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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination. Claims 1, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is necessitated by applicants’ amendments. See new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al [US 20160332535 A1] in view of Salter et al [US 11200530 B2].
As for claim 1, Bradley discloses a cargo compartment monitoring device comprising an acquiring unit, a controller (100), and a notifying unit(400) (Figures 1, 5, and 6 and paragraphs 0036 - 0037),
wherein the acquiring unit is configured to acquire cargo information including at least information indicating a position of a cargo loaded in a cargo compartment of a vehicle in the cargo compartment (paragraphs 0036-0038),
wherein the controller (100) is configured to
record the cargo information related to the cargo newly loaded on the vehicle in association with a user when the new user boards the vehicle (paragraphs 0028-0030 and 0040-0043; Bradley shows that the cargo monitoring device is configured to store object information with trip entry information.),
determine whether the cargo information has been updated (paragraphs 0038 and 0043; determine a change in sensor data or movement of object), and
determine whether the vehicle has arrived at a destination point of the user (paragraph 0043), and
wherein the notifying unit is configured to notify a first alert in a case of determining that the cargo information has not been updated and the vehicle has arrived at the destination point (paragraphs 0044-0046 and 0086).
Bradley does not specifically disclose indicating, as coordinates, a position of the cargo. However, in paragraph 0040, Bradley discloses that the system may be configured to determine where the object is located (e.g. what compartment, or the position of the object) in the vehicle. In an analogous art, Salter discloses a cargo compartment monitoring device for a vehicle wherein a storage position (where the object is location/position of the cargo) is indicated as coordinates (Fig 2; column 5, lines 25-48). Since Bradley discloses providing an alert to a driver/user indicating that said user forget to retrieve cargo, it would have been obvious to present the cargo information to the user as coordinates, as taught by Salter. The modification would have been obvious because it would have allowed the user to determine that they forgot cargo onboard the vehicle and it would have given them specific coordinates indicating the position of the cargo on the vehicle. The skilled artisan would have recognized the advantages of providing the coordinates/position information so that the user could quickly and easily retrieve the forgotten cargo.
As for claims 2 and 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 4, Bradley discloses that the controller determines whether a current time is after a notification start time, where the notification start time is a time earlier than a scheduled time at which the vehicle arrives at the destination point by a predetermined time, and wherein the notifying unit notifies the first alert in a case of determining that the cargo information has not been updated and the current time is after the notification start time (paragraphs 0038 and 0043).
As for claim 5, Bradley discloses the notifying unit notifies a second alert in a case of determining the cargo information has been updated and the vehicle has not arrived at the destination point (paragraphs 0038 and 0046).
Claims 6-7 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1-5 above.
As for claim 12, the controller determines whether the vehicle is stopped at a location other than the destination point, maintains the stopped state of the vehicle in a case of determining that the cargo information has been updated and the vehicle is stopped at a location other than the destination point, and the notifying unit notifies a fourth alert (paragraph 0047).
As for claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 12 above.
Claims 15-17 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also Bradley paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0040-0044.
Claim 18 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 19-20 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan 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 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685