DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 05/09/2025
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 1-5, 7-14, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19,201,914 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the claims are taught by claims 1-19 of the reference application (claim 22 teaching current claims 1 and 11, and the other dependents being taught by claims 3-10 and 12-19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 6 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 28 of copending application No. 19,201,914 in view of Berger et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20090322510; hereinafter "Berger"). Claims 2 and 28 teach each limitation of claim 6, but do not appear to teach a corresponding code that is uniquely assigned to uniquely identify the occurrence of a detected event.
Berger, however, teaches the receipt of event entries including an identifier which identifies the type of event as well as the date and time at which the event occurs. (Berger: paragraph [00256, 351-352], Fig. 7) Berger teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of the copending application for the benefit of enabling effective near-real-time, end-to-end monitoring and tracking of the location and status of secured shipping containers. (Berger: paragraph [0006]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Berger with the teachings of the copending application to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 5 and 15, each of the claims recites an optional step of receiving secondary information. Subsequently, each claim requires the generation of a report and transmission of the report using the secondary information which is only optionally received. Therefore, it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether the step is truly optional or not, since the claim first recites the receipt of secondary information as optional, but then actually requires steps to be performed using this secondary information thereafter. Since it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is optional, the scope of the claim is not clear, and claims 28 and 38 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harring et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130342343; hereinafter "Harring") in view of Meyers, Richard (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190027069; hereinafter "Meyers") further in view of Prabhakar et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20200019931; hereinafter "Prabhakar").
As per claim 1, Harring teaches:
A shipment monitoring service (SMS) system comprising:
Harring teaches a system and method for tracking communication devices affixed to cargo containers. (Harring: abstract) Harring further teaches that the system may track doors being opened or closed. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58])
a memory having stored thereon program instructions for enabling concurrent tracking of a plurality of different shipments each comprising cargo in a sealable container being transported by one or more operators of one or more transport vessels from an origination point to at least one destination point,
Harring teaches a shipment monitoring server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0025], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the computing devices used in the system and method may comprise processors which execute code stored in memory in order to perform their functions. (Harring: paragraph [0097-98]) Harring further teaches multiple shipment containers 103 which may be tracked by the system as they travel along a route from an origin to a destination. (Harring: paragraph [0021, 23, 48], Fig. 1, 3)
With respect to the following limitation:
the program instructions further comprising an access reporting and monitoring (ARM) device monitoring module for tracking and reporting on a state of a plurality of ARM devices, each ARM device deployed with a container to track a sealed and unsealed state of a cable locking mechanism used to physically seal an access door of the container;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114, wherein the tracking device may comprise a door monitoring sensor. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31, 44], Fig. 1) Harring, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a cable seal used to detect the unsealing.
Meyers, however, teaches a cable seal which is used to detect whether a freight container has been opened, wherein the device may send and alert when the cable seal has been cut. (Meyers: paragraphs [0014-15, 28], Figs. 4, 6) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Harring, or by Meyers. Applying the door sensors of Harring using the cable seal sensor of Meyers does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Harring. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Meyers with the teachings of Harring, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to the following limitation:
a communication subsystem that enables the SMS server to communicatively connect via one or more networks to secondary devices including a first intermediary communication device co-located with a first container having a first ARM device assigned to monitor a seal and unsealed status of the cable locking mechanism attached as an access door seal of the first container,
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that any tampering with the device in the form of jamming or tampering may be detected and reported. (Harring: paragraphs [0050-51, 59, 64-65]) Harring, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the gateway devices are co-located with the containers themselves.
Prabhakar, however, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Harring or by Prabhakar. Requiring that the gateway device be co-located with the vehicle, as taught by Prabhakar does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Harring in view of Meyers. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Prabhakar with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further teaches:
the first intermediary communication device communicatively connects, via short range wireless communication to the first ARM device, receives ARM device status information and seal/unseal messages from the first ARM device, and reports a sealed and unsealed status of the access door, as detected and reported by the first ARM device, within messages transmitted to the SMS server;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar, as outlined, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle and therefore teaches a short range wireless communication from the tracking device to the gateway. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
and a processor communicatively connected to the memory and to the communication subsystem, the processor processing the program instructions and is configured to cause the SMS server to:
Harring teaches a shipment monitoring server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0025], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the computing devices used in the system and method may comprise processors which execute code stored in memory in order to perform their functions. (Harring: paragraph [0097-98])
in response to receiving an ARM device message indicating an unsealed or a tampered status of the access door seal being monitored by the first ARM device:
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may receive the data, normalize the data, and store it. (Harring: paragraph [0027-31]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
parse the ARM device message for information related to an actual time and location at which the ARM device detected unsealing of or tampering with the access door seal;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may receive the data, normalize the data, and store it. (Harring: paragraph [0027-31]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
compare the actual time and location to an expected time and location at which a scheduled, authorized unlocking of the container is expected;
Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
and in response to the actual time and location not being within a threshold range of the expected time and location, generate and transmit notifications, via the communication subsystem, alerting at least one interested party identified with the shipment of an unexpected or unscheduled unseal event.
Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. In teaching that the two do not match, Harring and Prabhakar teach a threshold time range (an amount just outside of zero) for each.
As per claim 2, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in transmitting the notifications, the processor configures the SMS system to: transmit an alert to a mobile terminal of an operator of the transporting the shipment, the alert triggering the mobile terminal to output a notification indicating at least one of tampering with the access door seal, unscheduled unsealing of the access door seal and a potential theft of cargo within the container.
Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Harring further teaches employees (operators) and end users who may be notified. (Harring: paragraph [0041-42]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. In teaching that the two do not match, Harring and Prabhakar teach a threshold time range (an amount just outside of zero) for each.
As per claim 3, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor further configures the SMS system to: receive a copy of an event data log generated by the first ARM device, the event data log presenting a log of events related to a sealing time and location and subsequent tempering with the cable seal and/or accesses to a shipment container and events detected via the first ARM device, the event data log locally compiled and stored at the first ARM device until uploaded to the SMS system via the intermediary device;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar, as outlined, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle and therefore teaches a short range wireless communication from the tracking device to the gateway. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
and store the copy of the event data log within an ARM device tracking database maintained by the system.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar, as outlined, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle and therefore teaches a short range wireless communication from the tracking device to the gateway. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
As per claim 4, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the log of events comprises entries corresponding to one or more trigger conditions detected by the first ARM device from among detection of a cut in the attached security cable, detection of an opening of the ARM device, detection of an increasing of a length of the security cable, loss of connectivity of the security cable to one or both cable receptacles of the ARM device, vertical movement of the ARM device beyond a threshold distance from a resting location after the seal is triggered/activated, signal interference indicative of a blocking of a Bluetooth transmission or a person holding or touching the ARM device.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar, as outlined, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle and therefore teaches a short range wireless communication from the tracking device to the gateway. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
As per claim 5, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor further configures the SMS system to: receive, within the ARM device message, a log of events occurring with the access door seal and stored on the ARM device;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
optionally receive secondary information indicating the access door was unsealed;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
generate an incident report to include the secondary information and the actual time and location the event was detected;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
and transmit the incident report to at least one additional interested party from among a group comprising a shipper, a recipient of the cargo, an insurance company, and law enforcement.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D) Harring further teaches employees (operators) and end users who may be notified. (Harring: paragraph [0041-42])
As per claim 7, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor further configures the SMS system to: receive a first ARM device message comprising a unique identifier (ID) of the first ARM device, a time and location at which the first ARM device was activated, and identifying information about the container with the access door seal being monitored by the first ARM device;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
store information from the first ARM device message in a repository along with an indication of the expected location and time at which the first ARM device should report the access door seal being unsealed;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) Prabhakar further teaches that an incident record may comprise the time and location an event was detected. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
initiate tracking of the shipment and monitoring for receipt of messages from the associated first ARM device as a shipment monitoring security function, each message received from the first ARM device tagged with the ID of the first ARM device;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
and in response to receiving a subsequent ARM device message with the same ID, update the repository with details from the ARM device message.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) Prabhakar further teaches that an incident record may comprise the time and location an event was detected. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
As per claim 11, Harring teaches:
A method comprising:
Harring teaches a system and method for tracking communication devices affixed to cargo containers. (Harring: abstract) Harring further teaches that the system may track doors being opened or closed. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58])
With respect to the following limitation:
receiving, via a communication subsystem of a SMS server, an ARM device message indicating an unsealed status of an access door seal being monitored by a first ARM device, the first ARM device deployed with a container to track a sealed and unsealed state of a cable locking mechanism comprising a cable intertwined around and affixed to securely seal an access door of the container;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114, wherein the tracking device may comprise a door monitoring sensor. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31, 44], Fig. 1) Harring, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a cable seal used to detect the unsealing, or that the access devices are co-located with a container.
Meyers, however, teaches a cable seal which is used to detect whether a freight container has been opened, wherein the device may send and alert when the cable seal has been cut. (Meyers: paragraphs [0014-15, 28], Figs. 4, 6) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Harring, or by Meyers. Applying the door sensors of Harring using the cable seal sensor of Meyers does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Harring. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Meyers with the teachings of Harring, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prabhakar, however, teaches a gateway device 120 which forwards information from a tracking device 122 on a vehicle to a central system 112, wherein the gateway device may be co-located with the vehicle. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0026-27], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Harring or by Prabhakar. Requiring that the gateway device be co-located with the vehicle, as taught by Prabhakar does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Harring in view of Meyers. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Prabhakar with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further teaches:
and in response to receiving the ARM device message indicating an unsealed or a tampered status of the access door seal being monitored by the first ARM device:
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may receive the data, normalize the data, and store it. (Harring: paragraph [0027-31]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
parsing the ARM device message for information related to an actual time and location at which the ARM device detected unsealing of or tampering with the access door seal;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may receive the data, normalize the data, and store it. (Harring: paragraph [0027-31]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
comparing the actual time and location to an expected time and location at which a scheduled, authorized unlocking of the container is expected;
Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
and in response to the actual time and location not being within a threshold range of the expected time and location, generating and transmitting notifications alerting at least one interested party identified with the shipment of the unexpected or unscheduled unseal event.
Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. In teaching that the two do not match, Harring and Prabhakar teach a threshold time range (an amount just outside of zero) for each.
As per claims 12-15 and 17, Harring inv eiw fo Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-5 and 7, and claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-5 and 17, as outlined above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of Berger et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20090322510; hereinafter "Berger").
As per claim 6, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the log of events comprises one or more entries that comprise a corresponding code that is assigned to uniquely identify the occurrence of a detected event, each entry of the log of events comprising a date, time, and location of the event and a cable status from among intact/sealed, cut/unsealed, severed, and tampered.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Harring further teaches that the central server may compare a location of the door unsealing to an expected location, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Harring: paragraph [0056-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that a time at which a door was unsealed may be compared to an expected time, and if the two do not match, an alert may be generated. (Prabhakar: paragraphs [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring further teaches an event log which indicates all of the events which have occurred with respect to the device, wherein the system may store and display this information to the user. (Harring: paragraph [0031, 34, 38, 70, 93], Fig. 8D)
Berger, however, teaches the receipt of event entries including an identifier which identifies the type of event as well as the date and time at which the event occurs. (Berger: paragraph [00256, 351-352], Fig. 7) Berger teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar for the benefit of enabling effective near-real-time, end-to-end monitoring and tracking of the location and status of secured shipping containers. (Berger: paragraph [0006]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Berger with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 16, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of Berger teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 6, and claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6, as outlined above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of AmericanSeals.com (webarchive screengran of 07/09/2020, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20200709205422/https://www.americanseals.com/product/pull-tight-cable-seal-model-joeguard-78inch/; hereinafter "American Seals") and further in view of ShippingandFreightResource.com; ("How to seal a shipping container and how many seals it should have", available at: https://www.shippingandfreightresource.com/how-to-seal-a-shipping-container/, 03/14/2018 (Year: 2018); hereinafter "Shipping and Freight").
As per claim 8, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the first ARM device is configured to operate as a monitoring and reporting device for the access door seal, wherein the first ARM device is electrically coupled to an associated extended cable as a part of the cable locking mechanism that is intertwined and wrapped around or threaded through locking mechanisms of both panels of the access door to provide the access door seal that prevents an opening of either of the door panels of the access door without physically removing or cutting the cable of the cable locking mechanism, wherein a physical removal or cutting of the cable triggers the first ARM device to report an unsealing of the access door seal via transmission of a short range wireless communication comprising ARM device status information and an unseal event message.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar, however, does not appear to teach this specific type of intertwining the cable.
American seals, however, in the image displayed on page 1, teaches that a cable seal may be wound around both lockrods of a shipment container door, and through the holes at each door handle of the container. American Seals further teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar for the benefit of providing evident benefits in the transportation and logistics sectors and providing a practical way to protect goods from tampering, theft, unauthorized access, and contamination which can benefit a business. (American Seals: page 2 "Applications") Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of American Seals with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
To be thorough, and to the extent that American Seals does not explicitly teach that the cable is wound through the holes of both door handles, Shipping and Freight teaches this element. Shipping and Freight teaches that the cable seal may be placed on either or both of the door handles of the lock rods. (Shipping and Freight: Figures on page 1 and 2, "Where on the container should I put the Seal?") It can be seen that each element is taught by either Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals, or by Shipping and Freight. Ensuring that the cable goes between the holes of both door handles does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Shipping and Freight with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 18, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 8, and claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, as outlined above.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight and further in view of Barcala et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180040224; hereinafter "Barcala").
As per claim 9, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
the ARM device communicates via Bluetooth low energy (BLE) transmission to the intermediary device, which is a BLE receiving device communicatively coupled via BLE connection protocol to the ARM device and which forwards the ARM device message with seal/unseal/tamper status information to the SMS server, the ARM device message comprising a current status of the cable and at least one of a device unique BLE identification (ID) and a cable seal ID;
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the receipt of a unique event code.
Barcala, however, teaches that a mobile transceiver 102 may be mounted on a truck door and may comprise a door sensor used to detect opening of the door, wherein the transceiver may talk to an intermediate device 240 via a BLE transceiver 118 in order to talk to a tracking server 200. (Barcala: paragraphs [0049, 55, 65, 67, 68], Fig. 1, 6A) Barcala teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight for the benefit of providing a tracking device which is power efficient and which has an extended battery life. (Barcala: paragraph [0019]) Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barcala with the teachings of Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight and further in view of Barcala further teaches:
and the processor receives the ARM device messages from the intermediary device.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists.
As per claim 10, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight and further in view of Barcala teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the ARM device detects and reports to the intermediary device any detected cutting of the cable or any tampering with the ARM device after the cable has been intertwined around both of the handles for the two panels of the access door of the container and electrically coupled to the ARM device and after the ARM device has been activated to start monitoring and reporting a status of the access door seal.
Harring further teaches that the containers 108 contain tracking devices (ARM devices) and may provide data to one or more gateway devices 110, 112 (intermediary devices) which may provide the data to the server 114. (Harring: paragraph [0023-24, 31], Fig. 1) Harring further teaches that the sensor information transmitted and forwarded may comprise door sensor readings indicating whether the door to the container has been breached and where the door was breached. (Harring: paragraphs [0040, 44, 56-58]) Prabhakar further teaches that the event record sent from the device 122 to the gateway 120 to the central system may comprise an identifier of the vehicle container and a timestamp for the event. (Prabhakar: paragraph [0031, 35, 37]) The motivation to combine Prabhakar persists. American seals, as outlined above, in the image displayed on page 1, teaches that a cable seal may be wound around both lockrods of a shipment container door, and through the holes at each door handle of the container. The motivation to combine American Seals persists.
As per claim 19, Harring in view of Meyers further in view of Prabhakar and further in view of American Seals and further in view of Shipping and Freight and further in view of Barcala teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 9, and claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights