DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 7 March 2025.
Claims 1-28 were originally pending.
Claims 1-28 were cancelled in a preliminary amendment.
Claims 29-48 were added.
Claims 39-48 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 March 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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.
Claims 29-45, and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11080644 B1 in view of Kodger et al. (US 8145577 B2) (hereinafter Kodger).
With respect to claim 29 (and similarly claims 40 and 48), the current application states:
At least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, comprising:
Associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object;
Receiving location data from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object;
Determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event;
Determining a potential risk based on the failure condition; and
In response to the determined potential risk: instructing the sensor device to alter its mode of operation; or notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition.
With respect to US 11080644, claim 1 states:
Associating a time with a geographical region along an anticipated travel path of the shipped physical object;
Receiving location data at a first rate transmitted from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object, wherein the received location data comprises a set of locations of the sensor device, the sensor device comprising a sensor processor, a transceiver, and a plurality of sensors configured to receive signals from a global positioning satellite and measure at least one of acceleration, temperature, light, or pressure associated with the shipped physical object;
Providing the set of locations to a user interface on a device remote from the physical object at a delay period from the receipt of the location data;
Determining, using a processor, that the set of locations fails to satisfy a condition associated with the time and the geographical region;
Generating a panic button via the user interface that is selectable only after the determination that the set of locations fails to satisfy the condition, the panic button comprising a selectable visual indicator that is configured to trigger a panic mode upon selection;
Enabling the panic mode based on a determination that the panic button has been selected;
Causing transmission of an indication of the enabled panic mode to the sensor device;
Receiving, in response to the transmitted indication of the enabled panic mode, the location data from the sensor device at a greater frequency than the first rate;
Reducing, in response to the enabled panic mode, the delay period;
Notifying, in response to the enabled panic mode, a party associated with the physical object of the failed condition; and
Generating, in response to the enabled panic mode, a customer support case associated with the physical object requesting resolution of the failed condition.
Claim 1 of US 11080644 differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including location data comprising a set of locations of the sensor device, the types of measurements from the sensor, providing the set of locations to a user interface on a device remote from the physical object at a delay period from the receipt of the location data, generating a panic button via the user interface that is selectable only after the determination that the set of locations fails to satisfy the condition, the panic button comprising a selectable visual indicator that is configured to trigger a panic mode upon selection, enabling the panic mode based on a determination that the panic button has been selected, causing transmission of an indication of the enabled panic mode to the sensor device, reducing the delay period in response to the enabled panic mode, and generating a customer support case associated with the physical object requesting resolution of the failed condition in response to the enabled panic mode. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of US 11080644 by removing the limitations directed to the set of locations, sensed data types, providing data in a delay, generating a panic button on a user interface that is selectable when conditions fail, triggering a panic mode when the button is selected and reducing a delay in the response period, and generating a customer support case in response to the panic mode; resulting generally in the claims of the present application since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in US 11080644 actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, while 11080644 discloses the emphasized elements above, it does not disclose, however Kodger discloses:
Determining a potential risk based on the failure condition (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 30, the claim states, “wherein the failure condition occurs when the location data indicates that the shipped physical object is not located within an area associated with the time-based geofence at a time associated with the time-based event.” Claim 2 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 31, the claim states, “wherein the operations further include analyzing past locations of the sensor device to determine if any of the past locations fall within the area associated with the time-based geofence.” Claim 2 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 32, the claim states, “wherein the failure condition occurs when the location data indicates that the shipped physical object has not exited an area associated with the time-based geofence at a time associated with the time-based event.” Claim 3 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 33, the claim states, “wherein the operations further include analyzing past locations of the sensor device to determine if any of the past locations fall outside the area associated with the time-based geofence.” Claim 3 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 34, the claim states, “wherein the time-based geofence is associated with a predetermined amount of time before an estimated delivery time.” Kodger discloses in column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 11 lines 12-36, column 12 lines 5-21, and column 20 lines 1-26 which describe making a scheduled route for a delivery, including scheduling intermediate stops, which account for the estimated delivery time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule; and wherein the schedule accounts for the estimated delivery time of Kodger. By making a scheduled delivery route that accounts for the estimated time for delivery when scheduling intermediate stops on the route, a carrier will predictably be able to ensure deliveries are made in a timely manner.
With respect to claim 35, the claim states, “wherein the time-based geofence is associated with a time selected by a user.” Kodger states in at least column 10 lines 23-41, column 19 lines 24-67 which describe generating scheduled delivery dates, scheduled routes, and scheduled stops at intermediate points, wherein a shipper or carrier can assist in making the schedule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and generating scheduled delivery dates, scheduled routes, and scheduled stops at intermediate points, wherein a shipper or carrier can assist in making the schedule of Kodger. By allowing users to select and schedule delivery dates, stops, and routes, a shipping system will predictably be able to follow a user approved plan for delivery, thus ensuring compliance with wishes of interested parties.
With respect to claim 36, the claim state, “wherein the time-based geofence is associated with an expected arrival time and an expected departure time.” Claim 4 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 37, the claim state, “wherein the operations further include determining the expected arrival time or the expected departure time based on past travel routes used for shipping objects from a current location to various destinations.” Claim 5 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 38, the claim state, “wherein the operations further include determining the time-based event using time-based rule.” Claim 10 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations, specifically with respect to entrance and exits of geographic areas being time-based events.
With respect to claim 39, the claim state, “wherein the time-based rule is selected by a user.” Kodger discloses in at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, wherein the failure indicated that the shipped object failed to arrive at the intermediate location as scheduled, and wherein the time-based rules are set by the shipper and carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 41, the claim states, “wherein the location data is received at a reporting rate associated with a first time interval, and wherein altering the mode of operation includes changing the reporting rate to a second time interval, wherein the second time interval is different than the first time interval.” Claim 1 of US 11080644 substantially recites similar limitations.
With respect to claim 42, the claim states, “wherein the notified party includes a sender of the shipped physical object or a receiver of the shipped physical object.” Kodger discloses in at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 6 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, and column 13 lines 1-32 which describe alerting the shipper, recipient, and carrier with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the shipper, recipient, and carrier are alerted with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition of Kodger. Though US 11080644 has generally disclosed notifying parties of shipping conditions and alerts, Kodger has explicitly taught that shippers, recipients, and carriers can be notified of the alerts and view shipping audits; and combining Kodger into US 11080644 would yield the predictable results of identifying specific parties to the issues with a shipment.
With respect to claim 43, the claim states, “upon notifying the party of the failure condition, receiving from the notified party an indication of a panic mode.” Claim 1 of US 11080644 substantially recites this limitation.
With respect to claim 44, the claim states, “wherein the sensor device is configured to detect environmental parameters and in response to the received indication, transmitting instructions to the sensor device to increase a rate at which the sensor device transmits environmental parameters to a server.” Claims 1 and 9 of US 11080644 substantially recites this limitation.
With respect to claim 45, the claim states, “wherein, in response to the received indication, disabling a delay in transmitting location data to the notified party.” Claim 1 of US 11080644 substantially recites this limitation.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11080644 B1 and Kodger, and further in view of Clung et al. (US 2007/0268138 A1) (hereinafter Clung).
With respect to claim 46, the claim states, “wherein, in response to the received indication, notifying an additional party of the potential risk associated with the shipped physical object.” US 11080644 and Kodger do not explicitly disclose, however Clung discloses in at least paragraphs 145, 147, 151, and 158 which describe tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the shipper, recipient, and carrier are alerted with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition of Kodger, with the system and method of tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue of Clung. By alerting other parties to issues with a shipment, such as the police or port authority, remedies can be predictably taken to prevent loss or theft of the shipment, thus ensuring proper delivery can be completed.
With respect to claim 47, the claim states, “wherein the additional party is a police department closest to a current location of the shipped physical object.” Clung discloses in at least paragraphs 145, 147, 151, and 158 which describe tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor to collect and report location information of a shipped object, wherein a system analyzes the received information to determine if it fails conditions related with a time and location, and when this happens, triggering a panic mode that notifies parties and causes changes in sensor operation of US 11080644, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the shipper, recipient, and carrier are alerted with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition of Kodger, with the system and method of tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue of Clung. By alerting other parties to issues with a shipment, such as the police or port authority, remedies can be predictably taken to prevent loss or theft of the shipment, thus ensuring proper delivery can be completed.
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 29-48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object; receiving location data from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object; determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event; determining a potential risk based on the failure condition; and in response to the determined potential risk: instructing the sensor device to alter its mode of operation; or notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition.
The limitations of associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object; receiving location data from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object; determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event; determining a potential risk based on the failure condition; and in response to the determined potential risk: instructing the sensor device to alter its mode of operation; or notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the management of commercial activity (business relations), managing human behavior and relationships, and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (processor, memory, sensor device), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object, receiving location data from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object, determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event, determining a potential risk based on the failure condition, and instructing the sensor device to alter its mode of operation or notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition in response to the determined potential risk; encompasses setting a geofence along a planned travel path for a delivery, receiving location data of a shipped object, determining a failure to satisfy a time-based event based on the location data, determining a risk based on the failure condition, and instructing the device to change it’s operation or notifying a party of the failure; which is the management of commercial activity of managing the business relations between a carrier and tracking service, along with shippers and customers; and encompasses managing the behavior of shippers, carriers, and other people related to managing shipping items, including tracking where the items are and being alerted to failure conditions. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite, associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object, receiving location data of a shipped physical object, determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event, determining a potential risk based on the failure condition, and notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition in response to the determined potential risk; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer and machine elements (processor, memory, sensor device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Further, the claims recite receiving location data from a sensor, which is deemed extrasolution activity of data gathering. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the claims recite receiving location data from a sensor, which is deemed extrasolution activity of data gathering, that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraphs 2 and 3 which describe receiving location information of shipped items as conventional activity; and paragraph 24 which describes the sensor as a normal GPS sensor that measures location information and report it, which is recited at such a high level of generality that one of ordinary skill would know it to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 30-39 and 41-47, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite conditions that cause the failure condition to occur (e.g. location of object not in geofence at a specified time, object hasn’t left geofenced area at a specified time; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 30 and 32). In addition, the claims further recite analyzing past locations to determine if locations satisfy the geofence determination, which further encompasses managing commercial activity (business relations), managing human behavior and relationships, and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas (claims 31 and 33). In addition, the claims further recite what a geo-fence is associated with (e.g. time, user selected, expected arrival/departure); which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 34-36). In addition, the claims further recite determining expected arrival/departure time based on past routes; which further encompasses managing commercial activity (business relations), managing human behavior and relationships, and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 37). In addition, the claims further recite determining an event based on a tule, wherein the rule is selected by a user; which further encompasses managing commercial activity (business relations), managing human behavior and relationships, and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas (claims 38 and 39). In addition, the claims further recite changing reporting rates being faster or slower; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 41). In addition, the claims further recite the type of party notified; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 42). In addition, the claims further recite parties indicating a more measurements to be taken, which includes measuring and reporting parameters at an increased rate; which further encompasses managing commercial activity (business relations); thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (claims 43-45). In addition, the claims further recite notifying additional parties, such as the police; which further encompasses managing commercial activity (business relations), managing human behavior and relationships, and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas (claims 46-47).
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 29-31, 34-40, 42-45, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US 2006/0109106 A1) (hereinafter Braun), in view of Kodger et al. (US 8145577 B2) (hereinafter Kodger).
With respect to claims 29, 40, and 49, Braun teaches:
At least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, comprising: Associating a time-based geofence with an expected travel path of a shipped physical object (See at least paragraphs 60 ,67, 71, 73, and 94 which describe planning a route for a delivery, including duration and geofenced areas during the route, wherein geofence around facilities is scheduled, and thus time-based).
Receiving location data from a sensor device within or attached to the shipped physical object (See at least paragraphs 44-47, 71, 73, 76, 77, and 89 which describe a sensor on shipping items collecting location and other environmental data and reporting it to a central computer).
Determining from the location data a failure (See at least paragraphs 45, 46, 47, 56, 71, and 74 which describe receiving using collected sensor information to determine if a failure of business plans has been identified, such as bad environmental readings or bad location information).
In response: instructing the sensor device to alter its mode of operation; or notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition (See at least paragraphs 47, 73, 74, 90-99 which describe notifying parties regarding the failure condition and having the sensor device alters operations).
Braun discloses all of the limitations of claims 29, 40, and 48 as stated above. Braun does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kodger teaches:
Determining from the location data a failure condition indicative of a failure to satisfy a time-based event; Determining a potential risk based on the failure condition; in response to the determined potential risk notifying a party associated with the shipped physical object of the failure condition (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 30, the combination of Braun and Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the failure condition occurs when the location data indicates that the shipped physical object is not located within an area associated with the time-based geofence at a time associated with the time-based event (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the failure indicated that the shipped object failed to arrive at the intermediate location as scheduled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 31, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 29 and 30 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Wherein the operations further include analyzing past locations of the sensor device to determine if any of the past locations fall within the area associated with the time-based geofence (See at least paragraphs 10, 46, 56, 73, 74, 93, 94, and 96 which describe analyzing audit logs of past locations of the sensor device to determine the past locations of a shipment, including whether it’s been in a planned geofenced area).
With respect to claim 34, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Wherein the time-based geofence is associated with a predetermined amount of time before an estimated delivery time (See at least paragraphs 60 ,67, 71, 73, and 94 which describe planning a route for a delivery, including duration and geofenced areas during the route, wherein geofence around facilities is scheduled, and the duration of the route and stops are scheduled).
With respect to claim 35, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the time-based geofence is associated with a time selected by a user (See at least column 10 lines 23-41, column 19 lines 24-67 which describe generating scheduled delivery dates, scheduled routes, and scheduled stops at intermediate points, wherein a shipper or carrier can assist in making the schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and generating scheduled delivery dates, scheduled routes, and scheduled stops at intermediate points, wherein a shipper or carrier can assist in making the schedule of Kodger. By allowing users to select and schedule delivery dates, stops, and routes, a shipping system will predictably be able to follow a user approved plan for delivery, thus ensuring compliance with wishes of interested parties.
With respect to claim 36, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the time-based geofence is associated with an expected arrival time and an expected departure time (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled/expected time windows for arrival and departure, and expected delivery times for final destinations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled/expected time windows for arrival, departure and final delivery, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By making time-based geo-fences, including expected arrival and departures times for intermediate points and a final destination, a carrier will predictably be able to make a more accurate route schedule, while also ensuring that some variance can be accounted for, thus increasing the likelihood of identifying when a shipment is accurately on schedule or not.
With respect to claim 37, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 29 and 36 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the operations further include determining the expected arrival time or the expected departure time based on past travel routes used for shipping objects from a current location to various destinations (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled/expected time windows for arrival and departure, and expected delivery times for final destinations, and wherein the scheduling uses past deliveries).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled/expected time windows for arrival, departure and final delivery, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By making time-based geo-fences, including expected arrival and departures times for intermediate points and a final destination, a carrier will predictably be able to make a more accurate route schedule, while also ensuring that some variance can be accounted for, thus increasing the likelihood of identifying when a shipment is accurately on schedule or not.
With respect to claim 38, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the operations further include determining the time-based event using time-based rule (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the failure indicated that the shipped object failed to arrive at the intermediate location as scheduled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 39, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 29 and 38 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the time-based rule is selected by a user (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 5 lines 14-45, column 5 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, column 13 lines 1-32, and column 16 line 59 through column 17 line 18 which describe tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, wherein the failure indicated that the shipped object failed to arrive at the intermediate location as scheduled, and wherein the time-based rules are set by the shipper and carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger. By identifying time-based events that have failed to occur based on shipment location readings or lack thereof, a carrier system will predictably be able to identify when the shipment is possibly lost or delayed, thus allowing for remedies to be taken.
With respect to claim 42, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 40 as stated above. In addition, Kodger teaches:
Wherein the notified party includes a sender of the shipped physical object or a receiver of the shipped physical object (See at least column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 61, column 6 lines 49-67, column 8 line 38 through column 9 line 9, and column 13 lines 1-32 which describe alerting the shipper, recipient, and carrier with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule, and wherein the shipper, recipient, and carrier are alerted with regards to non-occurrence of scheduled events, indicating a time-based failure condition of Kodger. Though Braun has generally disclosed notifying parties of shipping conditions and alerts, Kodger has explicitly taught that shippers, recipients, and carriers can be notified of the alerts and view shipping audits; and combining Kodger into Braun would yield the predictable results of identifying specific parties to the isues with a shipment.
With respect to claim 43, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 40 and 42 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Upon notifying the party of the failure condition, receiving from the notified party an indication of a panic mode (See at least paragraphs 47, 89, and 90 which describe receiving an alert trigger from a notified party based on alert notification to said party).
With respect to claim 44, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 40, 42, and 43 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Wherein the sensor device is configured to detect environmental parameters and in response to the received indication, transmitting instructions to the sensor device to increase a rate at which the sensor device transmits environmental parameters to a server (See at least paragraphs 10, 46, 47, 71, 76, 77, and 92-99 which describe the sensor reporting environmental conditions to a central computer, and increasing or decreasing the frequency of reporting based on indications to the central computer and alerts).
With respect to claim 45, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 40, 42, and 43 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Wherein, in response to the received indication, disabling a delay in transmitting location data to the notified party (See at least paragraphs 10, 46, 47, 71, 76, 77, and 92-99 which describe the sensor reporting environmental conditions to a central computer, and increasing or decreasing the frequency of reporting based on indications to the central computer and alerts, including reporting conditions in real-time).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun and Kodger as applied to claim 29 as stated above, and further in view of Carani et al. (US 2008/0125967 A1) (hereinafter Carani).
With respect to claim 32, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. Braun and Kodger do not explicitly disclose the following, however Carani teaches:
Wherein the failure condition occurs when the location data indicates that the shipped physical object has not exited an area associated with the time-based geofence at a time associated with the time-based event (See at least paragraph 210 which describe tracking a shipment during delivery, and if it fails to exit a geofenced area within a predetermined period of time, trigger an alert to a party).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger, with the system and method of tracking a shipment during delivery, and if it fails to exit a geofenced area within a predetermined period of time, trigger an alert to a party of Carani. By issuing an alert when a tracked shipment hasn’t left a geofenced area in a predetermined period of time, parties can be alerted to possible issues during shipping, including theft or delays, which will allow for remedial actions or customer assurance.
With respect to claim 33, Braun/Kodger/Carani discloses all of the limitations of claims 29 and 32 as stated above. In addition, Braun teaches:
Wherein the operations further include analyzing past locations of the sensor device to determine if any of the past locations fall outside the area associated with the time-based geofence (See at least paragraphs 10, 46, 56, 73, 74, 93, 94, and 96 which describe analyzing audit logs of past locations of the sensor device to determine the past locations of a shipment, including whether it’s been in or out a planned geofenced area).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun and Kodger as applied to claim 40 as stated above, and further in view of Ainsworth et al. (US 2007/0290836 A1) (hereinafter Ainsworth)
With respect to claim 41, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claim 40 as stated above. Braun and Kodger do not explicitly disclose the following, however Ainsworth teaches:
Wherein the location data is received at a reporting rate associated with a first time interval, and wherein altering the mode of operation includes changing the reporting rate to a second time interval, wherein the second time interval is different than the first time interval (See at least paragraphs 34, 55, and 56 which describe using a sensor to track condition information and report it at a first frequency, wherein if the condition is above a threshold, an alerted user is able to trigger the sensor to record and report the conditions at a faster frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger, with the system and method of using a sensor to track condition information and report it at a first frequency, wherein if the condition is above a threshold, an alerted user is able to trigger the sensor to record and report the conditions at a faster frequency of Ainsworth. By changing a sensor reporting frequency from a first rate to a faster rate upon detected conditions being beyond a threshold and a user triggering it, a carrier will predictably be able to verify the conditions of a shipment, such as its location or other environmental conditions in a finer manner, thus ensuring that any remedial actions can take place in order to maintain proper delivery.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun and Kodger as applied to claim 40 as stated above, and further in view of Clung et al. (US 2007/0268138 A1) (hereinafter Clung).
With respect to claim 46, Braun/Kodger discloses all of the limitations of claims 40, 42, and 43 as stated above. Braun and Kodger do not explicitly disclose the following, however Clung teaches:
Wherein, in response to the received indication, notifying an additional party of the potential risk associated with the shipped physical object (See at least paragraphs 145, 147, 151, and 158 which describe tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger, with the system and method of tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue of Clung. By alerting other parties to issues with a shipment, such as the police or port authority, remedies can be predictably taken to prevent loss or theft of the shipment, thus ensuring proper delivery can be completed.
With respect to claim 47, Braun/Kodger/Clung discloses all of the limitations of claims 40, 42, 43, and 47 as stated above. In addition, Clung teaches:
Wherein the additional party is a police department closest to a current location of the shipped physical object (See at least paragraphs 145, 147, 151, and 158 which describe tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of using a sensor on a shipment to track and report its location and environmental conditions during delivery, wherein the delivery route includes a scheduled delivery route and geofence, and wherein the system can determine when the sensor detects failed conditions and can notify interested parties of Braun, with the system and method of tracking a shipment that travels along a pre-planned route for delivery through multiple intermediate points, wherein the intermediate points have scheduled time windows for arrival and departure, and when a shipment fails to satisfy a time-based event at the planned locations, determining the potential risk of a failure to delivery according to schedule of Kodger, with the system and method of tracking a shipment using tags and reporting locations to a database, wherein location reports are made and alerts are generated for users regarding whether if conditions are met, and wherein upon a user being alerted to an issue, notifying an additional party, such as the police or local authority, to the issue of Clung. By alerting other parties to issues with a shipment, such as the police or port authority, remedies can be predictably taken to prevent loss or theft of the shipment, thus ensuring proper delivery can be completed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
6 August 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights