device.” Perkins: paragraph 822)
Regarding claim 4, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 3, wherein said body comprises a chip and an adhesive layer to attach said chip to a container for personal items or a personal item. (“The tag retainer 7200 may be adapted to be adhered to other components along a bottom surface 7210 of the tag retainer 7200. For example, an adhesive layer may be applied to the bottom surface 7210 to allow the tag retainer 7200 to be adhered to another object after the tag 300 is inserted into the tag retainer 7200. In some cases the adhesive may include a tear-away backing so that the tag retainer 7200 may be sold with the adhesive attached. A user can then simply place a tag 300 into the tag retainer 7200, remove the backing, and adhere the tag retainer 7200 to an object (e.g., a computer, luggage, a mobile phone, etc.).” Perkins: paragraph 588 & “In some implementations, one or more of the wireless tags are directly attached to the user by an adhesive or using an athletic tape.” Perkins: paragraph 845)
Regarding claim 6, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 1, wherein the personal item tracking system comprises additional second location tracking structures engageable to additional personal items. (“the tag may be used to track the location of a portable object such as a set of physical keys, a purse, backpack, article of clothing, or other suitable object or item of personal property.” Perkins: paragraph 168 & “Distances between any example devices (including between tags) may be monitored (by a smartphone or other device of a user), and the user may be notified if the distance between the devices exceeds a threshold distance (or if any other distance condition is satisfied).” Perkins: paragraph 857)
Regarding claim 7, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 6, wherein said electronic device is programmable to adjust said threshold distance for each of said additional second location tracking structures to either the same threshold distance or different threshold distances. (“Using the localization features of the wirelessly locatable tags (or other devices that include tags or include the functionality of the tags), a user may be able to establish geographic and/or location-based rules for their devices. For example, a user can establish a rule that if the user's tag (which may be in the user's wallet) and phone are separated by a threshold distance, the user should be alerted.” Perkins: paragraph 856)
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 2 stated above.
Regarding claim 10, (original) The method of claim 9, wherein said container comprises a purse and said personal item comprises one of: a banking card, an identification card, eyeglasses, keys, and a wallet. (“For example, a user's smartphone, laptop or desktop computer, or other device may monitor the locations of a user's keys and a user's wallet (each of which may be attached to a tag)” Perkins: paragraph 857)
Regarding claim 12, (original) The method of claim 8, wherein the personal item tracking system comprises additional second location tracking structures engageable to additional personal items, and said method further comprises said electronic device alerting a user when any one of said additional second location tracking structures is located beyond said threshold distance from said first location tracking structure. (“the tag may be used to track the location of a portable object such as a set of physical keys, a purse, backpack, article of clothing, or other suitable object or item of personal property.” Perkins: paragraph 168 & “Distances between any example devices (including between tags) may be monitored (by a smartphone or other device of a user), and the user may be notified if the distance between the devices exceeds a threshold distance (or if any other distance condition is satisfied).” Perkins: paragraph 857)
Regarding claim 13, (original) The method of claim 12, wherein said container comprises a purse (“the tag may be used to track the location of a portable object such as a set of physical keys, a purse, backpack, article of clothing, or other suitable object or item of personal property.” Perkins: paragraph 168)
and said personal items comprise at least two of: banking cards, identification cards, eyeglasses, keys, and a wallet. (“For example, a user's smartphone, laptop or desktop computer, or other device may monitor the locations of a user's keys and a user's wallet (each of which may be attached to a tag)” Perkins: paragraph 857 & “Distances between any example devices (including between tags) may be monitored (by a smartphone or other device of a user), and the user may be notified if the distance between the devices exceeds a threshold distance (or if any other distance condition is satisfied).” Perkins: paragraph 857)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Chriastiansen (US 20100097237).
Regarding claim 5, (original) The personal item tracking system of claim 3, wherein said body comprises a card-shaped structure configured to be inserted into a card slot of a container for personal items is not specifically disclosed by Perkins. Christiansen teaches the desirability of a tracking unit that is small and can be placed on items such as credit cards (“The slave unit 8 can be designed so that it has a small size and is preferable so thin that it fits into a sticker (shown in FIG. 6) that can be placed on and taken of small portable items e.g. insulin pen, mobile phone, credit card, glasses or any item that one can bring along on the road and that one might forget.” Christiansen: paragraph 63). Modifying Perkins to use a shape to track other items including card-shaped items would increase the overall utility of the system by allowing for a broader array of items to be tracked. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Perkins according to Christiansen.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 5 stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 5 stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claims 6 and 7 stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above, specifically that Christiansen does not compare or measure the relative positions of two tracking devices, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M, W, H, F: 9:30-4:30; T: 9:30-3:00.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689