DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 USC §120 is acknowledged:
This application is a continuation of application 17/545,160, filed 8-December-2021, and subsequently issued as patent # US 12,057,006 B2.
This application will, therefore, be accorded a prima facie effective filing date of 8-December-2021.
Claim Objections
Objection is made to claims 2 and 10 for the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites in part: “….over a predetermine amount of time.”, more properly: “predetermined”.
Claim 10 recites the same typographical error as claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, in part: “….the location as received …. is based on a location of a device….” [line 2-3] but where a plurality of devices are recited in the base and intermediate claims, and where it is unclear to which device the claim refers, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the same limitation as claim 4, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC §102 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Jones et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0365865 A1), hereinafter Jones, in view of Zhang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2023/0136219 A1), hereinafter Zhang, and Mehta et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0124853 A1), hereinafter Mehta.
Consider claim 1: A tracking system including a central monitoring location, a tracking device, and first tracking application configured to operate on a cellular device, Jones discloses an electronic monitoring device and system using a wearable monitoring device, comprising an application (550) (first tracking application) in conjunction with a smart-phone [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-7; Para. 0002-0004]; the system comprising:
the tracking device attachable to a limb of monitored person, wherein embodiments disclose a wristband (40c) which may incorporate the functionality of a smart-watch, including a GPS receiver (510) [Fig. 5, 7; Para. 0050-0051]; the tracking device having:
first electronic hardware that provides health and status information about the tracking device to the first tracking application when in range; wherein the wristband may include a cellular transceiver (520), Wi-Fi transceiver (570), and/or Bluetooth transceiver (595), and is able to report information about its status [Fig. 5; Para. 0050-0051];
second electronic hardware that is detectable by a second tracking application when in range, for which the second tracking application can determine relative location information about the tracking device relative to the second tracking application and transmit the relative location information to an independent tracking database, the independent tracking database being part of an ecosystem in which cellular devices cooperating with the ecosystem can detect the second electronic hardware; wherein the wristband may be used in conjunction with a smart-phone (40a), which may also include a GPS receiver (300), and application (345) and one or more of a cellular transceiver (305), Wi-Fi transceiver (310), and/or a Bluetooth transceiver (315); wherein the wristband and smart-phone may be paired, the devices may independently report location, from which relative location (proximity) may be determined, and reported to a backend/monitoring center (10) [Fig. 1-3, 8; Para. 0044-0045, 0052, 0054-0055, 0077];
the first tracking application being programmed to transmit an alert to the central monitoring location in response to loss of contact conditions between the tracking device and the first application; Jones discloses that if the devices become unpaired, the smartphone may send a notification to supervising authorities [Para. 0071];
the central monitoring location being programmed to, in response to at least receipt of the alert:
send to the independent database a request for whether the second electronic hardware of the tracking device is within communication range of a device hosting the first application; wherein, the system may receive location information independently from the smartphone and the wristband to determine the location of each device, and also whether they are in close proximity to each other [Para. 0055]; and
implement, based on a response from the independent database to the request showing that the second electronic hardware is within communication range of the device hosting the first application, a technical difficulties protocol to repair communication between the tracking device and the first application;
send to the independent tracking database, based on a response from the independent tracking database to the request showing that the second electronic hardware is beyond communication range of the device hosting the first application, a request for at least a last known location of the second electronic hardware as detected within the ecosystem.
Jones discloses that both the wristband and smartphone may each send location information to the backend/monitoring center, and the either the devices or backend may determine a relative proximity of the device pair. It would have been obvious to an artisan, therefore, that the backend (tracking database) would have possession of the current locations (and/or last reported location, if communication with a device is disrupted) and relative proximity of the devices. In addition, analogous prior art clearly teaches this feature:
Zhang, for example, discloses a traceable card holder, using an AIRTAG as a tracking device, and teaches that “…..users can view the current or last known location of an item on a map in the new “Items” tab in the “Find” app. If the item is within the Bluetooth range, the “Find” app. can make AIRTAG play sounds. If AIRTAG is separated from the owner and not within the Bluetooth range, the “Find” network can also help to track it [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0003, 0036].
Jones discloses that if the devices are unpaired, the backend may be notified, but does not disclose a particular corrective action. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Mehta discloses a method and system for situational awareness for emergency response, comprising a wearable device, a communication device and a server [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0003-0004; Claim 1-3] and particularly, that “responsive to detecting that the data communication link between the wearable device and communication device is severed, storing all periodic measured values …. at the wearable device since the last successfully received value at the communication device…. calculating the distance of the wearable device from the communication device, based on the signal strength of the received digital signals, angle of arrival of the multi-path signals, and aspects of other signals received from the wearable device, and reporting this distance to an emergency dispatch center for the purpose of emergency response” [Para. 0124].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention for the tracking application to provide a last known location of a monitored device if the device is beyond direct communication range as taught by Zhang, and to determine if device communication link is severed (un-paired), to save and report last known distance between the devices for the purpose of an emergency response, as taught by Mehta, and applied to an electronic monitoring device and system using a wearable monitoring device as taught by Jones, in order to continue to monitor location of the wrist device even if beyond Bluetooth communication range; and to correct system operation.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, the central monitoring location being further programmed to:
receive, from the independent tracking database, a location of the second electronic hardware relative to the ecosystem; and
dispatch authorities to the location as received by the central monitoring location.
Jones discloses that both the wristband and smartphone may each send location information to the backend/monitoring center, and the either the devices or backend may determine a relative proximity of the device pair [Para. 0054-0055].
Mehta, moreover, discloses that relative location (distance) between units may be determined and reported in order to provide an emergency response [Para. 0124-0125].
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3: The system of claim 3, wherein the location as received by the central monitoring location is based on a location of a device, cooperating with the ecosystem and different from the device that hosts the first application, that detected the second electronic hardware. Jones discloses that the smartphone and wristband individually and separately provide location information for the particular device, and that either the device, and/or the backend system may determine from these the relative proximity (location) [Para. 0054-0055, 0071].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the tracking device lacks an ability to directly determine its absolute location, such that the absolute location of the first application serves as a first proxy for the location of the tracking device, within a range of error defined by an operating range between the first electronic hardware and the device hosting the first application. Jones specifically discloses that the arrangement in which the smartphone and wrist band are paired, yet individually provide independent location information to the backend, provides redundancy in the case where one of the devices loses connection or fails [Para. 0054-0055].
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the technical difficulties protocol includes contacting the monitored person to inform them the system is not working properly.
Jones discloses ‘….that if the paired device becomes unpaired for some reason, the smartphone may send a notification to the supervising authorities and immediately initiate the biometric check-in process….” Where the biometric check-in process includes contacting the user to provide biometric samples [Para. 0071].
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the second electronic hardware is an AIRTAG, and the send to the independent tracking database is a Find My AIRTAG request.
Zhang discloses a traceable card holder, and particularly discloses the AIRTAG as a tracking device [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0003, 0036].
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the central monitoring location being further programmed to:
send, to the independent tracking database, a request for at least a last known direction of travel of the second electronic hardware relative a device hosting the first application; and
receive, from the independent tracking database, the requested last known direction of travel.
Mehta discloses that: “In addition to GPS, mobile or wearable device(s) may provide information from an accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope, etc., about the speed and direction of the user.” [Para. 0030], and that the wearable device and/or communication device may send information, including location and other information to an emergency dispatch center.
Mehta doesn’t explicitly disclose that information sent to the dispatch center includes direction and speed of travel, but it would have been obvious to the artisan to do so, where this information, along with last known location, allows prediction of travel path and future location for planning an emergency response
Consider claim 9: A tracking method using a central monitoring location, a tracking device, and a first tracking application and a second tracking application on a cellular device, Jones discloses an electronic monitoring device and system and method using a wearable monitoring device, comprising an application (550) (first tracking application) in conjunction with a smart-phone [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-7; Para. 0002-0004]; the method comprising:
at the tracking device:
locking the tracking device to a limb of monitored person, the tracking device including at least first electronic hardware and second electronic hardware; the tracking system comprising a lockable wristband (first hardware) (40b) in communication with a smartphone (second device) (40a) [Fig. 3, 4, 7; Para. 0044, 0046];
sending, from the first electronic hardware to the first application when in range, health and status information about the tracking device; wherein the wristband may include a cellular transceiver (520), Wi-Fi transceiver (570), and/or Bluetooth transceiver (595), and is able to report information about its status [Fig. 5; Para. 0050-0051]; wherein the wristband may be used in conjunction with a smart-phone (40a), which may also include a GPS receiver (300), and application (345) and one or more of a cellular transceiver (305), Wi-Fi transceiver (310), and/or a Bluetooth transceiver (315); wherein the wristband and smart-phone may be paired, the devices may independently report location to a backend/monitoring center (10), and from which relative location (proximity) may be determined, [Fig. 1-3, 8; Para. 0044-0045, 0052, 0054-0055, 0077];
sending, by the first application to the central monitoring location, an alert signal in response to loss of contact conditions between the first electronic hardware and the first application; if the devices become unpaired, the smartphone may send a notification to supervising authorities [Para. 0071];
at the central monitoring location in response to at least receiving the alert signal:
sending, to an independent third party database that monitors the second electronic hardware via an ecosystem of devices that can detect the second electronic hardware, a request for whether the second electronic hardware is in communication range of a device hosting the first application; wherein, the backend may receive location information independently from the smartphone and the wristband to determine the location of each device, and also whether they are in close proximity to each other [Para. 0055];
implementing, based on a response from the independent database to the request showing that the second electronic hardware is within communication range of the device hosting the first application, a technical difficulties protocol to repair communication between the tracking device and the first application; and
sending to the independent tracking database, based on a response from the independent tracking database to the request showing that the second electronic hardware is beyond communication range of the device hosting the first application, a request for at least a last known location of the second electronic hardware as detected within the ecosystem.
Jones discloses that both the wristband and smartphone may each send location information to the backend/monitoring center, and the either the devices or backend may determine a relative proximity of the device pair. It would have been obvious to an artisan, therefore, that the backend (tracking database) would have possession of the current locations (and/or last reported location, if communication with a device is disrupted) and relative proximity of the devices. In addition, analogous prior art clearly teaches this feature:
Zhang, for example, discloses a traceable card holder, using an AIRTAG as a tracking device, and teaches that “…..users can view the current or last known location of an item on a map in the new “Items” tab in the “Find” app. If the item is within the Bluetooth range, the “Find” app. can make AIRTAG play sounds. If AIRTAG is separated from the owner and not within the Bluetooth range, the “Find” network can also help to track it [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0003, 0036].
Jones discloses that if the devices are unpaired, the backend may be notified, but does not disclose a particular corrective action. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Mehta discloses a method and system for situational awareness for emergency response, comprising a wearable device, a communication device and a server [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0003-0004; Claim 1-3] and particularly, that “responsive to detecting that the data communication link between the wearable device and communication device is severed, storing all periodic measured values …. at the wearable device since the last successfully received value at the communication device…. calculating the distance of the wearable device from the communication device, based on the signal strength of the received digital signals, angle of arrival of the multi-path signals, and aspects of other signals received from the wearable device, and reporting this distance to an emergency dispatch center for the purpose of emergency response” [Para. 0124].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention for the tracking application to provide a last known location of a monitored device if the device is beyond direct communication range as taught by Zhang, and to determine if device communication link is severed (un-paired), to save and report last known distance between the devices for the purpose of an emergency response, as taught by Mehta, and applied to an electronic monitoring device, system and method, using a wearable monitoring device as taught by Jones, in order to continue to monitor location of the wrist device even if beyond Bluetooth communication range; and to correct system operation.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, further comprising at the central monitoring location:
receiving, from the independent tracking database, a location of the second electronic hardware relative to the ecosystem; and
dispatching authorities to the location as received by the central monitoring location.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 3, and as applied to claim 9.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 11: The method of claim 11, wherein the location as received by the central monitoring location is based on a location of a device, cooperating with the ecosystem and different from the device that hosts the first application, that detected the second electronic hardware.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 4, and as applied to claims 9 and 10.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, wherein the tracking device lacks an ability to directly determine its absolute location, such that the absolute location of the first application serves as a first proxy for the location of the tracking device, within a range of error defined by an operating range between the first electronic hardware and the device hosting the first application.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 5, and as applied to claim 9.
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, wherein the technical difficulties protocol includes contacting the monitored person to inform them the first electronic hardware and the device hosting the first application are not communicating properly.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 6, and as applied to claim 9.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, wherein the second electronic hardware is an AIRTAG, and the send to the independent tracking database is a Find My AIRTAG request.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 7, and as applied to claim 9.
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, further comprising at the central monitoring location:
sending, to the independent tracking database, a request for at least a last known direction of travel of the second electronic hardware relative a device hosting the first application; and
receiving, from the independent tracking database, the requested last known direction of travel.
This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 8, and as applied to claim 9.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Jones et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0365865 A1), hereinafter Jones, and Mehta et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0124853 A1), hereinafter Mehta, and further in view of Bloch et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2004/0235512 A1), hereinafter Bloch.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the loss of contact conditions include loss of contact for more than a predetermined amount of time or a predetermined quantity of sporadic contact over a predetermine amount of time.
Jones and Mehta both teach a determination of communication loss between devices, and a response thereto, but neither discloses measurement of a duration of time from disconnection. This a known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Bloch discloses a portable data security device in communication with a backup device [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0004-0008] and particularly that “an alert procedure may be initiated by the portable data storage device if the portable data storage device is out of range of communication with the backup device for a predetermined period” [Para. 0028-0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to issue an alert if communication is lost for a predetermined time, as taught by Bloch, and applied to an electronic monitoring device and system using a wearable monitoring device as taught by Jones, as modified by Zhang and Mehta, in order to prevent false alarms caused by a transient interruption.
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, wherein the loss of contact conditions include loss of contact for more than a predetermined amount of time or a predetermined quantity of sporadic contact over a predetermine amount of time. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 2, and as applied to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sharma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2020/0334967 A1) disclosing a monitor and system for monitoring.
Haapanen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0289750 A1) disclosing locating and tracking of relocated devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights