DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2024, 08/05/2024, 11/20/2024, 01/17/2025, 05/12/2025, 08/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. However, due to lengthy nature of the IDS, only abstracts and/or summaries of refences in the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannard et al. (Bannard; US 2011/0121964) in view of Clare et al. (Clare; US 2011/0080264).
As per claim 2, Bannard teaches a method comprising:
detecting a first device coupled to a first asset (detecting a tracking device associated with an asset, see e.g. para. [0061], wherein a position or location is periodically recorded and transmitted; see e.g. para. [0137]);
wirelessly receiving, at a first rate of response, logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset (receiving, by a server, one or more transmitted data about the tracking device associated with the asset; see e.g. para. [0137], wherein one or more communication reports can be carried out with a first communication rate; see e.g. [0116]);
determining whether the logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset satisfies a criterion (determining whether logged location data from the tracking device satisfies a threshold or criterion, i.e. spending more than expected time in a predefined hazardous zone; see e.g. [0137-138] and [0146]); and
responsive to determining that the logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset satisfies a criterion, triggering an alert signal to be automatically generated (when a [location] criterion is satisfied, an alert signal can be generated [automatically]; see e.g. para. [0146-147]), wherein the alert signal further causes an audio/visual response (the generated alert signal is a text message or an email message, see e.g. para. [0146-147], which are audio and/or visual responses as known in the art).
Even though Bannard does not explicitly teach the first device is within a proximity zone of a reader device, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the tracking device is within a proximity [communication] zone of at least one reader device [a GPS satellite or a cellular tower for example] for carrying out the one or more transmissions discussed earlier, see e.g. FIG. 1, para. [0137] and [0140].
Bannard does not teach that the alert signal or response is generated at the first device.
Clare, however, teaches an audio/visual alert signal is generated at a first device (a tag can be associated with an asset, see e.g. para. [0003], wherein tag can output audio/visual alarm when a condition is satisfied; see e.g. para. [0053] and [0077]). Bannard and Clare are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of generating an alarm at a remote device as well as at a local device for the purpose of reducing theft or other undesired outcomes.
Claims 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannard in view of Clare and further in view of Holm et al. (Holm; US 2010/0039280).
As per claim 3, the method of claim 2 as taught by Bannard and Clare, except the claimed wherein wirelessly receiving the logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset at the first rate of response indicates a detection of movement of the first asset.
Holm, however, teaches wirelessly receiving the logged data from first device coupled to a first asset at the first rate of response indicates a detection of movement of the first asset (a rate of response associated with detection of movement; see e.g. see e.g. FIG. 3). Bannard, Clare and Holm are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving asset tracking and/or wisely using tracking device resources.
As per claim 4, the method of claim 2 as taught by Bannard and Clare, except the claimed wherein tracking a change in location of the first asset based on the first rate of response; and determining a route of the first asset over an interval of time responsive to tracking the change in location of the first asset.
Holm, however, tracking a change in location of the first asset based on the first rate of response; and determining a route of the first asset over an interval of time responsive to tracking the change in location of the first asset (a rate of response associated with detection of movement, wherein a route is determined and displayed, see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0029-31], wherein the movement and associated display can be over a period or interval of time since the movement detection and corresponding transmitting cannot be done indefinitely and the displaying the movement/location needs to be output timely). Bannard, Clare and Holm are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving asset tracking and/or wisely using tracking device resources.
As per claim 5, the method of claim 2 as taught by Bannard and Clare, except the claimed wherein wirelessly receiving, at a second rate of response, logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset within the proximity zone of the reader device, the second rate of response being at a reduced rate compared to the first rate of response.
Holm, however, teaches receiving, at a second rate of response, logged data from first device coupled to the first asset within proximity zone of the reader device, the second rate of response being at a reduced rate compared to the first rate of response (receiving a logged data at first rate of response and at a second rate of response, see e.g. para. [0029-31] and FIG. 3, wherein rate of beaconing can be adjusted or reduced based on one or more reasons; see e.g. para. [0003]).
Bannard, Clare and Holm are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving asset tracking and/or wisely using tracking device resources.
As per claim 6, the method of claim 5 as taught by Bannard, Clare and Holm, wherein wirelessly receiving the logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset at the second rate of response indicates an idle state of the first asset (even though the disclosed first rate indicates an idle state of the tracked objects, see e.g. step 301, FIG. 3 of Holm, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to define the first rate as the second rate and second rate as the first rate as it merely is a nomenclature, wherein the first and the second rate can be defined as increased or reduced frequency of reporting depending on system requirement).
Claims 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannard in view of Clare and further in view of Jollota et al. (Jollota; US 2012/0016305).
As per claim 7, the method of claim 2 as taught by Bannard and Clare, further comprising: detecting a second device coupled to a second asset proximate to the first device coupled to the first asset; and responsive to determining that the logged data from the first device coupled to the first asset satisfies the criterion (it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a second or a plurality of devices associated with a second assent and communicate logged data with a remote device since duplication of parts is held obvious by the courts). Bannard and Clare do not explicitly teach detecting the second device coupled to the second asset proximate to the first device coupled to the first asset, triggering an alert signal to be automatically generated at the second device coupled to the second asset, wherein the alert signal further causes the second device to emit an audio/visual response.
Jollota, however, teaches a plurality of devices which are in close proximity to each other, wherein an alarm generated by a first device is forwarded to a plurality of alarm generating devices which can output audio alarm or sound (see e.g. para. [0256-257]), wherein their proximity to each other is detected by one or more communications or acknowledgements (see e.g. FIG. 35B). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to generate alarm notifications at a plurality of different devices for an improved annunciation.
Bannard, Clare and Jollota are in a same or similar field of alarm or notification generation, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved alarm generation a plurality of different locations or points.
As per claim 8, the method of claim 7 as taught by Bannard, Clare and Jollota, wherein the first asset includes a healthcare equipment and the second asset includes a healthcare provider (the first and second asset can be anything to which the disclosed tags or transponders of Bannard [see e.g. para. 0061, 0103-104 and 0137] and/or Clare can be attached to, using one or more attaching means, [including but not limited to] a doctor, nurse, and a medical equipment).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688