DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 18 May 2026. 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, 18, 22 have been amended.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, 19, 23-24 are cancelled.
Claims 17, 20-21, 25-26 are original / previously presented.
Claim 27 is new.
Claims 14, 17-18, 20-22, 25-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 19, 23-24, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 14, 17-18, 20-22, 25-26 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 Mueller; Williams in view of Mueller in view of Agarwal). However, please note the following:
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection is improper because “Williams does not disclose a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices associated with the same shipment, and it does not disclose a schedule in which only a single one of those logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with position data once at a time. The cited portions of Williams do not identify which logger device in a group of logger devices associated with a common shipment transmits at a particular point in a repeated sequence” (Remarks pg. 4). Examiner disagrees. First, Williams Fig 1, ¶[0024] details one or more sensor devices attached to the package, i.e. individual logger devices associated with a same shipment. Second, regarding the limitation “wherein the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence”, this is limitation is obvious based on the teachings of Williams and the legal framework established in MPEP 2133.03(VI) regarding the rearrangement of parts / sequence. Williams, as shown in ¶[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), i.e. with the fixed transmission sequence; but does not explicitly state that the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence. However, this is an obvious modification of Williams because it only represents a rearrangement of parts / sequence (i.e. rearranging a scheduled order of the sensor devices performing their transmissions in sequence between individual logger devices only one at a time) 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 the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence still results in the sensor devices (logger devices) of Williams performing their same operation with the same results (i.e. transmission of measured environmental parameters with position data), merely re-arranged in their scheduled sequence (i.e. a fixed transmission sequence one at a time), and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have made this modification to include the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence 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]). Hence, this limitation is an obvious modification of Williams. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection is improper because “This coordinated shipment-level orchestration changes how the logger devices collectively operate and yields system-level functionality, including improved positional visibility and reduced aggregate power consumption” (Specification, paras. [08], [12], and [36]. In other words, the claimed coordinated transmission sequence produces technical effects that Williams did not achieve. By sequentially distributing transmissions among logger devices associated with the same shipment, the claimed system improves temporal resolution of shipment position data while reducing aggregate modem wake-up frequency and corresponding power consumption across the logger group. (Specification, paras. [11]-[12] and [38]-[40])” and “This coordinated functionality changes the operation of the system as a whole because the logger devices are controlled collectively according to a shared shipment-level transmission sequence” and “Accordingly, the claimed arrangement is not an arbitrary re-ordering of independent transmissions, rather, it is a coordinated transmission control architecture for multiple logger devices associated with a common shipment” (Remarks pg. 4-5, pg. 6). Examiner disagrees. First, configuring the schedule of when each device transmits data only represents a rearrangement of parts / sequence (i.e. rearranging a scheduled order of the sensor devices performing their transmissions in sequence between individual logger devices only one at a time) which does not modify the operation of the invention. The scheduled sequence does not change the fundamental operation of each sensor device because the sensor devices are still functioning the same as they would independently and at any schedule. Modifying the scheduled order of transmission sequence does not produce new or unexpected results of each sensor device. The sensor devices are still performing their same operation with the same results. Williams ¶[0052] states “Data collection rates may be initially set by host carrier system 130 to collect data at a rate suitable to preserve battery power for the length of the journey”. For this reason, re-arranging the transmission sequence of the logger devices as scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence is an obvious modification of Williams. Second, there is proper motivation present in Williams to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this modification and include only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence, with Williams “to collect data at a rate suitable to preserve battery power for the length of the journey” (Williams ¶[0052]). Hence, this modification of Williams is obvious and there is motivation to make the modification. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection is improper because “even assuming that Mueller discloses a modem generally, the proposed combination still fails to teach the claimed processor-controlled modem transition from a low-level mode to a higher-level mode while transmission takes place. Williams’ disclose of a sensor device entering or existing a sleep mode concerns the sensor device as a whole. Williams states that a sensor device may enter a sleep mode in which some or all of its components are powered off or put in a low-power state, and that a wake-up mechanism may cause the sensor device to resume normal operation. (Williams, para. [49]). This is different from the claimed operation. In particular, the claims do not merely require that a sensor device wake from sleep. The claims require temporarily activating, by the processor, the modem from a low-level mode to a higher-level mode while transmission takes place, thereby requiring a particular component-level modem power-state transition, controlled by the processor, that is tied to the transmission event” (Remarks pg. 7-8). Examiner disagrees. This limitation is taught by the combination of Williams and Mueller. First, Mueller teaches 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]). Muller is added in combination to the system of Williams in view of Agarwal (claim 14) and Williams (claim 22). Second, Williams teaches “wherein 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“, applying that the data logger uses a modem for transmission as per Muller, because Williams ¶[0049] details waking up the sensor device from a sleep mode (low level mode) when some or all of its components (components include a modem, per Mueller ¶[0071]) are powered off and resume its ‘normal operations’ (higher-level mode), which per Williams Fig 3, ¶[0047-51] include measuring and transmitting data based on predetermined rates or a schedule. The components of Williams are powered on (i.e. temporarily activated) to perform measuring and transmitting, and the powered-on mode of the transmitting component (which includes the modem) would be at a higher level mode during transmitting than when it is in sleep mode. Hence, the combination of Williams and Mueller teach this limitation. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection is improper because “Further, the rejection’s reliance on Williams’ ‘normal operations’ illustrates another distinction. While the rejection notes that Williams’ normal operations include both measuring and transmitting data, the amended claims, however, recite that the at least one sensing device obtains environmental parameters at predetermined intervals when the logger device is not actively transmitting” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. Williams also teaches a device measuring at different intervals when it is not transmitting. For example, Williams ¶[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. Hence, normal operations of Williams includes measuring and transmitting at different times / intervals including measuring when the device is not actively transmitting. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection is improper because “Mueller is directed generally to retail order routing and fulfillment systems and does not concern coordinated transmission scheduling among multiple wireless logger devices associated with a common shipment” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. Mueller, Williams, and the Applicant’s invention are all in the field of shipping. Hence, the Mueller reference is analogous art. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Sunwoo reference does not cure the deficiencies of Williams, Argarwal, and Mueller with respect to new claim 27 (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The new limitations introduced in claim 27 are taught by Williams and Sunwoo. First, Williams teaches “wherein the at least one sensing device is configured to obtain environmental parameters at predetermined intervals when the logger devices are not actively transmitting”. See 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. Second, regarding “and the at least one sensing device is further configured to prevent heat generated during transmission from affecting the environmental parameters”, Williams 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]). Third, Williams also teaches “wherein the logger devices are configured to transmit an alert to the external data processing device after detecting that at least one environmental parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold”. See Williams ¶[0054], ¶[0078-81] details the sensor device determines package status which may also include detected alert conditions and then automatically alter the transmission rates; alert conditions are detected based on analyzed data values exceeding a threshold, such as a high temperature detected beyond an upper temperature limit). Hence, Williams and Sunwoo teach these features 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, 25-26; scheduling module in claims 22, 25-26.
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, and 20-21 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 2017/0011449 A1 to Mueller et al.
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 of the measured environmental parameters in a controlled way… 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 of the measured environmental parameters in a controlled way… 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 of the measured environmental parameters in a controlled way… 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 of the measured environmental parameters in a controlled way… 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:
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 the step of configuring the logger devices includes 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 to a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices) 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 the step of configuring the logger devices includes 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]).
With respect to the following:
wherein the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence,
Williams, as shown in ¶[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), i.e. with the fixed transmission sequence; but does not explicitly state that the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence. 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 in sequence between individual logger devices only one at a time) 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 the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence still results in the sensor devices (logger devices) of Williams performing their same operation with the same results (i.e. transmission of measured environmental parameters with position data), merely re-arranged in their scheduled sequence (i.e. a fixed transmission sequence one at a time), and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have made this modification to include the transmission sequence of the logger devices is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time with the fixed transmission sequence 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]).
Agarwal (of Williams in view of Agarwal) also teaches the following:
where the sequentially spread-out transmission is repetitively performed within the fixed time-interval (Agarwal ¶[0005], ¶[0027] details 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, and a duration to specify the periodicity of the event, i.e. transmission is repetitively performed), and
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 sequentially spread-out transmission is repetitively performed within the fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal with the teachings of Williams (in view of Agarwal), 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 where the sequentially spread-out transmission is repetitively performed within the fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal 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).
With respect to the following:
wherein 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, 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 Mueller, applying the data logger uses a modem for transmission, as shown in Mueller above) also teaches the following,
wherein 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 (low level mode) when some or all of its components (i.e. modem, per Mueller) are powered off and resume its ‘normal operations’ (higher-level mode), which per Williams Fig 3, ¶[0047-51] include measuring and transmitting data based on predetermined rates or a schedule).
Claim 17:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Mueller, 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 Mueller) 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 Mueller) 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 Mueller), 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 in view of Mueller) 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 Mueller) 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 Mueller, 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 parameters 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 Mueller, 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 Mueller, 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).
Claims 22, 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 2017/0011449 A1 to Mueller et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0245307 A1 to Agarwal et al.
Claim 22:
Williams, as shown, teaches the following:
A system for monitoring environmental parameters of a common shipment while transporting the common shipment from an origin location to a destination location (Williams Fig 1, ¶[0023-24], ¶[0026] details one or more sensor devices attached to the package traveling from an origin to a destination that send data to a host carrier computer), comprising:
an external data processing device (Williams Fig 2, ¶[0023-24], ¶[0033-34] details a host carrier system with a host carrier terminal and host carrier computer),
two or more wireless logger devices associated to said common shipment configured to measure the environmental parameters of the common shipment while transporting the common shipment from the origin location to the destination location (Williams Fig 1, ¶[0024], ¶[0026] details one or more sensor devices attached to the package that send data to a host carrier computer; and 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), where each logger device comprises:
a processor (Williams ¶[0047] details each sensor device includes one or more processors),
at least one sensing device for measuring at least one environmental parameter of the common shipment (Williams ¶[0024], ¶[0047] details each sensor device attached to the package includes one or more sensors and measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location of the package),
With respect to the following:
a communication module operated by the processor where the communication module comprises a modem controlled by the processor,
Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0051] details the sensor device with a processor transmitting the collected data in real time to the host carrier system (i.e. communications module operated by the processor), but does not explicitly state the communication module comprises a modem controlled by the processor. 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 the processor as taught by Mueller with the teachings of Williams, 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 Mueller, applying the data logger uses a modem communication / transmission, as shown in Mueller above) also teaches the following:
where the operation includes temporarily setting the logger device in a wake-up mode while transmitting the measured at least one environmental parameter together with position data of the logger device to the external data processing device, where temporarily setting the logger device in a wake-up mode includes temporarily activating, by the processor, the modem from being in a low-level mode to a higher-level mode while transmission of the measured at least one environmental parameter together with position data takes place (Williams ¶[0049] details waking up the sensor device from a sleep mode (low level mode) when some or all of its components (i.e. modem, per Mueller) are powered off and resume its ‘normal operations’ (higher-level mode), which per Williams Fig 3, ¶[0047-51] include measuring and transmitting data (e.g. temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location) based on predetermined rates or a schedule), and
With respect to the following:
a scheduling module configured to generate a transmission schedule for the two or more logger devices such that the transmission of the measured environmental parameters together with the position data for said common shipment is sequentially spread out by scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices associated with said common shipment,
Williams, as shown in ¶[0024], ¶[0026], ¶[0047], ¶[0051-52] details one or more sensor devices (multiple logger devices) that are attached to the package (common shipment) 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, and collecting / transmitting environmental and location data (e.g. temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration, and GPS location) ; highly suggesting but not explicitly stating transmission of the measured environmental parameters together with the position data for said common shipment is sequentially spread out by scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices. However, this is an obvious modification of Williams (in view of Mueller) because it only represents a rearrangement of parts / sequence (i.e. rearranging a scheduled order of the sensor devices performing their transmissions sequentially spread out to a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices) 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 sequentially spreading out a scheduled 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 transmission of the measured environmental parameters together with the position data for said common shipment is sequentially spread out by scheduling a fixed transmission sequence between individual logger devices to Williams (in view of Mueller) 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]).
With respect to the following:
wherein the fixed transmission sequence is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits the measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time,
Williams, as shown in ¶[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), i.e. with the fixed transmission sequence; but does not explicitly state the fixed transmission sequence is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits the measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time. However, this is an obvious modification of Williams (in view of Mueller) because it only represents a rearrangement of parts / sequence (i.e. rearranging a scheduled order of the sensor devices performing their transmissions in sequence between individual logger devices only one at a time) 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 the fixed transmission sequence is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits the measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time still results in the sensor devices (logger devices) of Williams performing their same operation with the same results (i.e. transmission of measured environmental parameters with position data), merely re-arranged in their scheduled sequence (i.e. a fixed transmission sequence one at a time), and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have made this modification to include the fixed transmission sequence is scheduled such that only one of the individual logger devices transmits the measured environmental parameters together with the position data of the logger device at a time to Williams (in view of Mueller) 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]).
With respect to the following:
where the transmission is repeatedly performed 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 the transmission is repeatedly performed 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 where the transmission is repeatedly performed within a fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal with the teachings of Williams in view of Mueller, 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 where the transmission is repeatedly performed within a fixed time-interval as taught by Agarwal in the system of Williams in view of Mueller, 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).
Williams (in view of Mueller in view of Argawal) also teaches the following:
wherein the scheduling 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 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 parameters 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:
Williams in view of Mueller in view of Argawal, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 22. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one sensing device includes a temperature sensor, and where 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 configuration of 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 26:
Williams in view of Mueller in view of Argawal, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 22. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one sensing device is selected from one or more of the following: a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an accelerator, a light intensity sensor, or a barometer (Williams ¶[0047-48] details the sensor devices measuring one or more of temperature / pressure / humidity / light / acceleration of a package).
Claim 27 is 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 2017/0011449 A1 to Mueller et al., as shown in claim 14 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2014/0358319 A1 to Sunwoo.
Claim 27:
Williams in view of Agarwal in view of Mueller, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 14. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one sensing device is configured to obtain environmental parameters at predetermined intervals when the logger devices are 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, and
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 in view of Mueller, 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 in view of Mueller, 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).
Williams (in view of Agarwal in view of Mueller in view of Sunwoo) also teach the following:
wherein the logger devices are configured to transmit an alert to the external data processing device after detecting that at least one environmental parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold (Williams ¶[0054], ¶[0078-81] details the sensor device determines package status which may also include detected alert conditions and then automatically alter the transmission rates; alert conditions are detected based on analyzed data values exceeding a threshold, such as a high temperature detected beyond an upper temperature limit).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Jeff 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
Prosecution Insights