DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed 8/12/2024.
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 11/12/2024has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 recites the following: “the processing unit is configured to apply at least a portion of the received status data to the second object.” While the omitted elements are at least how the data is applied to the second object. [0009] of the instant application begins to clarify this could be using the collected data to determine operational status of the second object. But stating that it is applied to the trailer/second object becomes indefinite since there is no indication as to what is being done and how it is applied in the limitations nor structural elements that are tied to the processing unit. [0009] indicates multiple data iterations, sensors, and extrapolations, without clear indication of the decision rules. However, the statement applying data to something is not clear or sufficient to indicate how it is applied, nor how the processing unit utilizes decision rules. [0023]-[0024] indicate the data of the first object is used to reveal status information about the second device. Finally, the claim recites applying a portion of received status data which leads to an indefinite term of relative terminology
Claims 7-10 recite the phrase “the first object includes one or more sensors…” and then in the subsequent dependent claims include “the one or more sensors include one or more of a…” further adding to the indefiniteness because if the sensors are optional and then not present it allows for the inconclusive determination of the limitations and does not further limit the claim and if the sensor is present then the sensors are more than one sensor. This claim leads to issues where it is not clear if one of each of the sensors is at least present and should be clarified.
Claim 14 recites the following: “ a software application configured to monitor the connection between the GPS device and the tracking device such that if the connection is broken, the software application sends an alert to a user.” The software monitoring a connection is not clear because it is not established how software monitors the connection. Is a voltage being measured, a sensor data being monitored, is the software physically capable of attachment, or per se is a variable being generated by sensors and a decision tree being taken of which there is no indication what the decisions are? There is no clear indicator as to what process is being conducted nor how one of ordinary skill in the art would accomplish this.
Claim 15 recites the following: “wherein when the connection is broken, the GPS device is configured to wake-up and send GPS location data of the second object to the software application.” The GPS waking up is not clearly defined nor how this process takes place. Presumably some sensor is being used with which some data is generated subsequently of the second object to the software application.
Claim 16 recites the following: “the processing unit is configured to apply at least a portion of the received status data to the second object.” While the omitted elements are at least how the data is applied to the second object. [0009] of the instant application begins to clarify this could be using the collected data to determine operational status of the second object. But stating that it is applied to the trailer/second object becomes indefinite since there is no indication as to what is being done and how it is applied in the limitations nor structural elements that are tied to the processing unit. [0009] indicates multiple data iterations, sensors, and extrapolations, without clear indication of the decision rules. However, the statement applying data to something is not clear or sufficient to indicate how it is applied, nor how the processing unit utilizes decision rules. [0023]-[0024] indicate the data of the first object is used to reveal status information about the second device.
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: “processing unit” in claim 1-13 and 16.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue, US PGPub 2023/0042962 A1.
a. Regarding claim 1, Inoue shows a system of ascertaining status of objects, comprising: a tracking device attachable to a first object, the tracking device configured to collect and transmit status data of the first object; a software application configured to receive transmitted status data of the first object from the tracking device; and a processing unit configured to process received status data of the first object according to decision rules provided to the software application to determine if the first object is being carried by a second object, and if the processing unit determines the first object is being carried by the second object, the processing unit is configured to apply at least a portion of the received status data to the second object (Figs. 1-5; [0026]-[0030]; i.e. there are multiple GNSS3 elements between the trailer and boat which are controlled by multiple control elements and programs, [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
544
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
804
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
802
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
578
830
media_image5.png
Greyscale
b. Regarding claim 2, Inoue shows the system of claim 1, wherein the status data includes movement data and operational data, and the processing unit is configured to process the movement data to determine if the first object is moving at a speed above a predetermined level and to process the operational data to determine if an engine of the first object is on or off such that if the processing unit determines the first object is moving at a speed above a predetermined level with the engine off, the processing unit is configured to determine the first object is being carried by the second object (Figs. 1-5; [0026]-[0030]; i.e. there are multiple GNSS3 elements between the trailer and boat which are controlled by multiple control elements and programs and [0044]-[0052]).
c. Regarding claim 3, Inoue shows the system of claim 1, wherein the status data includes location data, and the processing unit is configured to determine that the first object is being carried by the second object based on a comparison of the location data to map data provided to the software application (Figs. 1, 3, and 5; [0020]-[0026], [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
d. Regarding claim 4, Inoue shows the system of claim 3, wherein the status data includes movement data and the processing unit is configured to process the movement data to determine if the first object is moving at a speed above a predetermined level such that if the processing unit determines the first object is moving at a speed above a predetermined level at a predetermined location relative to the map data, the processing unit is configured to determine the first object is being carried by the second object (Figs. 1, 3, and 5; [0020]-[0026], [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
e. Regarding claim 5, Inoue shows the system of claim 4, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether the first object is moving on water or land based on the location data and map data (Figs. 1, 3, and 5; [0020]-[0026], [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
g. Regarding claim 7, Inoue shows the system of claim 1, wherein the first object includes one or more sensors configured to provide the status data of the first object ([0027]-[0031]; i.e. the marine vessel 100 includes sensor group 109 and direction sensor 119).
h. Regarding claim 8, Inoue shows the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a temperature sensor, time sensor, vibration sensor, G-force sensor, XYZ sensor, accelerometer, weight sensor, and GPS sensor [0027]-[0031].
d. Regarding claim 11, Inoue shows the system of claim 1, wherein the second object includes one or more secondary sensors configured to provide operational data of the second object, and wherein the tracking device is configured to communicate with the one or more secondary sensors of the second object to receive the operational data of the second object and to transmit received operational data of the second object to the software application in combination with the status data of the first object ([0031]-[0032] show various sensors and [0033]-[0035] show that interaction between various sensors on the multiple systems/vehicles are applied in combination to one another and [0041] shows the data is processed together).
d. Regarding claim 14, Inoue shows a system of detecting status of an object, comprising: a tracking device configured to be attachable to a first object; a GPS device configured to be attachable to a second object, the GPS device configured to communicate with the tracking device via a connection; and a software application configured to monitor the connection between the GPS device and the tracking device such that if the connection is broken, the software application sends an alert to a user (Figs. 1-5; [0026]-[0030]; i.e. there are multiple GNSS3 elements between the trailer and boat which are controlled by multiple control elements and programs, [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
d. Regarding claim 15, Inoue shows the system of claim 14, wherein when the connection is broken, the GPS device is configured to wake-up and send GPS location data of the second object to the software application [0044]-[0052].
d. Regarding claim 16, Inoue shows a tracking device for use in a system to ascertain status of objects, the tracking device comprising: a GPS unit attachable to a first object to gather and transmit status data of a first object; a software application configured to receive transmitted status data of the first object from the GPS unit; and a processing unit configured to process received status data of the first object according to decision rules provided to the software application to determine if the first object is being carried by a second object, and if the processing unit determines the first object is being carried by the second object, the processing unit is configured to apply at least a portion of the received status data to the second object (Figs. 1-5; [0026]-[0030]; i.e. there are multiple GNSS3 elements between the trailer and boat which are controlled by multiple control elements and programs, [0033]-[0038], and [0044]-[0052]).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue US PGPub 2024/0199186 A1 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Meade et al., US PGPub 2017/0287320 A1.
a. Regarding claim 6, Inoue shows the system of claim 1 as above.
Inoue does not explicitly show the status data includes battery voltage level data of the first object, and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine that the first object is moving but not operating based on received battery voltage level data
Meade et al., teaches a system with status data includes battery voltage level data of the first object, and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine that the first object is moving but not operating based on received battery voltage level data ([0016]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further used the teaching of Meade et al., with the general system of Inoue with the motivation the purpose of trailer health and control systems allow for vehicle control or intelligent two-way flow of information [0062]-[0064]. The combination can be met with a reasonable expectation for success since the references are related to trailer and marine vehicle systems using processors/processing units.
Regarding claim 9, Inoue show the system as in claim 8 above.
Inoue does not explicitly show the processor is configured to indicate the second object
is carrying excess weight based on weight sensor data of the first object.
Meade et al., teaches the processor is configured to indicate the second object is
Carrying excess weight based on weight sensor data of the first object.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further used the teaching of Meade et al., with the general system of Inoue with the motivation the purpose of trailer health and control systems allow for vehicle control or intelligent two-way flow of information [0062]-[0064]. The combination can be met with a reasonable expectation for success since the references are related to trailer and marine vehicle systems using processors/processing units.
Regarding claim 10, Inoue shows the system of claim 9, wherein the first object is a boat and the second object is a boat trailer, and wherein the software application includes a report generator configured to generate a status report indicating one or more of how many miles the boat has been hauled by the boat trailer, how fast the boat trailer has been moving while hauling the boat, how much weight the boat trailer has been carrying, how long the boat has been on the trailer, and how many G-forces have been applied to the boat trailer while hauling the boat, based on the received status data of the first object (Fig. 1-2 and 5;[0008]-[0011], [0061]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue shows the system of claim 11 above.
Inoue does not explicitly show the secondary sensors include one or more of a tire pressure sensor and indicator light sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to process the received operational data to indicate whether tires of the second object are properly inflated and whether lights of the second object are functioning properly based on the operational data.
Meade et al shows the secondary sensors include one or more of a tire pressure sensor and indicator light sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to process the received operational data to indicate whether tires of the second object are properly inflated and whether lights of the second object are functioning properly based on the operational data (Fig. 1; [0012] shows a trailer may be of many types and used for at least a boat. With among many sensors tire pressure monitoring and possible alert monitoring and sending [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further used the teaching of Meade et al., with the general system of Inoue with the motivation the purpose of trailer health and control systems allow for vehicle control or intelligent two-way flow of information [0062]-[0064]. The combination can be met with a reasonable expectation for success since the references are related to trailer and marine vehicle systems using processors/processing units.
PNG
media_image6.png
448
586
media_image6.png
Greyscale
e. Regarding claim 13, Inoue shows the system of claim 11, wherein the processing unit is configured to indicate the first object is being carried by the second object when the tracking device is connected to the secondary sensors (inoue, [0043]-[0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al., US 10,384,609 B2, shows a trailer system for a boat with various control systems and optical sensors (See abstract and Fig. 9;.
PNG
media_image7.png
766
546
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAHVOSH J NIKMANESH whose telephone number is (571)270-5549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/Seahvosh Nikmanesh/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights