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 Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Preliminary Matters
The claim amendments filed on 3/16/2026 are non-compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Particularly, language in Claim 15 is annotated both as underlined and struckthrough, creating ambiguity as to whether the claims are intended to include this language. In the interests of compact prosecution, and in light of the extremely similar amendments to Claims 1 and 8, this double-annotated language will be interpreted as merely struck through, and consequently the claim amendments will be treated as if they were compliant with 37 CFR 1.121.
Objections
The present claim amendments obviate the previous objection thereto; therefore, that objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present claim amendments obviate most, though not all, of the previous 112(b) rejections. Specifically, despite the present amendments thereto, Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are indefinite in essentially the same way as previously described. As such, the previous 112(b) rejections are respectively withdrawn or modified and maintained as necessary.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
The majority of Applicant’s present 101 arguments merely re-purpose language of a previously advanced and refuted assertion of a Step 2A, Prong Two-based improvement to a technology (ie: remote programming of the IMD via remotely transmitted configuration data, or as articulated by Applicant, “a specific way of remotely programming, from time to time and over a long distance, an IMD to perform different functions for different use cases) in view of the presently amended claim language, which is no more persuasive now than when first advanced in the Interview of 2/19/2026. Summarily, the remote programming/configuration of computer products for specific tasks via electronic transmission is a well-established practice which long pre-dates Applicant’s effective filing date, as are the extremely ubiquitous technological steps which effectuate this remote programming. As such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could not reasonably conclude that this is an improvement to a technology. Limiting this remote programming/configuration solely to the particular computer product in question (ie: the IMD) in these arguments does nothing to make this otherwise. Further, Applicant’s assertion that no combination of previously cited references discloses this feature (even if this was the standard for 101 subject matter eligibility which, to be clear, it is not) is untrue, as was pointed out to Applicant in said Interview. See Interview Summary and the updated 103 rejections below for more information.
To the limited extent this previously advanced and refuted argument is presently expanded, ie: the assertion of “selective activation” of sensors to monitor only those conditions which are designated by the received configuration data, thereby being “more energy efficient[],” this argued functionality is not properly captured by the claim language as presently amended, which instead merely states in relevant part “using the one or more measurement parameters, determining one or more types of measurement data to be obtained by and about the IMD and activating at least one sensor to measure determined types of measurement data.” This claim language falls well short of the selective activation of sensors for which measurement data is required by the configuration data, while leaving dormant other sensors for which measurement data is not required by the configuration data. As this purported advantage is not presently reflected in the claims, it is irrelevant. Even were this not the case, the activation of only those computer components which are necessary for tasks being performed is a well-established practice in computer products writ large since long before Applicant’s effective filing date, and thus similar to the previously advanced and argued improvement of remote programming using said configuration data, this could not reasonably be called an improvement to a technology as per Applicant’s effective filing date. Limiting this advantage solely to the particular computer product in question (ie: the IMD) in these arguments does nothing to make this otherwise.
The remainder of the present Remarks as relate to 101, respectively merely describing the claimed functions of the IMD (many of which recite abstract ideas) or asserting non-technological “advantages” which are similarly long-established in the art and/or not embodied in the claims as presently drafted (e.g., issuing an alert when a temperature or acceleration has exceeded respective thresholds thereof), likewise fails to evidence integration into a practical application under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, or otherwise eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102 and 103 analyses have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 102 and 103 are based on newly amended claim language, and as such need not be addressed here. Further, these arguments are moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below. Despite this, Examiner makes some observations regarding these arguments.
Applicant repeats an argument advanced and refuted in the Interview of 2/19/2026 that Vock does not disclose wireless reception over a WAN, specifically now arguing that “[w]ireless communications may be wireless communication over distances between short and long, but does not necessarily include communications over all distances. Vock only discloses near field wireless communications to an MD.” Applicant is mistaken for the same reasons explained during said interview, summarily in that WAN-based communications may occur at a variety of distances (ie: whether such distance is “short or long” is not dispositive as to whether the communication medium constitutes a WAN), and Applicant ignores the explicitly cellular network-based communications pointed out to Applicant in said interview, as well as Applicant’s admission therein that cellular networks are indeed a form of WAN. Examiner maintains his previous explanations as to where and how Vock discloses this functionality, at least as previously claimed and presently articulated in these Remarks. To the extent the claims as presently amended further narrow this functionality, at least as relates to the configuration data, this is moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below.
Applicant next argues that Vock does not disclose the IMDs being configurable for various types of measurement data as presently claimed. Examiner disagrees, noting that Applicant’s own referenced Paragraphs 0039 and 0079 disclose various examples wherein the IMDs may be programmed to detect acceleration, rotation, and temperature, with a variety of potential thresholds discussed for each of these measurement types. These “detector threshold level[s],” as articulated by Applicant, necessarily relate only to the type of measurement to which they apply, e.g., acceleration as measured in G’s, rotation in degrees of rotation, and temperature in degrees of temperature. As these measurement types and the units in which they are measured are not interchangeable (e.g., acceleration cannot be measured in degrees Fahrenheit), this programming clearly identifies which measurement types are to be effectuated for the particular use condition. Rather than somehow refuting Vock’s disclosure for these purposes, Applicant’s cited passages refute the argument being made. Rather, the purported distinction Applicant appears to be attempting to draw here (ie: based on the newly added claim limitation “using the one or more measurement parameters, determining one or more types of measurement data to be obtained by and about the IMD and activating at least one sensor to measure determined types of measurement data”) appears to be no more than a more granular manner of describing what is set forth in the language of Vock. There is nothing in this claim language which would not be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being found within Vock.
Relatedly, Applicant argues that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that the detector threshold level is an event condition and a measurement parameter, Vock does not disclose programming action(s) into the MD or selecting measurement data type(s) based on measurement parameters.” Regarding the selection of measurement data types, this is already refuted above. Regarding the configuration of programming actions, Applicant goes on to assert that “Vock teaches communicating data from the MD upon occurrence of an event, at periodic time intervals, or upon being interrogated by the remote receiver (RR). […] However, Vock does not disclose that these or any other actions are configurable through received MD configuration data.” Examiner disagrees. Indeed, this argument refutes itself in admitting that Vock discloses communication of recorded data (an “action,” as claimed) in one of three alternative ways: as articulated by Applicant, “upon occurrence of an event, at periodic time intervals, or upon being interrogated by the remote receiver (RR)” (or, as not noted by Applicant, by way of what Vock calls an ID rather than an RR). As would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, the monitoring devices must be configured with one of those three communication actions (explicitly disclosed in Vock as alternatives), just as they must be configured with the measurement data types to monitor and corresponding event conditions (ie: ranges or thresholds) associated with those measurement types. Even ignoring this, as was already established above and previously, Vock discloses the programming of the devices thereof to detect one or more different measurement types (e.g., acceleration, rotation, temperature, etc.), and respective thresholds in the units measured by those measurement types. As the communication of violations of these thresholds (an “action,” as argued) is based upon those measurement types and respective thresholds for which the device is programmed in a particular use case (ie: as Applicant admits in this argument, “upon occurrence of an event”), the action necessarily varies based upon how the particular device is programmed in relation to measurement data types and respective thresholds thereof.
Lastly, Applicant’s asserts that “Vock does not teach activating sensor(s) configured to measure each determined type of measurement data as recited in amended claim 1.” Examiner disagrees. As was already established above and previously, Vock discloses the programming of the devices thereof to detect one or more different measurement types (e.g., acceleration, rotation, temperature, etc.), and respective thresholds in the units measured by those measurement types. As would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, the same sensor cannot be used to measure these different measurement data types (e.g., a temperature sensor cannot be used to measure acceleration). This is to say nothing of Vock’s explicit disclosure of a variety of sensor types, each of which is used to monitor particular measurement data types (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0060-0061, though such disclosure of different sensors being used to measure different measurement types is found throughout both the previously provided citations to Vock as well as Vock writ large).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “performe” should read “perform.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 9 contain the terms “an event condition” and, sometimes subsequently, “the event condition.” It is unclear as drafted whether these terms are intended to relate back to “at least one of the one or more event conditions (ie: in the limitation “determining whether any of the one or more event conditions has transpired using the measurement data” of the independent claims) or to indicate a separate event condition. For the purposes of this examination, and in light of the original disclosure and the context in which these terms are used, “an event condition” and “the event condition” in these limitations will be interpreted as “the at least one of the one or more event conditions.”
Claims 2 and 9 contain the language “wherein obtained measurement data includes…” and, similarly, Claim 16 contains the language “wherein received measurement data includes…” It is unclear as drafted whether these obtained/received measurement data is intended to relate back to the measurement data from the “obtaining/receiving measurement data…” limitation of Claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, or whether this is intended to indicate a separately obtained/received instance of measurement data. For the purposes of this examination, and in light of the original disclosure and the context in which these terms are used, “obtained measurement data” in the above-quoted limitations of Claims 2 and 9 will be interpreted as “the obtained measurement data,” and “received measurement data” in the above-quoted limitation of Claim 16 will be interpreted as “the received measurement data.”
Claims 4, 11, and 18 contain variations on the following limitations: “wherein the one or more actions include transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter was outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter” and “wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter, then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter.” It is unclear if the “transmitting” in the latter limitation is intended to be the same (ie: relating back to) or different from the “transmitting” of the former limitation. For the purposes of this examination, the “transmitting” of the latter limitation is interpreted as relating back to the transmitting of the former limitation. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 4, 11, and 18 respectively.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 contain the following limitations: “wherein the one or more actions include transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured state variable of the IMD is outside the range of values of the state variable, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured state variable was outside of the range of values of the state variable” and “wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable, then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured state variable is outside the range of values of the state variable, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable.” These limitations are indefinite for the same reasons discussed above regarding similar limitations in Claims 4, 11, and 18, and are interpreted in similar manner for the purposes of this examination. Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 6, 13, and 20 respectively.
Claim 20, which directly depends upon Claim 15, contains the language “wherein causing transmission, directly over the wide area network, of the data about the one or more transpired event conditions includes causing transmission, directly over the wide area network, of data indicating that a measured state variable of the IMD is outside the range of values…” This language appears to reference a previous function which does not exist in the claims up to this point (ie: no “transmission” is previously claimed anywhere in Claims 20 or 15), unlike similar claim language in Claims 6 and 13 which clearly reference the one or more actions set forth in Claims 1 and 8 respectively. As such, it is unclear as drafted what transmission this limitation is discussing and how it fits into the claim. Further and relatedly, Claims 15 and 20 are both system claims, and systems are defined by structure. It is therefore unclear whether this purely functional limitation (as noted above, not tied to a function performed by the processing circuitry set forth in Claim 15) is even part of the claimed system/is due patentable weight. For the purposes of this examination, and in view of the present drafting of Claims 6 and 13, this language will be interpreted as “wherein the one or more actions includes causing transmission, directly over the wide area network, of data indicating that a measured state variable of the IMD is outside the range of values…” Claim 21 is rejected due to its dependence upon Claim 20.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitations of receiving configuration data, wherein the configuration data includes one or more measurement parameters, one or more event conditions, and one or more actions, wherein the configuration data associates each event condition with the one or more measurement parameters, and wherein the configuration data further associates each event condition with the one or more actions; using the one or more measurement parameters, determining one or more types of measurement data to be obtained by and about the IMD; obtaining measurement data, of the one or more types, by and about the IMD; determining whether any of the one or more event conditions has transpired using the measurement data; and determining that at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing at least one of the one or more actions associated with each transpired event condition, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving configuration data, wherein the configuration data includes one or more measurement parameters, one or more event conditions, and one or more actions, wherein the configuration data associates each event condition with the one or more measurement parameters, and wherein the configuration data further associates each event condition with the one or more actions; using the one or more measurement parameters, determining one or more types of measurement data to be obtained by and about the IMD; obtaining measurement data, of the one or more types, by and about the IMD; determining whether any of the one or more event conditions has transpired using the measurement data; and determining that at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing at least one of the one or more actions associated with each transpired event condition, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of determining whether any of the one or more event conditions has transpired using the measurement data; and determining that at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing at least one of the one or more actions associated with each transpired event condition, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing at least one processor to execute a process; one or more goods; a wide area network; and an intelligent monitoring device (IMD) configured to be mounted on the one or more goods or on packaging used to transport the one or more goods, the IMD comprising: processing circuitry; one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry; a radio communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, and configured to be directly communicatively coupled to a wide area network; one or more batteries; power management circuitry electrically coupled to the one or more batteries, the processing circuitry, the radio; and activating at least one sensor to measure determined types of measurement data. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing at least one processor to execute a process; a wide area network; and an intelligent monitoring device (IMD) configured to be mounted on the one or more goods or on packaging used to transport the one or more goods, the IMD comprising: processing circuitry; one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry; a radio communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, and configured to be directly communicatively coupled to a wide area network; one or more batteries; and power management circuitry electrically coupled to the one or more batteries, the processing circuitry, and the radio, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Activating at least one sensor to measure determined types of measurement data, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). One or more goods, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. The limitation found to recite insignificant extra-solution activity, upon reevaluation, is further determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) under the standards of 112(a) based on the high-level description of this feature in the original disclosure (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0013, 0031, and 0056). These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-23, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, the product of Claim 8, or the system of Claim 15, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1, 8, and 15 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 disclose wherein obtained measurement data includes data about a geographic location of the IMD when an event condition transpired and a time of day and a date when the event condition transpired (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 disclose wherein the one or more performed actions includes transmitting from the IMD, directly over the wide area network, data about a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where an event condition transpired (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 disclose wherein the one or more measurement parameters indicate that an environmental parameter of the IMD is to be measured (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein the one or more event conditions includes determining that a measurement of the environmental parameter is outside of a range of values of such environmental parameter (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired comprises determining that the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein the one or more actions include transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter was outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); and then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 disclose wherein the environmental parameter is either temperature, humidity, or pressure (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 4, 11, and 18), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 disclose wherein the one or more measurement parameters indicate that a state variable of the IMD is to be measured (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein the one or more event conditions includes determining that a measurement of the state variable of the IMD is outside of a range of values of such state variable (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired comprises determining that the measured state variable of the IMD is outside of the range of values of the state variable (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein the one or more actions includes transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured state variable of the IMD is outside the range of values of the state variable, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured state variable was outside of the range of values of the state variable (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15); and then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured state variable is outside the range of values of the state variable, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 1, 8, and 15), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 disclose wherein the state variable is either orientation of the IMD, velocity of the IMD, movement of the IMD, vibration of the IMD, acceleration of the IMD, or deceleration of the IMD (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claims 7, 14, and 21), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 22 discloses wherein the one or more sensors include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial reference unit, a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, and a temperature sensor (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 23 discloses a recharging circuitry electrically coupled to the power management circuitry and configured to provide electrical energy to recharge the at least one of the one or more batteries (insignificant extra-solution activity), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application. This limitation, found to recite insignificant extra-solution activity, further represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under the standards of 112(a) based on the high-level description of this feature in the original disclosure (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0028, 0037-0038, and 0083).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock et al (PGPub 20110145162) (hereafter, “Vock”) in view of Gillen et al (PGPub 20180232693) (hereafter, “Gillen”).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Vock discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing at least one processor to execute a process to monitor one or more goods (¶ 0039, 0042, 0079, 0223; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events);
An intelligent monitoring device (IMD) configured to monitor one or more goods, the IMD (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0061, 0092, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor devices such as MMDs and/or EMDs);
processing circuitry (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0061, 0092, 0191, 0195, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor device includes a processor);
one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0061, 0092, 0191, 0195, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor device includes one or more detectors/sensors; detector signals are received by the processor);
a radio communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, and configured to be directly communicatively coupled to a wide area network (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0012, 0016, 0061, 0092, 0191, 0195, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor device includes a communication port; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR") via wireless transmission);
one or more batteries (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0061, 0092, 0191, 0195, 0207, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 3F, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor device includes one or more batteries);
power management circuitry electrically coupled to the one or more batteries, the processing circuitry, and the radio (¶ 0007, 0027; Figs. 1, 1A, 3F, 53; the battery energizes the electronics of the MMD);
using the one or more measurement parameters, determining one or more types of measurement data to be obtained by and about the IMD and activating at least one sensor to measure determined types of measurement data (¶ 0039, 0042, 0061, 0072, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data);
obtaining measurement data, of the one or more types, by and about the IMD (¶ 0039, 0042, 0061, 0072, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data);
determining whether any of the one or more event conditions has transpired using the measurement data (Abstract; ¶ 0030-0031, 0036, 0039, 0046-0055, 0212, 0227, 0288; Fig. 9; the movement monitoring device senses at least one movement event during handling of the product; a processor compares the movement event with a pre-selected event threshold, and time-tags and stores above-threshold movement events in a memory; an MMD monitors one or more movement metrics for "events," where data is acquired that exceeds some predetermined threshold or value; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; these MMDs are interrogated to determine whether any of the critical components experienced undesirable conditions--e.g., a high impact or temperature or humidity; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact" (or, for example, for an event such as when temperature exceeds a certain threshold, or an event such as when humidity decreases below a certain threshold); in one aspect the detector is a temperature sensor and the processor coupled to the temperature sensor seeks to determine temperature events that exceed a threshold; in another aspect, a humidity sensor is used as the detector and this sensor is monitored for a humidity event (e.g., did the EMD experience 98% humidity conditions)); and
determining that at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing at least one of the one or more actions associated with each transpired event condition (¶ 0012, 0016, 0026, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0072, 0212, 0220, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR"); preferably, the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR" either (a) upon the occurrence of an "event;" decision tree Yes.sub.2 sends the event data to memory such that it is stored for later transmission, in step 184; event data is transmitted off-board, in step 186).
Vock additionally discloses receiving, by an intelligent monitoring device (IMD), configuration data for the IMD configured to be mounted on the one or more goods or on packaging used to transport the one or more goods, wherein the configuration data includes one or more measurement parameters, one or more event conditions, and one or more actions, wherein the configuration data associates each event condition with the one or more measurement parameters, and wherein the configuration data further associates each event condition with the one or more actions (Abstract; ¶ 0007, 0013, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0067, 0079, 0092, 0213, 0223, 0338-0339; Figs. 1, 1A, 53; product integrity tracking label includes a label body for attaching to a product to be shipped or to packaging containing the product; monitor devices such as MMDs and/or EMDs; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events). Vock does not explicitly disclose but Gillen does disclose wherein the configuration data is received directly from a wide area network (¶ 0049, 0055-0056, 0060-0067, 0072; Figs. 1, 7; the computing node entity may be configured to communicate via wireless external communication networks using any of a variety of protocols, such as ultra-wideband (UWB); the data collection device may include, be associated with, or be in wired or wireless communication with one or more processors (various exemplary processors are described in greater detail below), one or more location-determining devices or one or more location sensors (e.g., Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) sensors), one or more telematics sensors, one or more real-time clocks, a J-Bus protocol architecture, one or more electronic control modules (ECM), one or more communication ports for receiving telematics data from various sensors (e.g., via a CAN-bus), one or more communication ports for transmitting/sending data, one or more RFID tags/sensors, one or more power sources, one or more data radios for communication with a variety of communication networks, one or more memory modules, and one or more programmable logic controllers (PLC); the one or more location sensors, modules, or similar words used herein interchangeably may be one of several components in wired or wireless communication with or available to the data collection device; triangulation may be used in connection with a device associated with a particular vehicle and/or the vehicle's operator and with various communication points (e.g., cellular towers or Wi-Fi access points) positioned at various locations throughout a geographic area to monitor the location of the vehicle and/or its operator; a shipment unit may comprise one or more wireless network interface devices to provide a “smart” shipment unit; the shipment unit may be configured to communicate with one or more devices (e.g., computing entities) located at one or more locations (e.g., a shipper location, a carrier location, and/or a recipient/consignee location) using a short/long range communication technology; such shipment units may have the capabilities and components of the described with regard to the computing nodes, networks, vehicles, transaction computing entities, user computing entities, financial services computing entities, and/or the like; for example, the shipment unit may be configured to store shipment unit information/data; the shipment unit may comprise a processor, memory, a communication interface, antenna, and/or the like; in example embodiments, the shipment unit information/data may comprise one or more of a consignee name/identifier, a shipment identifier, a service point (e.g., delivery location/address, pick-up location/address), instructions for delivering the shipment unit, a shipment unit delivery authorization code, special handling instructions, transportation preferences, payment information/data for paying for transportation of the shipment unit and/or associated shipment unit, information/data indicating the content of the shipment unit (e.g., indicating one or more shipment units associated with the shipment unit, a product class, UPC, shipment unit name, shipment unit description, and/or the like), requirements and/or preferences for how the shipment unit is transported (e.g., by air, by land, and/or by sea; by truck or by train; through a particular region, state, city, country; not through a particular region, sate, city, country; and/or the like), preferred and/or required temperature or temperature range of the shipment unit and/or one or more associated shipment units, preferred and/or required maximum vibration level, information/data regarding if a device is present at the service point (e.g., a recipient location), and/or the like; the enclosing shipment unit may comprise one or more environmental sensors configured to detect a condition of the enclosing shipment unit; for example, the shipment unit may comprise temperature sensors, humidity sensors, accelerometers (to detect impacts and/or drops), and/or the like; as discussed herein, the one or more sensors within the shipment unit may be utilized to determine whether the shipment unit conditions remained consistent with applicable shipping rules, thereby enabling the use of condition-based smart contracts as discussed herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the shipment monitoring device configuration techniques of Gillen with the shipment monitoring system of Vock because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Gillen are applicable to the base device (Vock), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15. Vock discloses wherein obtained measurement data includes data about a geographic location of the IMD when an event condition transpired and a time of day and a date when the event condition transpired (¶ 0012, 0026, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0066, 0072, 0074, 0084, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; one monitor device of the invention incorporates a GPS receiver chip to locate the device; the device is generally applied to persons or objects to assess, locate and log “events;” an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory by an accelerometer detector, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; as such, for example, the exact amount of damage received by the computer, as well as the exact location of where the damage occurred, is stored in memory; other detectors may be used to generate "events" (e.g., a spin event, or an airtime event, temperature, humidity, flip-over events, etc.) in conjunction with GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; one or more of these data are wirelessly communicated, as wireless data, to an interrogation device reader to assess the data corresponding to shipment conditions and/or abuse of package and/or goods; data preferably includes "time tag" data indicating when a certain "event" occurred, e.g., when goods experienced a 10 g event; the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR (a) upon the occurrence of an “event”).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15. Vock discloses wherein the one or more performed actions includes transmitting from the IMD, directly over the wide area network, data about a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where an event condition transpired (¶ 0012, 0026, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0066, 0072, 0074, 0084, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; one monitor device of the invention incorporates a GPS receiver chip to locate the device; the device is generally applied to persons or objects to assess, locate and log “events;” an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory by an accelerometer detector, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; as such, for example, the exact amount of damage received by the computer, as well as the exact location of where the damage occurred, is stored in memory; other detectors may be used to generate "events" (e.g., a spin event, or an airtime event, temperature, humidity, flip-over events, etc.) in conjunction with GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; one or more of these data are wirelessly communicated, as wireless data, to an interrogation device reader to assess the data corresponding to shipment conditions and/or abuse of package and/or goods; data preferably includes "time tag" data indicating when a certain "event" occurred, e.g., when goods experienced a 10 g event; the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR (a) upon the occurrence of an “event”).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15. Vock discloses:
wherein the one or more measurement parameters indicate that an environmental parameter of the IMD is to be measured (¶ 0031, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0077-0079, 0227, 0338; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; the EMD measures one or more of the following environmental metrics: temperature, humidity, moisture, altitude and pressure; these MMDs are interrogated to determine whether any of the critical components experienced undesirable conditions--e.g., a high impact or temperature or humidity; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's);
wherein the one or more event conditions includes determining that a measurement of the environmental parameter is outside of a range of values of such environmental parameter (¶ 0031, 0077-0079, 0227, 0338; these MMDs are interrogated to determine whether any of the critical components experienced undesirable conditions--e.g., a high impact or temperature or humidity; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; an EMD monitors one or more metrics for "events," where data is acquired that exceeds some predetermined threshold or value; in one aspect the detector is a temperature sensor and the processor coupled to the temperature sensor seeks to determine temperature events that exceed a threshold; in another aspect, a humidity sensor is used as the detector and this sensor is monitored for a humidity event (e.g., did the EMD experience 98% humidity conditions));
wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired comprises determining that the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (¶ 0031, 0077-0079, 0227, 0264, 0338; these MMDs are interrogated to determine whether any of the critical components experienced undesirable conditions--e.g., a high impact or temperature or humidity; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; an EMD monitors one or more metrics for "events," where data is acquired that exceeds some predetermined threshold or value; in one aspect the detector is a temperature sensor and the processor coupled to the temperature sensor seeks to determine temperature events that exceed a threshold; in another aspect, a humidity sensor is used as the detector and this sensor is monitored for a humidity event (e.g., did the EMD experience 98% humidity conditions); temperature range minimum of -10 C-60 C);
wherein the one or more actions include transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter was outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (¶ 0012, 0016, 0026, 0042, 0061, 0072, 0077-0079, 0212, 0220, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory by an accelerometer detector, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; other detectors may be used to generate "events" (e.g., a spin event, or an airtime event, temperature, humidity, flip-over events, etc.) in conjunction with GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR"); preferably, the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR" either (a) upon the occurrence of an "event;" decision tree Yes.sub.2 sends the event data to memory such that it is stored for later transmission, in step 184; event data is transmitted off-board, in step 186);
wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (¶ 0031, 0077-0079, 0227, 0338; these MMDs are interrogated to determine whether any of the critical components experienced undesirable conditions--e.g., a high impact or temperature or humidity; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; an EMD monitors one or more metrics for "events," where data is acquired that exceeds some predetermined threshold or value; in one aspect the detector is a temperature sensor and the processor coupled to the temperature sensor seeks to determine temperature events that exceed a threshold; in another aspect, a humidity sensor is used as the detector and this sensor is monitored for a humidity event (e.g., did the EMD experience 98% humidity conditions)); and
then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured environmental parameter is outside the range of values of the environmental parameter, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured environmental parameter is outside of the range of values of the environmental parameter (¶ 0012, 0016, 0026, 0042, 0061, 0072, 0077-0079, 0212, 0220, 0227, 0288, 0338-0339; Figs. 9, 53-54; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; once powered, the monitor device monitors detector signals, in step 174, for metrics such as movement, temperature and/or g's; preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory by an accelerometer detector, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; other detectors may be used to generate "events" (e.g., a spin event, or an airtime event, temperature, humidity, flip-over events, etc.) in conjunction with GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR"); preferably, the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR" either (a) upon the occurrence of an "event;" decision tree Yes.sub.2 sends the event data to memory such that it is stored for later transmission, in step 184; event data is transmitted off-board, in step 186).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 4, 11, and 18. Vock discloses wherein the environmental parameter is either temperature, humidity, or pressure (¶ 0338-0339; certain data determined by monitoring device during shipment includes, for example, impact data or g's, temperature, data indicating being inverted, humidity and other metrics, the exact amount of damage received, and "events").
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15. Vock discloses:
wherein the one or more measurement parameters indicate that a state variable of the IMD is to be measured (¶ 0030, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0288; MMDs/EMDs are programmed for particular uses, e.g., programmed to record/monitor particular data types, compare such data types to associated acceptable ranges/thresholds, and to take particular actions upon detection of events; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events);
wherein the one or more event conditions includes determining that a measurement of the state variable of the IMD is outside of a range of values of such state variable (¶ 0030, 0036, 0039-0040, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact");
wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired comprises determining that the measured state variable of the IMD is outside of the range of values of the state variable (¶ 0030, 0036, 0039-0040, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338; Claim 20; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact;" (a) comparing temperature and movement of the goods to predetermined acceptable temperature and movement ranges, (b) for time-tagging unacceptable temperature and movement events, and (c) for tagging the unacceptable temperature and movement events with location information from the GPS receiver chip);
wherein the one or more actions include transmitting, directly to the wide area network, data indicating that a measured state variable of the IMD is outside the range of values of the state variable, a time of day and a date about when and a geographic location about where the measured state variable was outside of the range of values of the state variable (¶ 0012, 0016, 0026, 0030, 0036, 0039-0040, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact;" preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory 846 by an accelerometer detector 844, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR"); preferably, the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR" either (a) upon the occurrence of an "event;" decision tree Yes.sub.2 sends the event data to memory such that it is stored for later transmission, in step 184; event data is transmitted off-board, in step 186);
wherein determining that the at least one of the one or more event conditions has transpired, then performing the at least one of the one or more actions comprises determining that the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable (¶ 0030, 0036, 0039-0040, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact"); and
then transmitting, directly to the wide area network, of the data indicating that the measured state variable is outside the range of values of the state variable, the time of day and the date about when and the geographic location about where the measured state variable is outside of the range of values of the state variable (¶ 0012, 0016, 0026, 0030, 0036, 0039-0040, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0227, 0288, 0338; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events; Step 176 assesses the metric for "events" such as airtime or "impact;" preferably, the EMD includes a real time clock so that the EMD tags "events" with time and/or date information; an impact event may be recorded and stored in memory 846 by an accelerometer detector 844, as described above, and a location associated with the impact event is also stored, as provided by GPS chip; a clock may be incorporated into device to provide timing and/or real-time clock information used to time tag data events from one or both of detector and GPS chip; the MMD communicates externally to a remote receiver ("RR"); preferably, the MMD communicates data from the MMD to the RR" either (a) upon the occurrence of an "event;" decision tree Yes.sub.2 sends the event data to memory such that it is stored for later transmission, in step 184; event data is transmitted off-board, in step 186).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 21, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claims 6, 13, and 20. Vock discloses wherein the state variable is either orientation of the IMD, velocity of the IMD, movement of the IMD, vibration of the IMD, acceleration of the IMD, or deceleration of the IMD (¶ 0030, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0061, 0212, 0288; if the detector is an accelerometer and the MMD is designed to monitor “impact” – and yet impact data is not considered interesting unless the MMD experiences an impact of 50 g’s - the preferred MMD used to accomplish this task would continuously monitor impact and tag only those impact events that exceed 50 g’s; the sensor transmits continuous acceleration data to the receiver, and the receiver calculates velocity and/or distance based upon the data; by way of example, in one aspect the detector is a triaxial accelerometer and the processor coupled to the accelerometer seeks to determine impact events that exceed a threshold, in any or all of three axes; other embodiments include detection of impact events by single axis accelerometers and detection of spin events).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock in view of Gillen and Ariza (PGPub 20210390503) (hereafter, “Ariza”).
Regarding Claim 22, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Vock additionally discloses wherein the one or more sensors include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, and a temperature sensor (¶ 0007, 0024, 0028, 0033-0035, 0060-0061, 0078, 0211, 0303, 0338; Figs. 53-54; a movement monitor device (MMD) includes, e.g., multiple detectors such as an accelerometer, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, etc.; sensor may include a small gyroscope or an electrolytic type tilt device, known in the art, as the detector for measuring tilt; monitor device of the invention incorporates a GPS receiver chip to locate the device). Vock does not explicitly disclose but Ariza does disclose wherein the one or more sensors also include an inertial reference unit (Abstract; ¶ 0347, 0467; the platform may provide tracking of all orders across multiple retailers and couriers; a plurality of smart devices may be used to verify the shipment including, but not limited to, a sensor mounted inside a mailbox; the sensors sub-module comprises at least one of the devices, modules, and subsystems whose purpose is to detect events or changes in its environment and send the information to the computing device; the sensors sub-module may comprise a plurality of embodiments; it should be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the ensuing are non-limiting examples of the aforementioned sensors: inertial reference unit).
The rationale to combine Vock and Gillen remains the same as for Claim 1. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the shipment monitoring device structure of Ariza with the shipment monitoring system of Vock because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Ariza are applicable to the base device (Vock), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock in view of Gillen and Lau et al (US 7809377) (hereafter, “Lau”).
Regarding Claim 23, Vock in view of Gillen discloses the limitations of Claim 20. Vock does not explicitly disclose but Lau does disclose a recharging circuitry electrically coupled to the power management circuitry and configured to provide electrical energy to recharge the at least one of the one or more batteries (Column 4, lines 38-48; Column 14, lines 38-63; Column 15, lines 35-45; Fig. 1; in order to track the location and shipping conditions of the article being shipped from the shipper to the recipient, a tracking device (TD1) is provided within or attached to the article being shipped; an active tag uses a battery-powered transponder to emit a constant signal carrying the identifying information programmed into the chip; the mobile device (mobile tracking device or mobile communication device) can include a solar panel; the solar panel can provide electrical power for the mobile device; the solar panel can thus charge a battery used to power the mobile device and/or itself power the mobile device; when the mobile device is affixed to an object (e.g., package) to be shipped, the solar panel can remain at least partially exposed to the outside of the object so as to be able to receive light).
The rationale to combine Vock and Gillen remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the shipment monitoring device battery charging structure and functionality of Lau with the shipment monitoring system of Vock to allow for battery charging, facilitating the continued functioning of the device beyond a full charge of the battery thereof (see at least Column 15, lines 35-45 of Lau).
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20100299278 – “Methods for Controlling Shipment of a Temperature Controlled Material Using a Spill Proof Shipping Container,” Kriss et al, disclosing shipping containers used for monitoring and controlling shipment of materials, ensuring compliance with requirements (e.g., temperature, impact, etc.)
Jacobson et al, Bionic Egg: Sealed mobile sensor packaging design with adaptive power consumption, 2017 IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference (LISAT), pgs. 1-6
Viman et al, XpertTrack: Precision Autonomous Measuring Device Developed for Real Time Shipments Tracker, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 16(3), 355 (2016)
Raman et al, IoT-driven Smart Packaging for Pharmaceuticals: Ensuring Product Integrity and Patient Safety, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Innovations in Healthcare Industries (ICAIIHI)
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights