Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 4-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan et al (US 20070152833). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims radio frequency identification (RFID) system, comprising: an RFID tag the radar system determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and received by the radar receiver (claim 12)
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated according to the one or more parameters Kaplan teaches an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated according to the one or more parameters (para 35, “controller 401 includes memory to store a tag identification (ID) number and possibly other internal parameters such as the period between transmissions of the ID and the center frequency of transmission. Controller 401 feeds the data to a timing circuitry 402 which includes a high-frequency oscillator and controls the timing of the transmission and modulation, The modulation method preferably uses pulse position modulation (PPM)”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims the radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode to allow the RFID reader circuit to determine the data; and the radar transmitter is to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag (claim 11).
With respect to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter. Kaplan teaches the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter (para 35, “controller 401 includes memory to store a tag identification (ID) number and possibly other internal parameters such as the period between transmissions of the ID and the center frequency of transmission. Controller 401 feeds the data to a timing circuitry 402 which includes a high-frequency oscillator and controls the timing of the transmission and modulation, The modulation method preferably uses pulse position modulation (PPM)”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims the characteristic includes a pulse repetition frequency (claim 13).
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan and Zand (US 20100253481).
With respect to claim 8, Zand teaches the radar system is configured to determine a position of the RFID tag based on a round trip time of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round- trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the radar system is configured to determine a position of the RFID tag based on a round trip time of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine distance to an RFID tag to yield a predictable RFID system.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan and Shafer (US 20080061976).
With respect to claim 9, Shafer teaches the radar system is configured to determine a speed of the RFID tag based on a Doppler frequency shift in the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag. para 4, “monitoring the relative directional movement and speed of an article within an RFID interrogation zone by use of Doppler detection circuitry incorporated within an RFID surveillance system”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the radar system is configured to determine a speed of the RFID tag based on a Doppler frequency shift in the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag because it would help track the object.
Claim 10-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan et al (US 20070152833) and Federman (US 6456191).
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit pulses of a radio frequency electromagnetic wave; a receiver configured to receive the pulses of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by an object; a radar circuit of a radar system configured to determine at least a distance, a direction or a speed of the object based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver; and a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (claim 18)
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system. Kaplan teaches the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system (para 35, “controller 401 includes memory to store a tag identification (ID) number and possibly other internal parameters such as the period between transmissions of the ID and the center frequency of transmission. Controller 401 feeds the data to a timing circuitry 402 which includes a high-frequency oscillator and controls the timing of the transmission and modulation, The modulation method preferably uses pulse position modulation (PPM)”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object. Federman teaches a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object (col 5, lines 39-56, “The master TX/RX time line also shows the first three time windows (the bit 23 window, the bit 22 window and the bit 21 window) of the exchange between the master and the two tags. The first time window of any exchange between a master and one or more tags begins at a predetermined time period after the master sends the bit-by-bit command”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object because it is merely a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected result.
With respect to claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims a duplexer configured to couple the radar circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a first mode, and couple the RFID reader circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a second mode (claim 18)
With respect to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims the reader circuit controls the transmitter to modulate data on a radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitter (claim 19)
With respect to claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims the receiver has a matched filter configured to receive an input signal generated according to the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (claim 21)
With respect to claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims a pulse width of an output of the matched filter is smaller than a pulse width of the input (claim 21)
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan et al (US 20070152833) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 claims method, comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic wave from a radar transmitter toward an object having an RFID tag, the electromagnetic wave including a pulse of an electromagnetic wave configured to allow a radar system to monitor at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects, wherein: the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver (claim 21).
With respect to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system. Kaplan teaches modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 88330062 does not claim modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command. Kaplan teaches modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag (para 35) and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
Claim 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan and Suzuki et al (US 20050226518).
With respect to claim 16, Suzuki teaches the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). line”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 17, Suzuki teaches the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
Claim 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 of U.S. Patent No. 88330062 in view of Kaplan and Zand (US 20100253481).
With respect to claim 19, Zand teaches the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave (para 36, “this invention what is intended by a narrowband carrier is a continuous or hopping wave with or without modulated data with a maximum bandwidth of 150 MHz, and what is intended by a wideband signal is one which has a bandwidth of at least 250 MHz”); and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round- trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
With respect to claim 20, Zand teaches transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round-trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 88330062 to include transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10571558. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, comprising: an antenna; a transceiver coupled to the antenna and configured to receive radar pulses transmitted by a radar system, wherein the radar system receives reflection of the radar pulses and determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of the RFID tag from the reflection of the radar pulses; and a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system, controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data (claim 1).
With respect to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the controller is coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses when a radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode; and the radar transmitter is configured to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag (claim 2).
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims radio frequency identification (RFID) system, comprising: an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and having a controller that adjusts states of the RFID tag, wherein: the states include a first state and a second state, the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state, and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated according to the one or more parameters; and a radar system including: a radar transmitter, a radar receiver, and an RFID reader circuit, wherein: the radar receiver receives a pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and reflected by the RFID tag, the RFID reader circuit determines, from the pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver, the data reflected by the RFID tag, and the radar system determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and received by the radar receiver (claim 1)
With respect to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode to allow the RFID reader circuit to determine the data; and the radar transmitter is to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag (claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter (claim 2).
With respect to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the characteristic includes a pulse repetition frequency (claim 11)
With respect to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the radar system is configured to determine a position of the RFID tag based on a round trip time of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave (claim 3).
With respect to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the radar system is configured to determine a speed of the RFID tag based on a Doppler frequency shift in the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag (claim 4).
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit pulses of a radio frequency electromagnetic wave; a receiver configured to receive the pulses of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by an object; a radar circuit of a radar system configured to determine at least a distance, a direction or a speed of the object based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver; and a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver, wherein the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system; and wherein a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object (claim 5 or 7).
With respect to claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims a duplexer configured to couple the radar circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a first mode, and couple the RFID reader circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a second mode (claim 5)
With respect to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the reader circuit controls the transmitter to modulate data on a radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitter (claim 5 or 7)
With respect to claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims the receiver has a matched filter configured to receive an input signal generated according to the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (claim 7)
With respect to claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims a pulse width of an output of the matched filter is smaller than a pulse width of the input (claim 7)
With respect to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 10571558 claims method, comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic wave from a radar transmitter toward an object having an RFID tag, the electromagnetic wave including a pulse of an electromagnetic wave configured to allow a radar system to monitor at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects, wherein: the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system and according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state; receiving, in a radar receiver of the radar system, the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag; determining, by the radar system, at least a distance, a direction, or a speed of the object; and extracting, via a reader circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver (claim 5 or 7)
Claim 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10571558 in view of and Suzuki et al (US 20050226518).
With respect to claim 16, Suzuki teaches the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). line”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10571558 to include the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 17, Suzuki teaches the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10571558 to include the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
Claim 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10571558 in view of Zand (US 20100253481).
With respect to claim 19, Zand teaches the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave (para 36, “this invention what is intended by a narrowband carrier is a continuous or hopping wave with or without modulated data with a maximum bandwidth of 150 MHz, and what is intended by a wideband signal is one which has a bandwidth of at least 250 MHz”); and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round- trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10571558 to include the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
With respect to claim 20, Zand teaches transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round-trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10571558 to include transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11237262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, comprising: an antenna; a transceiver coupled to the antenna and configured to receive radar pulses transmitted by a radar system, wherein the radar system receives reflection of the radar pulses and determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of the RFID tag from the reflection of the radar pulses; and a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system, controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data (claim 1).
With respect to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the controller is coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses when a radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode; and the radar transmitter is configured to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag (claim 2).
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims radio frequency identification (RFID) system, comprising: an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and having a controller that adjusts states of the RFID tag, wherein: the states include a first state and a second state, the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state, and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated according to the one or more parameters; and a radar system including: a radar transmitter, a radar receiver, and an RFID reader circuit, wherein: the radar receiver receives a pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and reflected by the RFID tag, the RFID reader circuit determines, from the pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver, the data reflected by the RFID tag, and the radar system determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and received by the radar receiver (claim 3)
With respect to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode to allow the RFID reader circuit to determine the data; and the radar transmitter is to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag (claim 3).
With respect to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter (claim 4).
With respect to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the characteristic includes a pulse repetition frequency (claim 5)
With respect to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the radar system is configured to determine a position of the RFID tag based on a round trip time of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave (claim 6).
With respect to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the radar system is configured to determine a speed of the RFID tag based on a Doppler frequency shift in the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag (claim 7).
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit pulses of a radio frequency electromagnetic wave; a receiver configured to receive the pulses of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by an object; a radar circuit of a radar system configured to determine at least a distance, a direction or a speed of the object based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver; and a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver, wherein the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system; and wherein a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object (claim 8).
With respect to claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims a duplexer configured to couple the radar circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a first mode, and couple the RFID reader circuit to the transmitter and the receiver in a second mode (claim 8)
With respect to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the reader circuit controls the transmitter to modulate data on a radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitter (claim 9)
With respect to claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the receiver has a matched filter configured to receive an input signal generated according to the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (claim 10)
With respect to claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims a pulse width of an output of the matched filter is smaller than a pulse width of the input (claim 11)
With respect to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims method, comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic wave from a radar transmitter toward an object having an RFID tag, the electromagnetic wave including a pulse of an electromagnetic wave configured to allow a radar system to monitor at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects, wherein: the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system and according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state; receiving, in a radar receiver of the radar system, the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag; determining, by the radar system, at least a distance, a direction, or a speed of the object; and extracting, via a reader circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver (claim 12)
With respect to claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter (claim 13)
With respect to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave (claim 14).
With respect to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag; and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command (claim 12).
With respect to claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave; and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave (claim 15).
With respect to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11237262 claims transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver (claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20070046433) in view of Kaplan et al (US 20070152833).
With respect to claim 1, Mukherjee teaches a radio frequency identification tag (fig 1, item 113), comprising: an antenna; a transceiver coupled to the antenna and configured to receive radar pulses transmitted by a radar system (para 25, “ RFIDs 112A-N may not provide a perfect match to the respective antennas 111, 113 and 115 and therefore will reflect part of the energy back referred to herein as "RF backscatter" to be receive by probing platform 101”), the radar system receives reflection of the radar pulses and determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of the RFID tag from the reflection of the radar pulses (para 58, “Such signals may provide a user with co-ordinate information such as range, azimuth and elevation”)
With respect to claim 1, Mukherjee does not teach a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system. Kaplan teaches a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system (para 35, “Controller 401 feeds the data to a timing circuitry 402 which includes a high-frequency oscillator and controls the timing of the transmission and modulation, The modulation method preferably uses pulse position modulation (PPM). The actual transmission format is generated by timing circuitry 402 in conjunction with a short Barker sequence generator module 403 and pulser 404 which feed a programmable band-pass filter”), the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data (abs, “The receiver circuitry locks on a repetition frequency of the incoming received waveforms, and based on the repetition frequency generates a pulse repetition frequency of the transmit signal”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include a controller coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses according to one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response. It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan to include the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data because it would allow the RFID tag to communicate with the reader.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “the radar system receives reflection of the radar pulses and determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of the RFID tag from the reflection of the radar pulses” is not part of the RFID tag and therefore by broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not need to be found in the prior art to reject the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution Mukherjee paragraph 58 is cited as teaching the feature.
With respect to claim 2, Mukherjee teaches the controller is coupled to the transceiver to modulate the reflection of the radar pulses when a radar transmitter transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic wave in a first mode (para 58, “the transmitted and backscattered signals may be cross-correlated in the probing platform 110 using techniques used in, for example, Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar principle, and the like. Such signals may provide a user with co-ordinate information such as range, azimuth and elevation”); and the radar transmitter is configured to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “the radar transmitter is configured to transmit in a second mode to determine a range of the RFID tag” is not part of the RFID tag and therefore by broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 does not need to be found in the prior art to reject the claim. It is also unclear what this statement is modifying and it is unclear what the RFID tag should do for the radar transmitter is transmitting in a second mode.
Claim 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20070046433) in view of Kaplan et al (US 20070152833) and Nitzen et al (US 20060001528).
With respect to claim 4, Mukherjee teaches a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, comprising: an RFID tag, a radar system including: a radar transmitter, a radar receiver, and an RFID reader circuit, wherein: the radar receiver receives a pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and reflected by the RFID tag (para 25, “ RFIDs 112A-N may not provide a perfect match to the respective antennas 111, 113 and 115 and therefore will reflect part of the energy back referred to herein as "RF backscatter" to be receive by probing platform 101”), the RFID reader circuit determines, from the pulse of radio frequency electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver, the data reflected by the RFID tag, and the radar system determines at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and received by the radar receiver (para 58, “Such signals may provide a user with co-ordinate information such as range, azimuth and elevation”).
With respect to claim 4, Mukherjee does not teach an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and having a controller that adjusts states of the RFID tag and modulating data according to one or more parameters. Kaplan teaches an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and having a controller that adjusts states of the RFID tag and modulating data according to one or more parameters (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include an RFID tag storing one or more parameters that characterize radar signals used in the system and having a controller that adjusts states of the RFID tag and modulating data according to one or more parameters because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 4, Nitzan teaches the states include a first state and a second state, the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state, and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated (para 7, “the transponder modulates the information to be transmitted to the reader onto the backscattered radiation using backscatter modulation. The IC modulates a radar cross-section (RCS) of the transponder antenna by varying the impedance at the feed-point of the antenna). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include the states include a first state and a second state, the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state, and data in reflected radar pulses reflected from the RFID tag is modulated because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Nitzen to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 6, Kaplan teaches the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter (para 35 and abs). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include the RFID tag modulates the radio frequency electromagnetic wave according to a predetermined characteristic of electromagnetic waves transmitted by the radar transmitter because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
Regarding claim 7, Kaplan teaches the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data (abs, The receiver circuitry locks on a repetition frequency of the incoming received waveforms, and based on the repetition frequency generates a pulse repetition frequency of the transmit signal”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data because it would allow the RFID tag to communicate with the reader.
Claim 10 and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20070046433) in view of Kaplan and Federman (US 6456191).
With respect to claim 10, Mukherjee teaches a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit pulses of a radio frequency electromagnetic wave; a receiver configured to receive the pulses of the radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by an object; a radar circuit of a radar system configured to determine at least a distance, a direction or a speed of the object based on pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (para 58).
With respect to claim 10, Mukherjee does not teach a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver and the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system. Kaplan teaches a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (para 35 and 38) and the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include a reader circuit configured to determine data modulated on the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver and the object modulates the data on the pulses reflected by the object using a controller according to one or more parameters stored in the object that characterize radar signals used in the system because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 10, Mukherjee does not teach a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object. Federman teaches a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object (col 5, lines 39-56, “The master TX/RX time line also shows the first three time windows (the bit 23 window, the bit 22 window and the bit 21 window) of the exchange between the master and the two tags. The first time window of any exchange between a master and one or more tags begins at a predetermined time period after the master sends the bit-by-bit command”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include a predetermined number of bits of the data are modulated on each of the pulses reflected by the object because it is merely a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected result.
With respect to claim 12, Kaplan teaches the reader circuit controls the transmitter to modulate data on a radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitter (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include the reader circuit controls the transmitter to modulate data on a radio frequency electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitter because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Federman as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 8045654).
With respect to claim 13, Anderson teaches the receiver has a matched filter configured to receive an input signal generated according to the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver (col 1, lines 54-62, “received signal is passed through a matched filter to produce a compressed pulse of width 1/B”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Federman to include the receiver has a matched filter configured to receive an input signal generated according to the pulses of radio frequency electromagnetic wave reflected by the object and received in the receiver because it would filter out the maximum amount of signal out of the received signal.
With respect to claim 14, Anderson teaches a pulse width of an output of the matched filter is smaller than a pulse width of the input (col 1, lines 54-62, “The pulse compression ratio is equal to BT. Frequency and phase modulations are typically used for pulse compression”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Federman to include a pulse width of an output of the matched filter is smaller than a pulse width of the input because it would filter out the maximum amount of signal out of the received signal.
Claim 15 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20070046433) in view of Kaplan and Nitzen et al (US 20060001528).
With respect to claim 15, Mukherjee teaches a method, comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic wave from a radar transmitter toward an object having an RFID tag, the electromagnetic wave including a pulse of an electromagnetic wave configured to allow a radar system to monitor at least one of distance, direction and speed of objects (para 58), receiving, in a radar receiver of the radar system, the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag; determining, by the radar system, at least a distance, a direction, or a speed of the object (para 58, “Such signals may provide a user with co-ordinate information such as range, azimuth and elevation”).
With respect to claim 15, Mukherjee does not teach the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system and extracting, via a reader circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver. Kaplan teaches the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system (para 35), and extracting, via a reader circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include the RFID tag includes a controller that modulates reflection of the electromagnetic wave based on one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag that characterize radar signals used in the system and extracting, via a reader circuit, the data modulated on the electromagnetic wave reflected by the RFID tag and received in the radar receiver because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 15, Mukherjee does not teach according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state. Nitzan teaches according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state (para 7, “the transponder modulates the information to be transmitted to the reader onto the backscattered radiation using backscatter modulation. The IC modulates a radar cross-section (RCS) of the transponder antenna by varying the impedance at the feed-point of the antenna); according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state. It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state according to a first state or a second state of the RFID tag, and the RFID tag is more reflective in the second state than in the first state because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Nitzen to yield a predictable RFID response.
With respect to claim 18, Kaplan teaches modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag (abs and para 35); and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command (para 35). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee to include modulating an electromagnetic wave to represent a command to the RFID tag and transmitting the electromagnetic wave modulated with the command from the radar transmitter to the RFID tag; wherein the modulating of the electromagnetic wave reflected using the RFID tag according to the one or more parameters stored in the RFID tag is in response to the command because it is merely a substitution of the well-known method to respond to an interrogation of Mukherjee with the method to respond to an interrogation of Kaplan to yield a predictable RFID response.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (US 20050226518).
With respect to claim 16, Suzuki teaches the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). line”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen to include the RFID tag modulates the data on a plurality of separate pulses transmitted from the radar transmitter because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 17, Suzuki teaches the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 83, “Many compression methods are based on differential pulse code modulation (DPCM), which creates a "predictor" from some linear function of the pixels preceding a point in a scan line”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen to include the pulse of electromagnetic wave is modulated to achieve pulse compression in detecting the reflected electromagnetic wave because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to transmit data with no new or unexpected results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zand (US 20100253481).
With respect to claim 19, Zand teaches the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave (para 36, “this invention what is intended by a narrowband carrier is a continuous or hopping wave with or without modulated data with a maximum bandwidth of 150 MHz, and what is intended by a wideband signal is one which has a bandwidth of at least 250 MHz”); and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round- trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen to include the radar transmitter continuously transmitting the electromagnetic wave while the radar receiver receives reflected the electromagnetic wave and the method further comprises: comparing the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the radar transmitter and the reflected electromagnetic wave received by the radar receiver to determine a round trip time of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the reflected electromagnetic wave because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
With respect to claim 20, Zand teaches transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver (para 39 and 47, “the distance between Reader and Tag by subtraction of the processing delay from half the round-trip time of flight”). It would have been obvious to modify Mukherjee in view of Kaplan and Nitzen to include transmitting a separate electromagnetic wave from the radar transmitter toward the object; receiving the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object using the radar receiver, and determining a range to the object or a rate of changing range to the object based on the separate electromagnetic wave reflected from the object and received using the radar receiver because it would allow the RFID reader to track the tag through a space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues
1) Neither Mukherjee, Copeland, Nitzan, nor Federman (as well as the other cited art of record), solely or combined, describes or suggests at least “the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data”, as recited in currently amended claim 1.
Response: Neither Mukherjee, Copeland, Nitzan, nor Federman are not cited as teaching “the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data”. Kaplan is cited as teaching “the controller is configured to determine a pulse repetition frequency of signals of the radar system to modulate the data in abstract where it states “The receiver circuitry locks on a repetition frequency of the incoming received waveforms, and based on the repetition frequency generates a pulse repetition frequency of the transmit signal”)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagai (US 20070241864) teaches “a control operation to control the modulating/demodulating portion 68 for generating the reply wave by modulating the interrogating wave received by the antenna portion 56, on the basis of the information signal stored in the memory portion”. The modulating demodulating portion could not generate a reply wave without knowing a parameter of the radar signal.
Hsieh et al (US 200700577773) teaches “The number of bits of A/D resolution can be configured via the reader (interrogator) with a protocol and be stored within the universal radio frequency identification sensing system's memory”). The A/D resolution can interpreted as a radar signal parameter. Or in paragraph 37 “The configuration properly includes communication protocols, such as bit-rate, communication mode, and password”.
Obrea et al (US 20060127097) teaches in paragraph 18, “A response code control 42 may be connected to the response code storage and drive 40 to alter the number, duration, spacing, and modulation frequency of the pulses comprising the response code signal.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights