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 the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of November 5, 2025.
Claim 14 has been canceled.
Claims 17-19 have been newly added.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the objections to the specification/claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the specification/claims as presented in the Office Action of August 6, 2025 have been withdrawn. However, new objection to the claims is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 5 November 2025.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b), limitations within the claims have been amended and amendments overcome the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). However, the amendments to claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC §112(b) going to the specific limitations of “one or more asset sensors”. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC §112(b) is maintained herein, and new rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b) is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 5 November 2025.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, at least as amended herein, does not merely recite (and is not thereby "directed to") a mental process or equivalent thereof, and further defines a practical application of any mental process incorporated within the claim.
Claim 1 requires inter alia that the recited vehicle is one of a plurality of vehicles, and further recites steps of: "via a display on an input device, displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors; receiving input information via the input device indicating that one or more sensors are asset sensors located on the asset and mapping the asset sensors to the asset based on the input information; sending asset sensor data from the asset sensors located on the asset to a vehicle receiver device on the vehicle via one or more wireless signals, wherein the asset sensor data comprises sensor identification information; transmitting the asset sensor data from the vehicle receiver device to a remote server; identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data ..."
While the mere acts of receiving information and identifying devices may be performed in the human mind in the absence of further context, the recited combination of elements is more meaningful and arises to significantly more than what could be reasonably performed within the human mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite limitations that merely apply a judicial exception, or in other words are designed to monopolize all systems or methods for, e.g., tracking assets.
The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, at least as amended herein, does not merely recite (and is not thereby "directed to") a mental process or equivalent thereof, and further defines a practical application of any mental process incorporated within the claim. …”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant asserts the steps in claim 1, such as “mapping the asset sensors to the asset based on the input information”, “identifying the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data”, and “using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data” could not be performed in the human mind, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can reasonably be performed by a human mentally or with aid of pen and paper.
Although, the claim recites the limitation of “displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors”, “receiving input information via the input device indicating that one or more sensors are asset sensors located on the asset”, “sending asset sensor data from the asset sensors located on the asset to a vehicle receiver device on the vehicle, wherein the asset sensor data comprises sensor identification information”, and “transmitting the asset sensor data from the vehicle receiver device to a remote server”, the additional details do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The displaying step does not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution activity. The Examiner notes that the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The receiving step does not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution data gathering. The sending and transmitting steps do not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional details do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained herein.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, “one or more sensors” should read “the one or more sensors”.
Claim 1, line 11, “sensor identification information” should read “the sensor identification information”.
Claim 18, line 3, “a vehicle receiver device” should read “the vehicle receiver device”.
Claim 18, line 4, “a remote server” should read “the remote server”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 15, the limitation “one or more asset sensors” at line 1 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “asset sensors” previously recited in claim 1 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the asset sensors”.
As to claim 16, the limitation “the one or more asset sensors” at lines 2-3 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “the asset sensors” previously recited in claim 1 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the asset sensors”.
As to claim 18, the limitation “one or more asset sensors” at line 2 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “asset sensors” previously recited in claim 17 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the asset sensors”.
As to claim 19, the limitation “the one or more asset sensors” at line 2 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “the asset sensors” previously recited in claim 17 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the asset sensors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 17 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 17 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claim (claim 1) recites the limitation of “mapping the asset sensors to the asset based on the input information”, “identifying the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data”, and “using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and maps the asset sensors; identifies the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and determines that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset.
The independent claim (claim 17) recites the limitation of “mapping the asset sensors to the asset”, “applying vehicle receiver device identification information to the asset sensor data”, “identifying the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data, based on the vehicle receiver device identification information”, and “using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and maps the asset sensors; applies vehicle receiver device identification information to the asset sensor data; identifies the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and determines that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply mapping the asset sensors to the asset; applying vehicle receiver device identification information to the asset sensor data; identifying the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data, based on the vehicle receiver device identification information; and determining that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset based on the asset sensor data in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a display (claim 1), a remote server (claims 1 and 17), or a vehicle receiver device (claims 1 and 17) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 17 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors” (claim 1), “receiving input information via the input device indicating that one or more sensors are asset sensors located on the asset”, “sending asset sensor data from the asset sensors located on the asset to a vehicle receiver device on the vehicle, wherein the asset sensor data comprises sensor identification information”, “transmitting the asset sensor data from the vehicle receiver device to a remote server”, a display (claim 1), a remote server (claims 1 and 17), and a vehicle receiver device (claims 1 and 17). The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The displaying, sending, and transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre- or post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The display in claim 1 is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a remote server” in claims 1 and 17 and “a vehicle receiver device” in claims 1 and 17, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a remote server” and “a vehicle receiver device” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the display”, “the remote server”, and “the vehicle receiver device” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-13, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1 and claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element.
As such, claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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) 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothstein, US 2016/0200153 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rothstein, in view of Kugler et al., US 10356577 B1, hereinafter referred to as Kugler, and further in view of TANG et al., CN 112297723 A, hereinafter referred to as TANG, respectively.
As to claim 1, Rothstein teaches a method for determining a coupling between an asset and a vehicle capable of transporting the asset, wherein the vehicle is one of a plurality of vehicles, the method comprising:
receiving input information via the input device indicating that one or more sensors are asset sensors located on the asset and mapping the asset sensors to the asset based on the input information (see at least Abstract regarding at least one tire is mounted on each end of each of the tractor's axles and at least one tire is mounted on each end of each of the trailer's axles. A sensor is associated with each tire. Each sensor acquires tire-condition data about its respective tire and transmits this tire-condition data to a proctor. See also at least paragraphs 32-41. See also at least paragraphs 62-76 regarding the processor 613 is programmed to receive, via the antenna 614, tire-condition data transmitted from the sensors 500. The processor 613 of a trailer-dedicated proctor 600 can be programmed with the tractor's identifiers 202-203 and tire-axle configuration 330. The programming can also include a mapping of a specific sensor 500 (e.g., by its unique identifier 502) to each tire 400 in the trailer's axle-configuration 330, Rothstein);
sending asset sensor data from the asset sensors located on the asset to a vehicle receiver device on the vehicle via one or more wireless signals (see at least paragraphs 32-41. See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors, Rothstein), wherein the asset sensor data comprises sensor identification information (see at least paragraph 17 regarding a sensor 500 is associated with each tire 400 so as to acquire tire-condition information thereabout. Each sensor 501 can be assigned a unique sensor identifier 502 (e.g., a serial number) which corresponds to it and only to it. See also at least paragraphs 62-62 regarding receiving, via the antenna 614, tire-condition data transmitted from the sensors 500. The processor 613 is also programmed to coordinate storing the tire-condition data in the memory 615 and/or coordinate its conveyance to a desired designation. The processor's coordination can include compiling data packets 620 which include, for example, packet statistical data (e.g., packet length, packet sequence, etc), sensor-identifying data (e.g., unique sensor identifier 502), and tire-condition data (e.g., pressure, temperature, etc.), Rothstein);
transmitting the asset sensor data from the vehicle receiver device to a remote server (see at least paragraphs 32-44 regarding a vehicle-dedicated proctor 600 can be installed on tractor 200 so that it receives tire-condition data transmitted by the sensors 500 associated with the tires 400 mounted on its axles 211-212. See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors. Wherein the tire-condition data from each proctors' memory is downloaded to a server, Rothstein).
Rothstein does not explicitly teach identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; or using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data.
However, Kugler teaches identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data (see at least Col. 3, Line 59 – Col. 4, Line 13 regarding the tracking server 170 may be any computer server or combination of servers that are remote from the first asset tracking device 130. The tracking server 170 is configured to receive data from a plurality of asset tracking devices. See also at least Col. 7, Line 23 – Col. 8, Line 6 regarding at step 220, the tracking server may track a first asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 130, associated with the cargo to be transported. At step 230, the tracking server may track a second asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 150. The second asset tracking device may be associated with a vehicle, for example, vehicle 140, or may be associated with a mobile device of the driver of the vehicle, for example, a smartphone or other mobile device carried by the driver. Optionally, at step 240, the tracking server may track a third asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 160. The third asset tracking device may be associated with the vehicle or may be associated with the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle); and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding a first asset tracking device is attached to, for example, a container or some other cargo and transmits location updates to a tracking server or system. A second asset tracking device is attached to or integrated with, for example, a vehicle or mobile device and also transmits location updates to the tracking server or system. The location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 4, Line 14 – Col. 5, Line 59 regarding the tracking server 170 may determine whether the cargo 120 is co-located with and being carried by the vehicle 140, and in some cases whether the correct driver is co-located with the cargo 120 and vehicle 140, based upon location updates received from two or more of the first asset tracking device 130, second asset tracking device 150, and third asset tracking device 160. The first asset tracking device 130 reports the location of the cargo 120 to tracking server 170. In an embodiment, a driver may be assigned to drive vehicle 140 to transport cargo 120. In this embodiment, the tracking server 170 compares updates from the first asset tracking device 130 associated with the cargo 120, the second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140, and the third asset tracking device 160 associated with the driver (not pictured)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kugler which teaches identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data with the system of Rothstein as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein.
Rothstein teaches a display on an input device (see at least FIGS. 7A-7L and paragraphs 58-61 and 77-92), however, Rothstein, as modified by Kugler, does not explicitly teach displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors.
However, such matter is taught by TANG (see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs 44-45 regarding as shown in Figure 1, includes tire pressure sensors, a tire pressure display, and a smart repeater. The tire pressure sensors are installed on each tire of both the tractor and the trailer to detect and transmit tire pressure data. The smart repeater is installed on the trailer and contains identification information matching the identification information of the tire pressure sensors on the trailer. The smart repeater receives and processes the tire pressure data transmitted by the tire pressure sensors on the trailer and sends connection request signals. The tire pressure display is installed on the tractor and contains identification information matching the tire pressure sensors on the tractor. The tire pressure display receives and processes connection request signals and the tire pressure data transmitted by the tire pressure sensors on the tractor. As shown in Figure 1, the tire pressure display is divided into two parts: the first part is called the tractor section, and the second part is called the trailer section. The tire pressure sensors in the tractor section are numbered from 1 to 10, and the tire pressure sensors in the trailer section are numbered from 31 to 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of TANG which teaches displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors with the system of Rothstein, as modified by Kugler, as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring the operating conditions of the assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of displaying sensor identification information for one or more sensors and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein as modified by Kugler.
As to claim 2, Rothstein teaches wherein the asset sensor data is sent by the asset sensors to an asset receiver device on the asset (see at least paragraphs 32-41 regarding Each sensor 500 can comprise a housing 511, a power source 512, a processor 513, an antenna 514, and a memory 515. The housing 511 encloses at least some of the other sensor components (e.g., the power source 512 and the processor 513). The processor 513 is programmed to collect tire-condition data via a path 515 which is in fluid communication with the air chamber 410 of a tire 400, Rothstein), and wherein the method comprises:
connecting the asset receiver device to the vehicle receiver device via a wireless signal of the one or more wireless signals to communicate the asset sensor data from the asset receiver device to the vehicle receiver device (see at least paragraphs 32-43 regarding the processor 513 is programmed to collect tire-condition data via a path 515 which is in fluid communication with the air chamber 410 of a tire 400. The processor 513 can also be programmed to transmit tire-condition condition data through the antenna 514. This data transmission can occur at a relatively rapid pace (e.g., at least once every three hundred seconds, at least once every two hundred seconds, and/or at least once every one-hundred seconds). A vehicle-dedicated proctor 600 can be installed on tractor 200 so that it receives tire-condition data transmitted by the sensors 500 associated with the tires 400 mounted on its axles 211-212, Rothstein).
As to claim 4, Rothstein does not explicitly teach collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; or validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value.
However, Kugler teaches collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45. See also at least Col. 3, Lines 33-58 regarding the vehicle 140 may include a second asset tracking device 150. The second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140 or the third asset tracking device 160 associated with a mobile device is used to determine the location of the vehicle 140 or an operator or driver of the vehicle 140); sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding a second asset tracking device is attached to or integrated with, for example, a vehicle or mobile device and also transmits location updates to the tracking server or system. See also at least Col. 3, Lines 33-58 regarding the vehicle 140 may include a second asset tracking device 150. The first asset tracking device 130 is used to determine the location of the cargo 120, while either the second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140 or the third asset tracking device 160 associated with a mobile device is used to determine the location of the vehicle 140 or an operator or driver of the vehicle 140); comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding the location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 8, Line 25 – Col. 9, Line 38 regarding the tracking server may calculate a route 330 connecting the location updates from the first asset tracking device and a route 340 connecting the location updates from the second asset tracking device. After the routes are calculated, the tracking server may compare the routes); and validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding the location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 8, Line 25 – Col. 9, Line 38 regarding the tracking server may calculate a route 330 connecting the location updates from the first asset tracking device and a route 340 connecting the location updates from the second asset tracking device. After the routes are calculated, the tracking server may compare the routes. If the distances 350, 352, and 354 are less than a threshold distance, the cargo is determined to be co-located with the driver. Thus, the first asset tracking device and the second asset tracking device may be determined to be co-located. See also at least Col. 10, Lines 22-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kugler which teaches collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; and validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value with the system of Rothstein as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; and validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein.
As to claim 5, Rothstein does not explicitly teach transmitting from the vehicle receiver device both the asset sensor data and the vehicle sensor data to the remote server, and wherein the comparing step is carried out at the remote server.
However, such matter is taught by Kugler (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding a first asset tracking device is attached to, for example, a container or some other cargo and transmits location updates to a tracking server or system. A second asset tracking device is attached to or integrated with, for example, a vehicle or mobile device and also transmits location updates to the tracking server or system. The location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 4, Line 14 – Col. 5, Line 59 regarding the tracking server 170 may determine whether the cargo 120 is co-located with and being carried by the vehicle 140, and in some cases whether the correct driver is co-located with the cargo 120 and vehicle 140, based upon location updates received from two or more of the first asset tracking device 130, second asset tracking device 150, and third asset tracking device 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kugler which teaches transmitting from the vehicle receiver device both the asset sensor data and the vehicle sensor data to the remote server, and wherein the comparing step is carried out at the remote server with the system of Rothstein as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of transmitting from the vehicle receiver device both the asset sensor data and the vehicle sensor data to the remote server, and wherein the comparing step is carried out at the remote server and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein.
As to claim 6, Rothstein teaches wherein the comparing the asset sensor readings and the vehicle sensor readings comprises a comparison of instantaneous and/or averaged parameters from the asset sensor readings and vehicle sensor readings (see at least paragraphs 79-90 regarding the processor's determination of tire-axle configuration 230/330, sensor-tire mapping and thresholds can be tailored to the parameters of the proctor 600 delivering the tire-condition data. Tire thresholds can be delivered by a proctor 600 to the display processor 713 in much the same manner as tire-axle configuration and sensor-tire mapping. Alternatively, the processor 713 can be programmed to define thresholds based on other identifiers. If thresholds are crossed, the processor 713 pictorially illustrates this on the diagram 722 to show exactly which tire 400 is the culprit. A threshold crossing can be illustrated, for example, by the corresponding tire icon 734 turning a noticeable color (e.g., yellow), blinking, and/or becoming noticeably larger. Audio alerts can also be used to draw attention to the display screen 714. (FIGS. 7E-7H.), Rothstein).
As to claim 7, Rothstein teaches wherein the asset sensor readings and vehicle sensor readings comprise one or more parameters chosen from: instantaneous speed, tire rotation speed, acceleration data, tire pressure data, tire temperature data, atmospheric temperature data, sensor battery status (see at least paragraphs 32-41 regarding the tire-condition data can be transmitted in data packets 520. Each packet 520 can include packet statistical data (e.g., packet length, packet sequence, etc.), sensor-identification data (e.g., the sensor's unique identifier 502), tire-condition data (e.g., pressure and/or temperature), and other relevant data, Rothstein).
As to claim 8, Rothstein teaches wherein the input information comprises a manual input provided at the point of installation of the one or more sensors (see at least paragraph 58 regarding a proctor's processor 613 can be programmed by any trustworthy technique. For example, a proctor can include a user-interface panel 618 for direct human input of programming instructions. Such instructions can be submitted by typing, screen-touching, and/or talking. (FIG. 6Q.), Rothstein).
As to claim 9, Rothstein teaches wherein the input information comprises an automatic detection of the one or more sensors by the asset receiver device (see at least paragraphs 32-41 regarding the tire-condition data can be transmitted in data packets 520. Each packet 520 can include packet statistical data (e.g., packet length, packet sequence, etc.), sensor-identification data (e.g., the sensor's unique identifier 502), tire-condition data (e.g., pressure and/or temperature), and other relevant data, Rothstein).
As to claim 10, Rothstein teaches wherein the input information comprises sensor data comprising sensor readings from a plurality of the one or more sensors indicating that the one or more sensors are the asset sensors located on the asset (see at least paragraphs 32-42 regarding the tire-condition data can be transmitted in data packets 520. Each packet 520 can include packet statistical data (e.g., packet length, packet sequence, etc.), sensor-identification data (e.g., the sensor's unique identifier 502), tire-condition data (e.g., pressure and/or temperature), and other relevant data. A tire wellness system can include one or more proctors 600 adapted to receive tire-condition data (e.g., the packets 520) from the sensors 500, Rothstein).
As to claim 12, Rothstein teaches wherein the input information is indicative of a position where each asset sensor is located on the asset (see at least paragraph 28-31 regarding the unique tire identifier 402 allows a tire manufacturer to track its tires 400 in the field and collect data therefrom. This data can be used to determine whether poor tire performance stems from factory-originating defects or field-imposed injuries. For example, the tire manufacturer can evaluate whether a particular tire 400 was driven at proper pressures and/or temperatures. Moreover, it a tire manufacturer takes on the service of tires 400 to preserve their quality, it can correlate realtime readings to a particular tire to optimize inspection and maintenance, Rothstein).
As to claim 13, Rothstein does not explicitly teach collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value; or wherein the comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine the difference comprises comparing sensor readings from the vehicle sensors and the asset sensors which have corresponding positions on the vehicle and the asset respectively.
However, Kugler teaches collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45. See also at least Col. 3, Lines 33-58 regarding the vehicle 140 may include a second asset tracking device 150. The second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140 or the third asset tracking device 160 associated with a mobile device is used to determine the location of the vehicle 140 or an operator or driver of the vehicle 140); sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding a second asset tracking device is attached to or integrated with, for example, a vehicle or mobile device and also transmits location updates to the tracking server or system. See also at least Col. 3, Lines 33-58 regarding the vehicle 140 may include a second asset tracking device 150. The first asset tracking device 130 is used to determine the location of the cargo 120, while either the second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140 or the third asset tracking device 160 associated with a mobile device is used to determine the location of the vehicle 140 or an operator or driver of the vehicle 140); comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding the location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 8, Line 25 – Col. 9, Line 38 regarding the tracking server may calculate a route 330 connecting the location updates from the first asset tracking device and a route 340 connecting the location updates from the second asset tracking device. After the routes are calculated, the tracking server may compare the routes); validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding the location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 8, Line 25 – Col. 9, Line 38 regarding the tracking server may calculate a route 330 connecting the location updates from the first asset tracking device and a route 340 connecting the location updates from the second asset tracking device. After the routes are calculated, the tracking server may compare the routes. If the distances 350, 352, and 354 are less than a threshold distance, the cargo is determined to be co-located with the driver. Thus, the first asset tracking device and the second asset tracking device may be determined to be co-located. See also at least Col. 10, Lines 22-38); and wherein the comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine the difference comprises comparing sensor readings from the vehicle sensors and the asset sensors which have corresponding positions on the vehicle and the asset respectively (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding the location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 8, Line 25 – Col. 9, Line 38 regarding the tracking server may calculate a route 330 connecting the location updates from the first asset tracking device and a route 340 connecting the location updates from the second asset tracking device. After the routes are calculated, the tracking server may compare the routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kugler which teaches collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value; and wherein the comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine the difference comprises comparing sensor readings from the vehicle sensors and the asset sensors which have corresponding positions on the vehicle and the asset respectively with the system of Rothstein as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of collecting vehicle sensor data comprising vehicle sensor readings from one or more vehicle sensors located on the vehicle; sending said vehicle sensor data to the vehicle receiver device, wherein said vehicle sensor readings correspond to said asset sensor readings; comparing said asset sensor readings and said vehicle sensor readings to determine a difference; validating the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle if the difference is below a predetermined difference value; and comparing sensor readings from the vehicle sensors and the asset sensors which have corresponding positions on the vehicle and the asset respectively and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein.
As to claim 15, Rothstein teaches an asset monitoring system comprising: one or more asset sensors located on the asset; the vehicle receiver device located on the vehicle; and the remote server; wherein the system is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see at least FIGS. 1A-6B and paragraphs 13-17. See also at least Claims 32-39, Rothstein).
As to claim 16, Rothstein teaches an asset receiver device located on the asset and configured to communicate with the one or more asset sensors, and to transmit the asset sensor data to the vehicle receiver device via a wireless signal of the one or more wireless signals (see at least FIGS. 1A-6B and paragraphs 13-17 and 32-41 regarding each sensor 500 can comprise a housing 511, a power source 512, a processor 513, an antenna 514, and a memory 515. The housing 511 encloses at least some of the other sensor components (e.g., the power source 512 and the processor 513). See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors, Rothstein).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothstein, US 2016/0200153 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rothstein, in view of Kugler et al., US 10356577 B1, hereinafter referred to as Kugler, in view of TANG et al., CN 112297723 A, hereinafter referred to as TANG, and further in view of Harmon et al., US 2010/0265061 A1, hereinafter referred to as Harmon, respectively.
As to claim 3, Rothstein, as modified by Kugler and TANG, does not explicitly teach wherein the asset receiver device is configured to apply a time marker to the asset sensor data when the asset is coupled to and powered by the vehicle, the method further comprising: comparing said time marker to a power on time of the vehicle to validate the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle.
However, Harmon teaches wherein the asset receiver device is configured to apply a time marker to the asset sensor data when the asset is coupled to and powered by the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 44-46 regarding associating a tracking device with an asset might comprise affixing the tracking device to the asset (and/or to an item in proximity with the asset, such as packaging for the asset, an identification tag of an individual, and/or the like), inserting the tracking device into the asset (and/or manufacturing the asset with the tracking device incorporated within), and/or the like. Transmitting, from the mobile asset tracking system, a set of asset tracking data. This asset tracking data can include, without limitation, some or all of the information (e.g., an identifier of the asset and/or of the tracking device) received from the tracking device. The set of asset tracking data might also include additional data, such as a time/date stamp, location information about the location of the mobile asset tracking system (which might be obtained from a vehicle data acquisition system, as described below in more detail, and/or from separate positional sensors incorporated within and/or in communication with the mobile asset tracking system), and/or the like), the method further comprising: comparing said time marker to a power on time of the vehicle to validate the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 44-46 regarding indeed the lack of such information might be an indicator that the asset is no longer located in the vehicle. See also at least paragraph 57 regarding transmitting updated asset tracking data (which may, but need not necessarily, include information received from the tracking device). In this way, location information about the asset may be updated in the asset database (and/or updated information may be displayed for the user). This updated data may indicate that the asset has not moved since the last set of asset tracking data was sent; alternatively, this data could indicate movement of the asset with the vehicle and/or could indicate that the asset has left the vehicle, returned to the vehicle, or moved within the vehicle. See also at least Claim 1 regarding receiving, at an asset tracking computer system, the asset tracking data; identifying, at the asset tracking computer system, a location of the mobile asset tracking system; identifying, at the asset tracking computer system, the asset, based at least in part the asset tracking data; and updating, at the asset tracking computer system, an asset database with data correlating the asset with the location of mobile asset tracking system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Harmon which teaches wherein the asset receiver device is configured to apply a time marker to the asset sensor data when the asset is coupled to and powered by the vehicle, the method further comprising: comparing said time marker to a power on time of the vehicle to validate the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle with the system of Rothstein, as modified by Kugler and TANG, as both systems are directed to a system and method for determining a coupling between an asset and the vehicle based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of applying a time marker to the asset sensor data when the asset is coupled to and powered by the vehicle; and comparing said time marker to a power on time of the vehicle to validate the determined coupling between the asset and the vehicle and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein as modified by Kugler and TANG.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothstein, US 2016/0200153 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rothstein, in view of Kugler et al., US 10356577 B1, hereinafter referred to as Kugler, in view of TANG et al., CN 112297723 A, hereinafter referred to as TANG, and further in view of Araki et al., US 2011/0246101 A1, hereinafter referred to as Araki, respectively.
As to claim 11, Rothstein, as modified by Kugler and TANG, does not explicitly teach wherein the mapping the asset sensors to the asset comprises comparing the sensor readings from one or more pre-mapped asset sensors to sensor readings from one or more unmapped asset sensors to determine a difference, and mapping the one or more unmapped asset sensors to the asset if the difference is below a predetermined value.
However, Araki teaches wherein the mapping the asset sensors to the asset comprises comparing the sensor readings from one or more pre-mapped asset sensors to sensor readings from one or more unmapped asset sensors to determine a difference (see at least paragraphs 31-36 regarding the sensor module 10 measures the air pressure as the physical property value in the tire (step S1). The sensor module 10 inputs the air pressure data detected by the sensor 11 into the arithmetic processing unit 13 after converting the data from analog data to digital data by the A/D converter circuit 12. The arithmetic processing unit 13 compares the measured value from the sensor 11 with previous data and determines if a difference between the previous data and the current data (the measured value), in other words, an amount of change, is less than or equal to a threshold value (step S2)), and mapping the one or more unmapped asset sensors to the asset if the difference is below a predetermined value (see at least paragraphs 31-36 regarding determines if a difference between the previous data and the current data (the measured value), in other words, an amount of change, is less than or equal to a threshold value (step S2). Note that the threshold value of the amount of change is a preset value. If, in step S2, the sensor module 10 determines that the amount of change from the previous data of the measured value from the sensor 11 is less than or equal to the threshold value (Yes), that data is transmitted from the transmission circuit 17 via the transmitting antenna 18 without adding the flag (step S4). In other words, the sensor module 10 transmits data that does not include the flag if the amount of change is less than or equal to the threshold value. If the arithmetic processing unit 23 determines in step S7 that the amount of change is less than or equal to the threshold value (Yes), the data are determined to be valid and are used in step S10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Araki which teaches wherein the mapping the asset sensors to the asset comprises comparing the sensor readings from one or more pre-mapped asset sensors to sensor readings from one or more unmapped asset sensors to determine a difference, and mapping the one or more unmapped asset sensors to the asset if the difference is below a predetermined value with the system of Rothstein, as modified by Kugler and TANG, as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of comparing the sensor readings from one or more pre-mapped asset sensors to sensor readings from one or more unmapped asset sensors to determine a difference; and mapping the one or more unmapped asset sensors to the asset if the difference is below a predetermined value and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein as modified by Kugler and TANG.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothstein, US 2016/0200153 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rothstein, in view of Kugler et al., US 10356577 B1, hereinafter referred to as Kugler, respectively.
As to claim 17, Rothstein teaches a method for determining a coupling between an asset and a vehicle capable of transporting the asset, wherein the vehicle is one of a plurality of vehicles, the method comprising:
receiving input information indicating that one or more sensors are asset sensors located on the asset and mapping the asset sensors to the asset (see at least Abstract regarding at least one tire is mounted on each end of each of the tractor's axles and at least one tire is mounted on each end of each of the trailer's axles. A sensor is associated with each tire. Each sensor acquires tire-condition data about its respective tire and transmits this tire-condition data to a proctor. See also at least paragraphs 32-41. See also at least paragraphs 62-76 regarding the processor 613 is programmed to receive, via the antenna 614, tire-condition data transmitted from the sensors 500. The processor 613 of a trailer-dedicated proctor 600 can be programmed with the tractor's identifiers 202-203 and tire-axle configuration 330. The programming can also include a mapping of a specific sensor 500 (e.g., by its unique identifier 502) to each tire 400 in the trailer's axle-configuration 330, Rothstein);
sending asset sensor data from the asset sensors located on the asset to a vehicle receiver device on the vehicle via one or more wireless signals (see at least paragraphs 32-41. See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors, Rothstein), wherein the asset sensor data comprises sensor identification information (see at least paragraph 17 regarding a sensor 500 is associated with each tire 400 so as to acquire tire-condition information thereabout. Each sensor 501 can be assigned a unique sensor identifier 502 (e.g., a serial number) which corresponds to it and only to it. See also at least paragraphs 62-62 regarding receiving, via the antenna 614, tire-condition data transmitted from the sensors 500. The processor 613 is also programmed to coordinate storing the tire-condition data in the memory 615 and/or coordinate its conveyance to a desired designation. The processor's coordination can include compiling data packets 620 which include, for example, packet statistical data (e.g., packet length, packet sequence, etc), sensor-identifying data (e.g., unique sensor identifier 502), and tire-condition data (e.g., pressure, temperature, etc.), Rothstein);
applying vehicle receiver device identification information to the asset sensor data (see at least paragraphs 62-65 regarding receive, via the antenna 614, tire-condition data transmitted from the sensors 500. The processor 613 is also programmed to coordinate storing the tire-condition data in the memory 615 and/or coordinate its conveyance to a desired designation. The processor 613 can (but need not) enhance the data packet 620 by including analysis-helpful details such as time stamps, ambient temperatures, global position, and other non-tire-specific information. A proctor-enhanced data packet 620 can also include vehicle-specific information such as vehicle-identifiers 202/302, owner identifiers 203/303, axle-tire configurations 230/330, sensor-tire mapping, and/or tire-pressure thresholds. A vehicle-dedicated proctor 600 can be programmed to correspond to its vehicle and the sensor-mapping associated therewith. For example, the processor 613 of a tractor-dedicated proctor 600 can be programmed with the tractor's unique vehicle identifier 202, its owner identifier 203, and its tire-axle configuration 230. It can also be programmed to correlate a specific sensor 500 (e.g., by its unique identifier 502) to each 400 in the tractor's axle configuration 230/330. If the tires 400 have unique identifiers 402, they can also be correlated in this manner. (FIG. 6L)), and transmitting the asset sensor data from the vehicle receiver device to a remote server (see at least paragraphs 32-44 regarding a vehicle-dedicated proctor 600 can be installed on tractor 200 so that it receives tire-condition data transmitted by the sensors 500 associated with the tires 400 mounted on its axles 211-212. See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors. Wherein the tire-condition data from each proctors' memory is downloaded to a server, Rothstein).
Rothstein does not explicitly teach identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; or using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data.
However, Kugler teaches identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data (see at least Col. 3, Line 59 – Col. 4, Line 13 regarding the tracking server 170 may be any computer server or combination of servers that are remote from the first asset tracking device 130. The tracking server 170 is configured to receive data from a plurality of asset tracking devices. See also at least Col. 7, Line 23 – Col. 8, Line 6 regarding at step 220, the tracking server may track a first asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 130, associated with the cargo to be transported. At step 230, the tracking server may track a second asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 150. The second asset tracking device may be associated with a vehicle, for example, vehicle 140, or may be associated with a mobile device of the driver of the vehicle, for example, a smartphone or other mobile device carried by the driver. Optionally, at step 240, the tracking server may track a third asset tracking device, for example asset tracking device 160. The third asset tracking device may be associated with the vehicle or may be associated with the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle); and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data (see at least Col. 2, Lines 32-45 regarding a first asset tracking device is attached to, for example, a container or some other cargo and transmits location updates to a tracking server or system. A second asset tracking device is attached to or integrated with, for example, a vehicle or mobile device and also transmits location updates to the tracking server or system. The location updates from the first asset device and second asset device are compared to determine whether the container or other cargo is co-located with the vehicle or mobile device. See also at least Col. 4, Line 14 – Col. 5, Line 59 regarding the tracking server 170 may determine whether the cargo 120 is co-located with and being carried by the vehicle 140, and in some cases whether the correct driver is co-located with the cargo 120 and vehicle 140, based upon location updates received from two or more of the first asset tracking device 130, second asset tracking device 150, and third asset tracking device 160. The first asset tracking device 130 reports the location of the cargo 120 to tracking server 170. In an embodiment, a driver may be assigned to drive vehicle 140 to transport cargo 120. In this embodiment, the tracking server 170 compares updates from the first asset tracking device 130 associated with the cargo 120, the second asset tracking device 150 associated with the vehicle 140, and the third asset tracking device 160 associated with the driver (not pictured)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kugler which teaches identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data with the system of Rothstein as both systems are directed to a system and method for tracking of a plurality of assets based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of identifying, at the remote server, the vehicle receiver device which transmitted the asset sensor data; and using the mapping of the asset sensors at the remote server, and the transmission of the asset sensor data from the asset sensors to the remote server via the vehicle receiver device, to determine that the coupling exists between the vehicle and the asset, based on the asset sensor data and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Rothstein.
As to claim 18, Rothstein teaches an asset monitoring system comprising: one or more asset sensors located on the asset; a vehicle receiver device located on the vehicle; and a remote server; wherein the system is configured to perform the method of claim 17 (see at least FIGS. 1A-6B and paragraphs 13-17. See also at least Claims 32-39, Rothstein).
As to claim 19, Rothstein teaches an asset receiver device located on the asset and configured to communicate with the one or more asset sensors, and to transmit the asset sensor data to the vehicle receiver device via a wireless signal of the one or more wireless signals (see at least FIGS. 1A-6B and paragraphs 13-17 and 32-41 regarding each sensor 500 can comprise a housing 511, a power source 512, a processor 513, an antenna 514, and a memory 515. The housing 511 encloses at least some of the other sensor components (e.g., the power source 512 and the processor 513). See also at least Claims 32-39 regarding a sensor associated with each tire, each sensor acquiring tire-condition information about its respective tire and transmitting this information; a proctor mounted to the vehicle which receives the tire-condition information transmitted from the sensors, Rothstein).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666