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 .
1. Claims 1-34 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements dated 11/20/2024 and 11/11/2025 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of:
U.S. Patent No. 11,589,195 application no. 16/998,293
U.S. Patent No. 11,259,156 application no. 17/316,525
U.S. Patent No. 10,945,105 application no. 17/012,450
U.S. Patent No. 11,844,001 application no. 18/090,007
U.S. Patent No. 12,185,201 application no. 18/386,400
U.S. Patent No. 11,265,689 application no. 17/316,613
U.S. Patent No. 11,166,131 application no. 17/316,515
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is disclosed within the scope claim 1 of the indicated patent publications through obvious variations in the limitation language.
As for claim 1, US 11,589,195 claim 1; US 11,259,156 claim 1; 10,945,105 claim 1; US 11,844,001 claim 1, US 12,185,201 claim 1; US 11,265,689 claim 1, US 11,166,131 claim 1 disclose:
An asset tracking system comprising: a hub device to receive a request, determine a value based on a plurality of states of the hub device, and transmit a response with the value, wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least a plurality of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server; and a tracking device connectable to an asset device and comprising at least one sensor to sense activity of the asset device, the tracking device to transmit the request, receive the response with the value from the hub device, select the hub device with which to communicate sensor data based on the value in the response, and transmit one or more communications with sensor data of activity of the asset device to the hub device.
As for claim 3, US 11,259,156 claim 3; 10,945,105 claim 3; US 12,185,201 claim 2; US 11,265,689 claim 3, US 11,166,131 claim 3 disclose:
wherein the tracking device selects the hub device with a best value in the response from the hub device from a plurality of responses received from a plurality of hub devices.
As for claim 4, US 11,589,195 claim 4; US 11,259,156 claim 4; 10,945,105 claim 4; US 12,185,201 claim 3; US 11,265,689 claim 4, US 11,166,131 claim 4 disclose:
wherein the plurality of states used by the hub device to determine the value further comprise one or more of: how close the hub device is to a maximum value of a duty cycle for the hub device, a ground speed of the hub device, the ground speed of the hub device over a period of time, and a determination by the hub device if there is activity of another asset device to which the hub device is connected based on one or more sensor readings of one or more sensors of the hub device.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-30 are allowable over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggests, or render obvious the following italic limitations:
In claim 1,… a hub device to receive a request, determine a value based on a plurality of states of the hub device, and transmit a response with the value, wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least a plurality of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server; and a tracking device connectable to an asset device and comprising at least one sensor to sense activity of the asset device, the tracking device to transmit the request…in combination with other limitations recited as specified in claim 1.
The first closest prior art of record is Novo Diaz et al, US 2018/0332443 (as cited in the IDS 11/20/2024) hereafter Novo Diaz. Novo Diaz discloses a hub device (Novo Diaz, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, 301, [0037]-[0039], The gateway/hub) for receiving a pair request (Novo Diaz, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, 301, [0037]-[0039], The gateway/hub receives a connection/pairing command/request), determining a value of the hub device based on a combination of a plurality of states of the hub device (Novo Diaz, [0038], Determine/provide information of the gateway/hub based on such as quality metrics and signal strength of the gateway/hub) and transmitting a pair response with the value (Novo Diaz, [0038]-[0039], [0044], [0052]-[0053], Transmit/provide metrics/information for collection/retrieving in response to the command/request), wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the request (Novo Diaz, [0038], The metric based on the signal strength at the plurality of gateways/hubs), a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device (Novo Diaz, [0038], The metric based on the signal strength at the plurality of gateways/hubs), a tracking device connectable to an asset device (Novo Diaz, [0036], [0037], [0047], [0052], [0053], [0078], A network node (cloud application server) connectable over a network/cloud to an IoT/asset devices/nodes) and comprising at least one sensor to sense activity of the asset device (Novo Diaz, [0031], The IoT/asset device comprises at least one sensor to sense activity of the IoT/asset device), the tracking device to transmit the pair request, receive the pair response with the values from the plurality of hub devices (Novo Diaz, Figure 3, 301, [0037]-[0039], The network node (tracking device) to transmit/initiate/send a command to connect/pair and receive the connection/pair response for information from a gateway/hub), selecting the hub device with which to pair based on the value in the pair response (Novo Diaz, [0030], [0040]. Selecting a gateway/hub from the gateways/hub with the best metrics/information received in response to the request to communicate/connect/pair). Novo Diaz does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the pair request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server (as disclosed in claim 1).
The second closest prior art of record is Guday et al, US 7,292,956 (as cited in the IDS 11/20/2024) hereafter Guday. Guday discloses transmit one or more communications with sensor data of activity of the asset device to the selected hub device (Guday, FIG. 1, column 4, lines 60-67, column 5, lines 1-5, The communicator forwards/transmits data collected from the sensor/asset devices to the selected remote hub/server). Guday does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the pair request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server (as disclosed in claim 1).
The third closest prior art of record is UR et al, US 2015/0365902 (as cited in the IDS 11/20/2024) discloses a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source (UR, [0045], Computing device sends power supply information indicating the computing device is connected to an external source of power). UR does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the pair request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server (as disclosed in claim 1).
The fourth closest prior art of record is LEE et al, US 2021/0099349 (as cited in the IDS 11/20/2024) discloses a special offset value provided by a network server (LEE, [0059]-[0060], [0078], The offset information provided by the server in the environment configuration information). LEE does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of states of the hub device used by the hub device to determine the value comprise at least: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the pair request, a power status of the hub device indicative of whether or not the hub device is connected to an external power source, a signal strength of a cellular signal at the hub device, and a special offset value provided by a network server (as disclosed in claim 1).
For these reasons, in conjunction with the other limitations of the independent claims, puts this case in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights