DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 24 November 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 14, and 22 have been amended. Note that there was amended and removed text in claims 14 and 22 that was not designated with underline and strike-through. Please ensure future amendments show markings to show the changes. See MPEP 714.II.C and 37 CFR 1.121.
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are cancelled.
Claims 17-21, and 23-26 are original / previously presented.
Claims 14, 17-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 14, 17-26, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 14, 17-26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo). However, note the following:
Applicant argues “According to claims 14 and 22, the amended limitations indicate that environmental parameter measurement and transmission are not performed simultaneously. Such an arrangement is not taught by the combination of Williams and Agarwal” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. For the limitation “wherein the at least one sensing device is configured to obtain environmental parameters at predetermined intervals when the logger device is not actively transmitting”, Williams teaches this in ¶[0051-52] detailing obtaining environmental parameters according to a initially set data collection rate (e.g. every few minutes) and then transmitting the data at a longer interval (e.g. every hour), i.e. an interval when the logger is not actively transmitting), and storing the sensor data in the memory until the next transmission interval according to the transmission schedule. Hence, Williams teaches this feature and this argument is not persuasive.
Priority
This application 18/712824 filed on 23 May 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/085215 filed on 9 December 2022, which claims priority from European patent office application 21213444.9 filed on 9 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 23 May 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication module in claims 22-23, 25-26; scheduling module in claims 22, 24-26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 14, 17-18, 20-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0245307 A1 to Agarwal et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0358319 A1 to Sunwoo.
Claim 14:
Williams, as shown, teaches the following:
A method of controlling multiple wireless logger devices associated with a common shipment (Williams Fig 1, ¶[0024], ¶[0026] details one or more sensor devices attached to the package that send data to a host carrier computer),the method comprising:
measuring environmental parameters with the logger devices while transporting the common shipment from an origin location to a destination location (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0049], ¶[0051] details waking up the device and measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location of the package, and transmitting the collected data in real time), and
temporarily waking-up the logger devices to transmit the measured environmental parameters together with position data of the logger devices to an external data processing device (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0049], ¶[0051] details waking up the device and measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location, and transmitting the collected data in real time),
where each of the logger devices comprises:
at least one sensing device for measuring at least one environmental parameter of the common shipment (Williams ¶[0047-48] details the sensor devices measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location of a package), and
a communication module for transmitting the measured environmental parameter to the external data processing device (Williams ¶[0051] details the sensor device transmitting the collected data in real time to the host carrier system),
wherein the method further comprises configuring the logger devices to sequentially spread-out transmission of the measured environmental parameters in a controlled way together with the position data for said common shipment… (Williams ¶[0026], ¶[0052] details one or more sensor devices, and the sensor devices may be set to different data collection rates (e.g. every few minutes) and transmission rates (e.g. once an hour) to satisfy the needs of customers; and ¶[0047], ¶[0051] details the data includes environmental sensed data (e.g. temperature / acceleration / motion / pressure, light) and location),
With respect to the following:
configuring the logger devices to sequentially spread-out transmission… within a fixed time-interval,
Williams, as shown in Fig 4, ¶[0023], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0058] details performing sequentially spread-out collections along with transmissions repetitively performed at fixed-time intervals according to a schedule interval (e.g. collections every few minutes, transmissions every hour), established for a shipment journey interval, but does not explicitly state sequentially spread-out transmission… within a fixed time-interval (i.e. an interval with a fixed start and end time). However, Agarwal teaches this limitation obtaining data periodically from sensors based on a schedule, where the schedule has periodic reporting with a start date and an end date between which the events would be reported (i.e. repetitively performed within a fixed time interval), and a duration to specify the periodicity of the event, i.e. transmission is repetitively performed (Agarwal ¶[0005], ¶[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequentially spread-out transmission… within a fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal with the teachings of Williams, with the motivation that “enables a unified sensing architecture and allow for efficient control and coordination of a sensor network” (Agarwal ¶[0027]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequentially spread-out transmission… within a fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal in the system of Williams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
wherein the step of configuring the logger devices includes scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices;
Williams, as shown in ¶[0024], ¶[0026], ¶[0051-52] details one or more sensor devices (multiple logger devices) that are pre-programmed according to a collection / transmission schedule, the sensor devices may be set to different data collection / transmission rates (transmitting in real-time with collection, or collecting every few minutes and transmitting at a longer interval such as every hour); i.e. scheduling a fixed transmission sequence of the individual logger devices; highly suggesting but not explicitly stating scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices. However, this is an obvious modification of Williams (in view of Agarwal) because it only represents a rearrangement of parts / sequence (i.e. rearranging a scheduled order of the sensor devices performing their transmissions) which does not modify the operation of the invention. See MPEP 2144.04(VI) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device), and citing In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). Similar to In re Japikse and In re Burhans, this modification to include scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices still results in the sensor devices (logger devices) of Williams performing their same operation with the same results (i.e. transmission), merely re-arranged in their scheduled sequence (i.e. a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices), and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have made this modification to include scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices to Williams (in view of Agarwal) with the motivation of a “time-sequence order on a timeline” and “to collect data at a rate suitable to preserve battery power for the length of the journey” (Williams ¶[0052], ¶[0086]).
Williams (applying the fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices modification, as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the fixed transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled to transmit measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device from a single logger device once every fixed time-interval and to further maximize resolution of the position data (Williams ¶[0024-26], ¶[0047], ¶[0051-52] details each sensor device of the one or more sensor devices collecting and transmitting environmental sensed data with location data, each collection and transmission rates are based on the device determined schedule (e.g. collecting every few minutes but transmitting at a longer interval e.g. every hour); and ¶[0047], ¶[0067], ¶[0081] details the location is GPS coordinate data analyzed to determine whether the package is off track, and to mitigate the negative effects of alert conditions, i.e. to further maximize resolution of the position data);
wherein each logger device is temporarily set in a wake-up mode while transmitting the measured environmental parameters together with position data of the logger device to the external data processing device (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0049-52], ¶[0055] details the device is capable of entering a sleep mode in which some or all of its components are powered off or put in a low power state (e.g. Fig 1 components include a transceiver 360), with a wake up mechanism that is connected to a clock at predetermined time intervals to wake up the device to resume normal operation (e.g. ¶[0047], ¶[0055] include operation of the transceiver), with the environmental parameter collection occurring every few minutes and the transmission occurring every hour; and the one or more parameters including temperature, pressure, location (e.g. GPS location), altitude, humidity, and/or other environmental parameters; e.g. transmitting collected data according to a predetermined transmission rate or schedule);
wherein the at least one sensing device is configured to obtain environmental parameters at predetermined intervals when the logger device is not actively transmitting (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0049], ¶[0051-52] details obtaining environmental parameters according to a initially set data collection rate (e.g. every few minutes) and then transmitting the data at a longer interval (e.g. every hour), i.e. an interval when the logger is not actively transmitting), storing the sensor data in the memory until the next transmission interval according to the transmission schedule),
With respect to the following:
and the at least one sensing device is further configured to prevent heat generated during transmission from affecting the environmental parameters.
Williams, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0047], ¶[0051] details a sensor device that includes a memory, processor, sensors, antenna, transceivers (i.e. a wireless communication terminal); and the sensor device is configured to communicate the environmental parameters; Williams ¶[0052] details collecting environmental data on a different schedule (e.g. every few minutes) on a different schedule than when the sensor device transmits the data (e.g. once an hour); but does not explicitly state that the sensing device is configured to prevent heat generated during transmission from affecting the environmental parameters / communication. However, Sunwoo teaches these features, with a wireless communication terminal that includes a sensor, memory, antenna, and transceiver that transmits a communication signal, i.e. sensing device (Sunwoo ¶[0018], ¶[0023-24], ¶[0029], ¶[0059]); identifying a heat problem that degrades the performance of the wireless communication terminal regarding a frequency, and solving the heat problem by configuring the wireless communication terminal to monitor an internal temperature of the wireless communication terminal performing communication, and when the internal temperature is greater than a preset temperature limiting the supply of current for the broadcast frequency or changing a division ratio, which reduces the internal heat of the wireless communication terminal preventing degradation of the wireless terminal and the communication quality (i.e. prevent heat generation during transmission), and this does not adaptively control the environment in which the wireless communication terminal operates, i.e. the configuration to prevent heat generated during transmission does not affect the environmental parameters (Sunwoo ¶[0004], ¶[0007], ¶[0017-19], ¶[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the at least one sensing device is further configured to prevent heat generated during transmission from affecting the environmental parameters as taught by Sunwoo with the teachings of Williams in view of Agarwal, with the motivation to “prevent the uniform degradation of communication quality” (Sunwoo ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the at least one sensing device is further configured to prevent heat generated during transmission from affecting communication (i.e. communicating environmental parameters, per Williams) as taught by Sunwoo in the system of Williams in view of Agarwal, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 14. With respect to the following:
wherein the fixed time-interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly.
Williams, as shown in ¶[0026], ¶[0051-52] details multiple sensor devices set to collect and transmit data according to schedules (i.e. transmission intervals between logger devices) which may include either different rates, or rates every few minutes / hour (i.e. fixed / same rates), teaching any/all possible transmission intervals between the logger devices, but does not explicitly state that the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly. However, this is an obvious modification of Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo) because (1) it represents a rearrangement of parts (i.e. arranging the transmission schedule of the logger devices so that the fixed transmission time intervals of each logger device are evenly distributed) which does not modify the operation of the invention. See MPEP 21144.04(VI) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device). Similar to In re Japikse, this modification to include the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly still results in the sensor devices (logger devices) of Williams performing their same operation with the same results (i.e. transmission), merely with the schedule re-arranged with a same (even) fixed interval between device transmissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly to Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo) with the motivation to identify “if problems arise during a shipment’s journey” (Williams ¶[0002]). Furthermore, ‘detecting alert conditions and mitigating heat or cold damage’ is a key factor in the success in monitored shipping, and abnormalities can be found using “any known statistical analysis… in time-sequenced data sets”, as discussed by Williams, in ¶[0052]. This practice is well known in shipping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to perform the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly and to incorporate it into the system of Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo), since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly, the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed unevenly) to the recognized need of “identifying abnormalities in time-sequenced data sets” (Williams ¶[0064]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
In addition / alternatively in further support of obviousness, including ‘the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly’ is also an obvious modification of Williams (in view of Agarwal) because (2) it represents an overlapping range that lies inside the range described in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists). Similar to In re Wertheim, this modification to include the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly is a smaller range of any/all possible distributed transmission intervals between the logger devices (since the collection transmission rates can be either different data collection rates, or the same (e.g. every few minutes / every hour) rates, per Williams ¶[0052]) (i.e. distributed intervals evenly or distributed intervals unevenly). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fixed time interval between the logger devices is distributed evenly to Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo) with the motivation to identify “if problems arise during a shipment’s journey” (Williams ¶[0002]).
Claim 18:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 14. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein each of the logger devices further comprises a built-in clock module (Williams ¶[0047-49] details the sensor device using a clock to timestamp the sensor data and also using a clock to wake-up the device from sleep mode / low-power state and then resume its normal operations),
where the step of configuring the logger devices is triggered through remotely sent configuration messages sent to each individual logger device and received by the communication module of each individual logger device (Williams ¶[0051-53] details receiving instructions for changing the configuration collection rates of the sensor device sensor(s) from the host carrier system or a customer, and real-time transmission occurs at the same time as data collection),
where the configuration messages contain a time-schedule indicating when each individual logger device is to wake-up to transmit measured environmental parameter(s) together with the position data of the logger device to the external data processing device (Williams ¶[0049], ¶[0051-53] details receiving instructions for changing the configuration collection rates of the sensor device sensor(s) from the host carrier system or a customer, and real-time transmission occurs at the same time as data collection, and based on the configuration waking up the sensor device components at the appropriate times from sleep mode to resume its normal operation).
Claim 20:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 14. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one sensing device includes a temperature sensor, where a temperature measurement takes place at a pre-defined time interval (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0052] details at least one of the sensor measures temperature, and pre-defined frequent temperature readings are required for temperature-sensitive contents, e.g. collecting every few minutes),
wherein the step of configuring the logger devices to sequentially spread-out the transmission of the measured environmental parameters together with the position data for said common shipment is performed either prior to or subsequent to the temperature measurements (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0051] details all sensor transmission rates may be predetermined and include temperature and location (i.e. spread-out prior-to temperature measurements); and ¶[0052] details collecting the temperature data every few minutes with the location data, and then transmitting the collected data at a longer interval such as every hour, also ¶[0047], ¶[0053] details detecting an alert condition from sensors (e.g. temperature, location) and then increasing the data collection and/or transmission rates, and return them to previously set rates, i.e. spread-out subsequent to temperature measurements).
Claim 21:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 14. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the measured environmental parameters are selected from one or more of the following: temperature, humidity, acceleration, vibration, light intensity, and/or air pressure (Williams ¶[0047-48] details the sensor devices measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration of a package).
Claim 22:
Claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 14 and therefore claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 14.
Claim 23:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 22. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the schedule module is comprised within the external data processing device (Williams Fig 1, ¶[0051-52] details the collection/transmission rate is preprogrammed by the host carrier system, which is external from the sensor device),
where each of the logger devices further comprises a built-in clock module (Williams ¶[0047-49] details the sensor device using a clock to timestamp the sensor data and also using a clock to wake-up the device from sleep mode / low-power state and then resume its normal operations),
wherein configuration of the logger devices to measure environmental parameters of the common shipment is triggered through a remote configuration message sent from the external data processing device to each individual logger device and received by the communication module (Williams ¶[0051-53] details receiving instructions for changing the configuration collection rates of the sensor device sensor(s) from the host carrier system or a customer, and real-time transmission occurs at the same time as data collection),
where the configuration message contains a time-schedule indicating when each individual logger device is to wake-up to transmit measured environmental parameter(s) together with position data of the logger device to the external data processing device (Williams ¶[0049], ¶[0051-53] details receiving instructions for changing the configuration collection rates of the sensor device sensor(s) from the host carrier system or a customer, and real-time transmission occurs at the same time as data collection, and based on the configuration waking up the sensor device components at the appropriate times from sleep mode to resume its normal operation).
Claim 25:
Claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 20 and therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 20.
Claim 26:
Claim 26 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 21 and therefore claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 21.
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0245307 A1 to Agarwal et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0358319 A1 to Sunwoo, as applied to claims 14 and 22 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2017/0011449 A1 to Mueller et al.
Claim 19:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 14. With respect to the following:
where the communication module comprises a modem controlled by a processor comprised in each of the logger devices,
Williams, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0047] details the sensor devices include a wireless transceiver and antenna (i.e. communication module), that functions with the processor to transmit the monitored sensor data, but does not explicitly state that the communication module includes a modem in each logger device. However, Mueller teaches this limitation where a data logger device monitors a delivery and has a cellular / radio / satellite modem embedded on it that transmits collected data (e.g. GPS) to a logistics server (Mueller ¶[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include where the communication module comprises a modem controlled by a processor comprised in each of the logger devices as taught by Mueller with the teachings of Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo, with the motivation of “tracking the shipment of products” and solve the problem that “conventional systems and services often under-deliver with respect to accuracy, time, or general quality of service” (Mueller ¶[0008]).
Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Sunwoo in view of Mueller, applying the data logger uses a modem for transmission, as shown in Mueller above) also teaches the following,
where the step of temporarily waking-up the logger devices to transmit the measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger devices to the external data processing device includes temporarily activating, by the processor, the modem from being in a low-level mode to a higher-level mode while the transmission takes place (Williams ¶[0049] details waking up the sensor device from a sleep mode when all of its components are powered off (i.e. modem, per Mueller) and resume its ‘normal operations’, which per Williams Fig 3, ¶[0047-51] include measuring and transmitting data based on predetermined rates or a schedule).
Claim 24:
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 19 and therefore claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628