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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being 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 1 recites “operate the asset tracker in a shipping state in which a first location of the asset tracker is obtained by the location module” which is indefinite because an apparatus such as the claimed asset tracker cannot necessarily guarantee that it will be able to operate in a way that the location is obtained, i.e., in a guaranteed manner. For example, if the location module is not able to communicate with GPS satellites (a capability that is not claimed), it would likely be unable to obtain its location. Likewise, if the asset tracker were in some type of Faraday cage, the operation of the location module would likely be blocked. Thus, claiming that the controller is configured to obtain its own location is much like claiming that a race car is configured to win a race, as the outcome is dependent upon factors that are inherently outside the control of the controller, as well as outside the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “in response to an activation successful event, transition the asset tracker to a travel motion detection state” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the activation successful event relates back to the shipping state/obtaining the location, or else what defines an activation successful event. In other words, how would a POSITA reading the claim and/or attempting to build the invention know if an activation successful event occurs? Claim 11 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cawse et al. (US 2022/0147922 A1), hereinafter Cawse.
Regarding claim 1, Cawse discloses an asset tracker (asset tracking device 200; figs. 1-2), comprising:
a housing (para. [0074], regarding the asset tracking device 200 may include a housing (not shown) that is designed to resist environmental conditions);
a controller disposed in the housing (controller 220; fig. 2);
a location module disposed in the housing and coupled to the controller (locating device 212; fig. 2);
a 3-axis accelerometer disposed in the housing and coupled to the controller (motion sensor 210; fig. 2); and
a memory coupled to the controller (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium 300; fig. 3; see para. [0075]), the memory storing machine-executable programming instructions which, when executed by the controller, configure the asset tracker to:
operate the asset tracker in a shipping state in which a first location of the asset tracker is obtained by the location module (para. [0112], regarding at the outset of the process 900, the controller 220, the locating device 212, and the communication interface 214 may each be operating in a low-power (i.e., “sleep”) mode that conserves energy; para. [0227], regarding the second asset tracking device 2550 may go into sleep mode and wake up to gather location data at a reduced rate that it normally would; Examiner notes that the function in para. [0227] is not mutually exclusive from the embodiment of the invention detailed in para. [0112]);
in response to an activation successful event, transition the asset tracker to a travel motion detection state (para. [0112], regarding at block 902, the controller 220 wakes from its low-power operating mode by some wakeup source or triggering event; para. [0115], regarding where the wakeup source is movement of the asset tracking device 200, the controller 220 attempts to confirm that the detected movement is indicative of deliberate travel of the asset 202 at block 910; fig. 9); and
in response to detecting travel motion by the 3-axis accelerometer, transition the asset tracker to a traveling state (para. [0116], regarding where it is determined that the asset 202 has begun deliberate travel, the controller 220 continuously tracks the travel of the asset 202 at block 912; fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Cawse discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the machine-executable programming instructions which configure the asset tracker to operate in the shipping state comprise machine-executable programming instructions which configure the asset tracker to: enter a sleep mode (see again para. [0112]); configure the 3-axis accelerometer to detect an activation trigger activity (see para. [0068]); and in response to detecting the activation trigger activity: obtain, by the location module, the first location of the asset tracker (see again para. [0116]); and generate the activation successful event (see again paras. [0112] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Cawse discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the machine-executable programming instructions which configure the asset tracker to detect travel motion comprise machine-executable programming instructions which configure the asset tracker to measure by the 3-axis accelerometer an acceleration that is greater than a travel motion acceleration threshold for a duration exceeding a travel motion detection duration threshold (para. [0094], regarding continued motion during the period 606 may be determined if the magnitude of the motion sensor data 600 exceeds a second threshold 612 a predetermined number of occurrences (indicated as counts 614, 616) within a predetermined duration).
Regarding claim 11, Cawse discloses a method for trip detection by an asset tracker (abstract, regarding a method for inferring a status asset information from data of a first type gathered by a first asset tracking device), the method comprising:
operating the asset tracker in a shipping state including obtaining a first location of the asset tracker (see again paras. [0112] and [0227]);
in response to an activation successful event, transitioning the asset tracker to a travel motion detection state (see again paras. [0112] and [0115]); and
in response to detecting travel motion, transitioning the asset tracker to a traveling state (see again para. [0116]).
Regarding claim 12, Cawse discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein operating the asset tracker in the shipping state comprises: entering a sleep mode (see again para. [0112]); configuring an inertial measurement unit to detect an activation trigger activity (see para. [0068]); and in response to detecting the activation trigger activity: obtaining the first location of the asset tracker (see again para. [0116]); and generating the activation successful event (see again paras. [0112] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 13, Cawse discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein detecting travel motion comprises measuring by a 3-axis accelerometer an acceleration that is greater than a travel motion acceleration threshold for a duration exceeding a travel motion detection duration threshold (see again para. [0094]).
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 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:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawse et al. (US 2022/0147922 A1), hereinafter Cawse, in view of Shimotono (US 2012/0185931 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cawse discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the machine-executable programming instructions further configure the asset tracker to, in the traveling state: in response to detecting an impact by the 3-axis accelerometer, transition to an impact state.
However, Jenkins is in the field of vehicle telematics (abstract) and teaches in response to detecting an impact by the 3-axis accelerometer, transition to an impact state (para. [0004], regarding a mobile terminal that prohibits input to input means in the case of determining that the mobile terminal is in an abnormal state; the abnormal state is described as including a drop or impact state determined according to an acceleration detected by an acceleration sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Cawse such that the machine-executable programming instructions further configure the asset tracker to, in the traveling state: in response to detecting an impact by the 3-axis accelerometer, transition to an impact state, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to properly account for impacts during operation of the asset tracker (see Jenkins, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Cawse in view of Jenkins renders the claim obvious for substantially the same reasons as detailed in claim 7 hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, the cited references do not appear to teach the combined limitations of said dependent claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights