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 1-30 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 07/15/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-14, 17-20, 22-23, 25-26, and 30 were amended; no claim was cancelled, or added in a reply filed 11/07/2025. Therefore claims 1-30 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19-21, 23-24 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2023/0177521) in view of Walsh (WO 2020039174) and Huat (US 2011/0221573) and Leung II (US 20230196038).
As per claim 1/10/19, Leung discloses a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receive, from a sealing device and based on the sealing device being separated from a container, a message indicating (paragraphs 5, 23, 24, tracking events of a container are sent to register activity of the trailer):
a unique identifier of the sealing device; a current geographic location of the sealing device; (paragraph 24) and
a current time (paragraph 24);
create, in response to receiving the message, a record indicating the unique identifier, the current geographic location, the current date, and the current time (paragraph 5, 24, fig. 2); and
store the record in a blockchain of a distributed ledger (paragraph 5, 23-24).
However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses a single use sealing device comprising a strap fastened about a portion of a lock and wherein the sealing device further comprises a conductive element electrically connected to a computer processor and wherein the computing system receives the message automatically in response to the computer processor detecting that the conductive element was severed between a first end and a second end of the conductive element (page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52, a one-time sealing device is used to lock the container in order to prevent tampering. When the sealing device is tampered with, a conductive element is broken and a signal/message is sent and a record is saved on a remote server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Walsh, in the teaching of Leung, in order to confirm that the [container] has reached its intended destination with the container integrity intact (Walsh, Technical field section).
However, Leung in view of Walsh does not disclose but Huat, an analogous art of monitoring container conditions, discloses display a user interface configured to provide a link to the stored record; and provide, in response to receiving a command via the user interface, access to view the stored record (fig. 6-7, paragraph 103-106, the user is presented with a user interface to select a link and receive information about the monitoring events of the container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Huat, in the teaching of Leung in view of Walsh, in order to receive control data used to control the operation of the refrigerated shipping container (Huat paragraph 16).
However, Leung in view of Walsh does not disclose but Leung II discloses a single use sealing device comprising a GPS receiver configured to receive the current geographic location of the single use sealing device, the current date, and the current time (paragraph 13, “ the sensor(s) of the tracking label may include one or more of: a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, a motion sensor; a pressure sensor, a shock sensor, a sensor that measures peeling or bending, and a sensor that detects opening of a container or breaking of a seal.”, paragraph 17, “the flexible electronic circuit of a tracking label may have a GPS receiver, and the controller of the tracking label may obtain the label's location from the GPS receiver.”, paragraph 20 ” The update messages sent from package labels may have a time, a location of the package label at that time, the unique identifier of the package label, one or more values captured by one or more sensors of the package label, and one or more item data values associated with the contained labels in the package.”, paragraph 87, “Sensor data table 402 includes an identifier 412 of the specific sensor(s) in each tracking label, a value 413 read from that sensor at the associated date/time,” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Leung II in the teaching of Leung in view of Walsh, 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.
As per claim 2/11/20, Leung discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to: compare the current geographic location to an expected geographic location associated with the sealing device; based on determining that the current geographic is different than the expected geographic location, generate an alert indicating the current geographic location is different than the expected geographic location; and send the alert to one or more computing devices (paragraph 57-62, before unsealing the container, the smart lock checks whether the unsealing is happening in a predetermined location, if not, it sends an alert to the importer/carrier). However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses that the sealing device is a single use sealing device (fig. 8e, page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 3/12/21, Leung discloses wherein the expected geographic location is a shipping destination the container (paragraphs 73-75).
As per claim 5/14/23, Leung discloses wherein the message is received from the sealing device via a cellular network (paragraph 84). However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses that the sealing device is a single use sealing device (fig. 8e, page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 6/15/24, Leung discloses wherein the message is received via a mobile computing device located at a transport carrying the container (paragraphs 61-62).
As per claim 7/16, Leung discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to create the record at least by updating an existing record stored on the blockchain of the distributed ledger (paragraph 5, 23-24, the record is updated every time a sealing/unsealing event happens).
As per claim 27/28/29, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses wherein the conductive element comprises at least one of: a wire, or a circuit trace (page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52,).
As per claim 30, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses wherein the computing system receives the message from the sealing device via a mobile relay device, wherein the mobile relay device initially receives the message using a short-range wireless communication standard (page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52, the tampering message is received by a mobile device via Bluetooth first and then the message is then relayed by the mobile device to a server)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2023/0177521) in view of Walsh and Huat and Leung II, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/10/19, in further view of Stratmoen (US 2004/0041706).
As per claim 4/13/22, Leung discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computing system to: receive, from the sealing device and based on the sealing device being fastened about the container, a message indicating: the unique identifier of the sealing device; an initial geographic location of the sealing device; and an initial time; and create an initial record indicating the unique identifier, the initial geographic location, the initial time; and store the initial record on the blockchain of the distributed ledger (paragraphs 5, 23-24). However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses that the sealing device is a single use sealing device (fig. 8e, page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
However, Leung does not disclose but Stratmoen discloses creating a blockchain record with date stamp (paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Stratmoen in the teaching of Leung, 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.
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2023/0177521) in view of Walsh, Huat and Leung II, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Cahill (US 2019/0043289).
As per claim 8/17/25, Leung does not disclose but Cahill discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to send, to the sealing device, a message configured to cause the sealing device to transition from a sleep state to a wake state (paragraph 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Cahill in the teaching of Leung, in order to conserve battery (please see Cahill, paragraph 51).
However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses that the sealing device is a single use sealing device (fig. 8e, page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 9, 18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2023/0177521) in view of Walsh, Huat and Leung II, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Allen (US 2003/0220711).
As per claim 9/18/26, Leung discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the sealing device to send, to the computing system, a message indicating: the unique identifier of the sealing device; a current geographic location of the sealing device; and a current date and a current time (paragraph 5, 23-24). However, Leung does not disclose that a message is sent to the sealing device first before the sealing device sends the reply message. However, Leung does not disclose but Walsh discloses that the sealing device is a single use sealing device (fig. 8e, page.2:15-24, 45-52, page. 3:18-20, page 5:35-37, page 15.29-52)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
However, Allen discloses interrogating an RFID tag to submit a reply message with the requested information (paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations as taught by Allen in the teaching of Leung 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.
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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628