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 I: claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/03/2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent Number 11,151,856. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language. Patent claims are narrower and thus teach all the limitations of the instant claims.
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 of this title, 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 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 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (U.S Publication No. 2010/0267361 A1) in view of Teller et al. (U.S Patent No. 9,286,783 B1; hereinafter “Teller”).
As per claim 1, Sullivan teaches a system (fig. 1: security system including device 10 and monitoring system), comprising:
a first device (fig. 1: device 10 with GPS locator; para. [0032]: "The device 10 in FIG. 1 is a protective device integrating a GPS locator, cellular telephone technology for contacting a monitoring service and programmable numbers. In one example, up to 50 telephone numbers may be programmed into the device 10") configured to:
determine at least one of a position (e.g., para. [0028], [0030], [0034] & [0036]: position determination via GPS locator), a velocity (e.g., para. [0028] & [0036]: discloses speed (velocity) alerts and exceeding a defined speed limit), an acceleration (e.g., para. [0035]: accelerometer chip detects lack of movement or movement over a threshold period), and an orientation of the first device (accelerometers are well known to provide tilt and orientation information, and thus would have been obvious),
determine if the at least one of the position, the velocity, the acceleration, and the orientation of the first device causes a violation of a threshold condition (see e.g., para. [0028] & [0036]: speed thresholds exceeding a defined speed limit; para. [0028], [0035] & [0036]: geographic boundary thresholds; para. [0035]: accelerometer threshold alert periods and temporal thresholds (zones active or inactive based on time), and
in response to the at least one of the position, the velocity, the acceleration, and the orientation of the first device causing the violation of the threshold condition (e.g., para. [0028], [0030] & [0034]-[0036]), transmit a notification signal (e.g., para. [0028]: "Instead, an alert may be sent to a third party, such as a parent, monitoring the location of the wearer, such as a child. One advantage of integrating a cell phone into the device is that the third party, such as a parent, or a monitoring service may initiate contact with the wearer to determine why the wearer is exceeding a defined speed limit or is straying across a geographic boundary. Another advantage is that the monitoring system may track in real time the location of the wearer''); and
a second device (see e.g., para. [0028], [0031]-[0032], [0034] & [0036]: a third party device (e.g., parent or guardian), a monitoring service, first responders, web-based interfaces and terminals used by third parties) in communication with the first device and configured to:
receive the notification signal (see e.g., para. [0028], [0033] & [0035])
Sullivan does not explicitly teach the second device generate an alert signal in response to receiving the notification signal.
However, in the related art of systems and methods that involve monitoring of items, Teller teaches: a second device (e.g. figs. 1 & 7: laptop L/150) in communication with the first device (e.g. figs. 1 & 7: mobile phone P/110) configured to: receive a notification signal, and generate an alert signal in response to receiving the notification signal (e.g., col. 22, lines 38-50: when one monitoring device detects that a proximity requirement has been violated, it may cause another monitoring device to alert the user. For example, if laptop L cannot detect the presence of key K, then the laptop may instruct mobile phone P to vibrate and ring in order to alert the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sullivan with the teaching of the second device generating an alert signal in response to receiving the notification signal, as taught by Teller, as this would have provided the advantage of a first device notifying a second/another device to initiate an alert in order to alert the user.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan does not explicitly teach: wherein:
the first device and the second device are part of a group of devices,
the first device determines a distance between the first device and a next closest device in the group of devices, and
violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the next closest device in the group of devices exceeding a threshold distance.
However, Teller teaches: the first device and the second device are part of a group of devices (fig. 1: monitoring device 110 associated with various items, including reading glasses 130, keys 140, and a laptop computer 150), the first device determines a distance between the first device and a next closest device in the group of devices, and violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the next closest device in the group of devices exceeding a threshold distance (see e.g., col. 22, lines 10-25: “a proximity requirement may specify that an item or items have a certain orientation or arrangement relative to the monitoring device, or that certain items have a certain orientation or arrangement relative to each other. For example, a proximity requirement might specify that item A and B should be closer to each other than they each are to item C. Accordingly, to evaluate whether this proximity requirement is met, a monitoring device may determine the locations of items A, B, and C, and then determine the distance between A and B, the distance between A and C, and the distance between B and C. The monitoring device may then initiate a corresponding notification process if the distance between A and B is greater than the distance between A and C and/or the distance between B and C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sullivan with the teaching of determining distances between multiple devices and evaluating proximity requirements to trigger notifications, as taught by Teller, as this would have enhance the safety and monitoring capabilities of Sullivan by enabling alerts based on proximity to other devices.
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan further teaches: wherein:
the first device determines a distance between the first device and a predetermined route, and violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the predetermined route exceeding a threshold distance (see e.g., para. [0025] & [0036]: teaches geographic boundaries and polygonal inclusion/exclusion zones; inclusion zones include walking, biking, or bus routes; the route can be represented as an area or polygon, and deviation from the polygon can trigger an alert)
Sullivan does not teach determining a distance from route exceeding a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route-based inclusion zones of Sullivan to evaluate a distance between the device and the route and trigger an alert when the distance exceeds a threshold, as a predictable modification of geographic boundary monitoring.
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan further teaches: wherein the first device is further configured to:
in response to receiving an input from a user, enter into a stay mode, and while in the stay mode, violating the threshold condition includes detecting movement of the first device away from a current position of the first device (see e.g., para. [0035]: “In one example, an alert may be initiated even when the device is located in an active inclusion zone, if an accelerometer chip integrated on a printed circuit board 67, which is schematically represented in FIG. 6, detects a lack of movement of the device 10 for a time period greater than an accelerometer threshold alert period.”; i.e., generating an alert when the device is not moving (stationary). This is essentially a “stay mode” and triggers an alert if the device moves or fails to move appropriately).
As per claims 8, 9, 12, and 14, method claims 8, 9, 12, and 14 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1, 2, 5, and 7. Therefore, method claims 8, 9, 12, and 14 correspond to apparatus claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
As per claim 15, computer program product claim 15 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing program code executed by one or more processors using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, computer program product claim 15 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Teller, and further in view of Daniel (U.S Patent No. 9,560,426).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan in view of Teller teaches: wherein: the first device and the second device are part of a group of devices (Teller, e.g., fig. 1: monitoring device 110 associated with various items, including reading glasses 130, keys 140, and a laptop computer 150).
Sullivan in view of Teller does not explicitly teach: the first device determines a distance between the first device and a center of gravity of the group of devices, and violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the center of gravity of the group of devices exceeding a maximum distance.
However, in the same field of a system and method for group tracking, Daniel teaches: the first device determines a distance between the first device and a center of gravity of the group of devices, and violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the center of gravity of the group of devices exceeding a maximum distance (see e.g., col. 5, line 50 to col. 6, line 21: “Monitoring center 104 may be remote or local, and sets geo-fencing limitations for the group's members being monitored by their wireless tracking devices 102, 102′, 102″ in real-time based on the group's center of gravity as they travel. The geo-fence 106 may be defined as the maximum allowed distance between the group leader and for instance the majority of the group members (“center of gravity”), where the geo-fence 106 is in constant motion with a dynamic perimeter 108. This allows the monitoring center 104 to monitor the group as a whole and/or individual group members to determine whether geo-fencing limitations have been violated by a group member as it monitors each individual's wireless location as represented by his/her wireless tracking device 102 relative to the predefined geo-fencing limitations, i.e. relative distance between individual group members to confirm that individuals are still within predefined geo-fencing limitations. If during a tracking session, no geo-fencing limitations have been violated, monitoring center 104 will continue to monitor the individuals until the tracking session terminates by virtue of a predetermined condition, e.g. notification of group arriving at their target destination, pre-defined time has elapsed in combination with no alarm conditions being reported or determined, and/or any other suitable predetermined conditions for terminating the tracking session without compromising the safety of the tracked group.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sullivan in view of Teller with the teaching of monitoring a device relative to the group center and trigger an alert when the device’s distance exceeds a maximum distance, as taught by Daniel, in order to extend threshold alerting from a single device to a group-based monitoring scenario.
As per claim 10, method claim 10 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 3. Therefore, method claim 10 corresponds to apparatus claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Teller, and further in view of Miranda-Knapp et al. (U.S Patent No. 6,940,407; hereinafter “Miranda-Knapp”).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan in view of Teller teaches: wherein: the first device determines the acceleration of the first device (see Sullivan, e.g., para. [0035]).
Sullivan in view of Teller does not explicitly teach: the violation of the threshold condition includes detecting an acceleration profile of the first device that matches the acceleration profile of a dropped device.
However, in the same field of a system and method for detection and location of a portable communications device when missing, Miranda-Knapp teaches: the violation of the threshold condition includes detecting an acceleration profile of the first device that matches the acceleration profile of a dropped device (see e.g., col. 2, line 52 to col. 3, line 35: “The motion-sensing device 20 can detect the impact resulting if the phone were dropped. The processor 16 can be a microprocessor or microcontroller (MCU) and can process the sensor signal from the motion sensing device 20 to determine if it matched a signature stored in memory 18 indicating that the phone had been dropped. The device can optionally include a logic module 17 for matching a signature or comparing a profile stored in memory 18…Once the condition is detected, the device 10 can alert the user through audio and/or visual methods (flashing LEDs, lit up keypad, MIDI clip, text-to-speech alert, etc.) using at least one or more of the speaker 21, display 22, and other user input/output devices 19. If the phone were equipped with a location determination technology (GPS, EOTD, WLAN, etc.) such as location module 23, it can determine its location and report it (along with a timestamp) to the user through a phone call, an email, or a short messaging service (SMS) message that would be sent to pre-defined phone numbers or email addresses.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sullivan in view of Teller with the teaching of the dropped-device acceleration profile detection, as taught by Miranda-Knapp, in order to improve the reliability and specificity of motion based alert conditions.
As per claim 11, method claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 4. Therefore, method claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Teller, and further in view of Wong (U.S. Patent No. 9,741,191).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Sullivan in view of Teller does not explicitly teach: wherein:
the first device determines a distance between the first device and a waypoint of a predetermined route,
violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the waypoint exceeding a threshold distance, and
the threshold distance depends on one or more of a time of day, an estimated time of arrival, and an estimated time of departure.
However, in the same field of a system and method for recording waypoint images along a route, Wong teaches: wherein: the first device determines a distance between the first device and a waypoint of a predetermined route, violating the threshold condition includes the distance between the first device and the waypoint exceeding a threshold distance, and the threshold distance depends on one or more of a time of day, an estimated time of arrival, and an estimated time of departure (see e.g., fig. 1; col. 4, lines 37-51 & col. 5, line 10 to col. 6, line 64: discloses detecting when a mobile device enters and leaves a threshold distance of a geographic waypoint, thereby determining when the distance between the device and waypoint exceeds a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sullivan in view of Teller with the teaching of waypoint-based distance determination, as taught by Wong, in order to provide more precise monitoring of deviation from predetermined routes.
As per claim 13, method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 6. Therefore, method claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7536. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685