DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser US 2024/0390231 (via provisional application 63/467,750) hereinafter referred to as Steinhauser in view of Volkerink et al. US 2022/0122436 hereinafter referred to as Volkerink.
In regards to claim 1, Steinhuaser teaches
“A device for protecting against tampering, the device comprising: connecting means for removably connecting the device to a vessel”
Steinhauser paragraph [0043] and Figure 1A teaches the medicine containment portion 104 includes a threaded connector 115 that attaches with a corresponded threaded portion 116 at the top 117 of a housing 118 the sensor portion 108 such that the medicine containment portion 104 and sensor portion 108 can be readily attached (FIG. 1B) or separated (FIG. 1A) from one another.
“imaging means for capturing frames of one or more imaging areas while the device is removably connected to the vessel via the connecting means, the one or more imaging areas including at least one imaging area corresponding to an opening of the vessel”
Steinhauser paragraph [0014] teaches a feature and advantage of embodiments is a medicine containment cup that is sealed and has a camera to activate at the disruption of the seal. Steinhauser paragraph [0044] teaches In various embodiments the medicine containment portion 104 can include an aperture 126, or transparent or semi-transparent portion that allows the camera to view upwardly through the bottom wall 128 of the medicine containment portion 104 where the medicine containment portion 104 attaches to the sensor portion 108. The Examiner interprets based on Figures 1A-D the upward view would include the opening of the vessel.
Steinhauser does not explicitly teach:
“processing means for detecting, based on the captured frames, a potential tampering with the vessel or contents of the vessel; and alerting means for visually indicating the potential tampering”
Volkerink paragraph [0031] teaches the system analyzes a “before” image of an asset container taken before a potential tampering event and compares it to an “after” image of the asset container after a potential tampering event is detected. Volkerink paragraph [0086] teaches In other embodiments, a wireless node may include a display that indicates whether or not a tampering event has occurred (e.g., the display may be an indicator light or LED). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser in view of Volkerink to have included the features of “processing means for detecting, based on the captured frames, a potential tampering with the vessel or contents of the vessel; and alerting means for visually indicating the potential tampering” because an incident of tampering may have a subtle effect on the affected assets and may be difficult to detect for a human visually or manually inspecting an environment that may have been exposed to tampering (Volkerink [0002]).
In regards to claim 2, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising: storage means for persistently storing at least a subset of the captured frames”
Steinhauser paragraph [0015] teaches in embodiments, the sensor portion may record in a memory in the sensor portion a plurality or multiplicity of medicine consumption events for later transfer.
In regards to claim 3, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to cause the storage means to persistently store the subset of the captured frames in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering”
Volkerink paragraph [0188] teaches In some embodiments, the mobile gateway 812 has cellular communication capabilities and has been transmitting all tampering events to the wireless tracking system 800, as described with reference to FIGS. 8, 14. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser in view of Volkerink to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to cause the storage means to persistently store the subset of the captured frames in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering” because an incident of tampering may have a subtle effect on the affected assets and may be difficult to detect for a human visually or manually inspecting an environment that may have been exposed to tampering (Volkerink [0002]).
In regards to claim 4, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising: communication means for wirelessly transmitting data to an external mobile computing device”
Volkerink paragraph [0086] teaches In some embodiments, a wireless node may directly transmit the notification or alert to the user (e.g., to a client device, such as the mobile gateway 810 of a user 1220). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser in view of Volkerink to have included the features of “further comprising: communication means for wirelessly transmitting data to an external mobile computing device” because an incident of tampering may have a subtle effect on the affected assets and may be difficult to detect for a human visually or manually inspecting an environment that may have been exposed to tampering (Volkerink [0002]).
In regards to claim 10, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the imaging means captures frames covering substantially an entirety of the opening of the vessel”
Steinhauser Figure 1D illustrates the camera has a field of view substantially covering the entirety of the opening.
In regards to claim 11, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering using a trained machine learning model”
Volkerink paragraph [0141] teaches Signals from the sensors used to detect tampering events may be input to a trained machine learning model which classifies events based on input signals. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser in view of Volkerink to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering using a trained machine learning model” because an incident of tampering may have a subtle effect on the affected assets and may be difficult to detect for a human visually or manually inspecting an environment that may have been exposed to tampering (Volkerink [0002]).
In regards to claim 15, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising: powering means for providing power to the device and for charging one or more batteries of the device when the device is coupled to a charging device”
Steinhauser paragraph [0006] teaches sensor portion including the camera, a battery, circuitry, and information transfer means. The dispensing cup may have a tamper evident covering. In embodiments the information transfer means may be a radio frequency transmitter, that can convey signals including images captured by the camera. In embodiments, the sensor portion may include a power transfer means for recharging the battery.
In regards to claim 16, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 16 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 16 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar limitations as in claim 3.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of Hsieh US 2012/0227449 hereinafter referred to as Hsieh.
In regards to claim 5, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 4 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to, in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering, cause the communication means to wirelessly transmit one or more captured frames to the external mobile computing device”
However, transmitting images of a tampering event would be considered a routine implementation that does not cause any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
For example, Hsieh teaches in paragraph [0009] The alarm module is capable of detecting abnormality such as the clamp piece is tampered with, or burglar intrusion by infrared or air pressure variation or vibration sensing or supersonic sensing. When a burglar breaks into the motor vehicle, the alarm module is able to detect the abnormality and thereby is triggered by the abnormality The surveillance module is then activated to start recording the interior of the motor vehicle. In the meantime, the radio communication module transmits the video signal through the mobile communication network to a mobile communication device having a display. The car owner therefore could monitor what happens inside the motor vehicle and decide whether to take further action. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hsieh to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to, in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering, cause the communication means to wirelessly transmit one or more captured frames to the external mobile computing device” because the best of these locks is only to slow down the burglar and there is little effect in actually preventing the theft (Hsieh [0002]).
In regards to claim 6, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 4 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to, in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering, cause the communication means to wirelessly transmit an indication of the potential tampering to the external mobile computing device”
However, transmitting images of a tampering event would be considered a routine implementation that does not cause any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
For example, Hsieh teaches in paragraph [0009] The alarm module is capable of detecting abnormality such as the clamp piece is tampered with, or burglar intrusion by infrared or air pressure variation or vibration sensing or supersonic sensing. When a burglar breaks into the motor vehicle, the alarm module is able to detect the abnormality and thereby is triggered by the abnormality The surveillance module is then activated to start recording the interior of the motor vehicle. In the meantime, the radio communication module transmits the video signal through the mobile communication network to a mobile communication device having a display. The car owner therefore could monitor what happens inside the motor vehicle and decide whether to take further action. Hsieh paragraph [0003] teaches A type of locks that integrate wireless communication is therefore disclosed. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hsieh to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to, in response to the processing means detecting the potential tampering, cause the communication means to wirelessly transmit an indication of the potential tampering to the external mobile computing device” because the best of these locks is only to slow down the burglar and there is little effect in actually preventing the theft (Hsieh [0002]).
In regards to claim 18, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 17 but do not explicitly teach:
“further comprising: wirelessly transmitting, by the device, data to an external mobile computing device, wherein the data includes at least one of (i) one or more of the captured frames or (ii) an indication of the potential tampering, and wherein the wirelessly transmitting is in response to detecting the potential tampering”
Hsieh teaches in paragraph [0009] The alarm module is capable of detecting abnormality such as the clamp piece is tampered with, or burglar intrusion by infrared or air pressure variation or vibration sensing or supersonic sensing. When a burglar breaks into the motor vehicle, the alarm module is able to detect the abnormality and thereby is triggered by the abnormality The surveillance module is then activated to start recording the interior of the motor vehicle. In the meantime, the radio communication module transmits the video signal through the mobile communication network to a mobile communication device having a display. The car owner therefore could monitor what happens inside the motor vehicle and decide whether to take further action. Hsieh paragraph [0003] teaches A type of locks that integrate wireless communication is therefore disclosed. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hsieh to have included the features of “further comprising: wirelessly transmitting, by the device, data to an external mobile computing device, wherein the data includes at least one of (i) one or more of the captured frames or (ii) an indication of the potential tampering, and wherein the wirelessly transmitting is in response to detecting the potential tampering” because the best of these locks is only to slow down the burglar and there is little effect in actually preventing the theft (Hsieh [0002]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of Hoffman US 2017/0184946 hereinafter referred to as Hoffman.
In regards to claim 7, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the connecting means includes a clip or a bracket”
Hoffman Figure 1 illustrates an equivalent of a clip or bracket. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hoffman to have included the features of “wherein the connecting means includes a clip or a bracket” to facilitate the image to be captured thereby inhibiting tampering with the vessel 14 by someone other than the user (Hoffman [0025]).
In regards to claim 12, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by detecting, based on the captured frames, whether an object traverses the opening of the vessel”
Hoffman paragraph [0025] teaches the vessel 14 does not need to be sat down to facilitate the image to be captured thereby inhibiting tampering with the vessel 14 by someone other than the user. The tampering includes clandestine introduction of a drug into a beverage contained in the vessel 14. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hoffman to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by detecting, based on the captured frames, whether an object traverses the opening of the vessel” because the electronic device may capture an image of a user when the user holds the vessel. Thus, the user does not have to set the vessel down to capture the image (Hoffman [0002]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of Hoard et al. US 2022/0351591 hereinafter referred to as Hoard.
In regards to claim 8, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the imaging means includes a camera having a wide-angle lens”
Steinhauser/Volkerink do not disclose the type of lens used on the imaging device however, the choice of a wide angle lens would be considered a routine implementation. Hoard teaches in paragraph [0023] the tamper detector may include at least one data processor and at least one memory storing instructions that result in operations when executed by the at least one data processor. The operations may include: analyzing an image of a current field of view of the camera by at least comparing the image to a reference image of a field of view of the camera. Hoard paragraph [0056] teaches the camera 115 may include one or more wide angle lens or ultra wide angle lens (e.g., fisheye lens and/or the like). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Hoard to have included the features of “wherein the imaging means includes a camera having a/ wide-angle lens” because a prescription pain medication may be diverted when a clinician keeps the prescription pain medication for unauthorized personal use instead of administering the prescription pain medication to a patient or wasting the prescription pain medication (Hoard [0003]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of McCalib, Jr. et al. US 10,474,980 hereinafter referred to as McCalib.
In regards to claim 9, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the imaging means includes one or more cameras collectively providing a 360-degree view”
Steinhauser/Volkerink do not disclose the use of a 360 degree view however, the choice monitor a 360 degree view would be considered a routine implementation. McCalib column 12 lines 37-44 teaches the key holder 350 can comprise a sealable and/or tamper-evident envelope. In this manner, if there is unauthorized access to the temporary key 116—e.g., to make a copy prior to delivery—the unauthorized access will be obvious. As discussed below, initial access to the temporary key 116 by the driver 124 at the secure delivery location 110 can be provided in the video from the camera(s) 126. McCalib column 5 lines 20-21 teaches the camera(s) 126 can comprise a 360-degree camera worn on the driver's helmet or hat. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of McCalib to have included the features of “wherein the imaging means includes one or more cameras collectively providing a 360-degree view” because it would be useful to be able to deliver packages to secure locations using a secure, trusted, and temporary access method (McCalib column 2 lines 8-10).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of Baumgarte et al. US 2019/0130689 hereinafter referred to as Baumgarte.
In regards to claim 13, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by determining, based on the captured frames, whether an individual is within a threshold tampering distance”
Baumgarte paragraph [0052] teaches he sensors 314 may determine whether a person is in the vicinity of the secure container 102. In particular, in some embodiments, a motion sensor may be used to determine when someone has approached the secure container 102, which may prompt activation/waking the camera(s) 308 to record the interaction of that person with the secure container 102. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Baumgarte to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by determining, based on the captured frames, whether an individual is within a threshold tampering distance” because few options exist for homeowners to prevent the theft from ever occurring (Baumgarte [0002]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauser in view of Volkerink in view of Glasgow et al. US 2015/0379796 hereinafter referred to as Glasgow.
In regards to claim 14, Steinhauser/Volkerink teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do /not explicitly teach:
“wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by (i) detecting, based on the captured frames, a face within one or more of the captured frames, and (ii) determining whether the detected face is associated with a trusted individual”
The use of facial recognition for authorization is a well-known process that does not provide any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). For example, Glasgow teaches in paragraph [0030] The camera may be used to capture an image of the recipient 112 and provide the captured image to the authentication module 208 in embodiments having a facial recognition authentication process. The authentication of the image of the recipient 112 may then trigger the unlocking of the container 102. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Steinhauser/Volkerink in view of Glasgow to have included the features of “wherein the processing means is configured to detect the potential tampering at least by (i) detecting, based on the captured frames, a face within one or more of the captured frames, and (ii) determining whether the detected face is associated with a trusted individual” because tamper-evident seals do not secure the container from actually being opened by anyone other than the intended recipient (Glasow [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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 E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights