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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 10, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The rejections of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 19, 20, 25, and 26 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. [U.S. Patent Application 2013/0057390] in view of Skaaksrud et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0297525], and in further view of Mendolia et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0110641]
With regard to claim 1, Watt et al. meets the limitation of:
a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) [a host device used for communicating with RFID tags via a transceiver module (paragraph 0023 and figure 1, items 12, 22, and 28)]
the method comprising for each radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) of a plurality of RFICs of the UE, determining a status of the RFIC based on a temperature associated with the RFIC [RFID tags having the ability to measure environmental conditions like temperature (paragraph 0029)]
selecting an RFIC of the plurality of RFICs [temperature information being obtained from a requested RFID tag when they are in a polling mode (figures 3A and 3B as well as paragraphs 0038 and 0039) where the radio transceiver receives a mode from the RFID tag (paragraph 0043)]
wirelessly communicating data using the selected RFIC [temperature data being transmitted to the host device via the transceiver from the requested RFID tag (paragraph 0038 and 0039)]
However, Watt et al. fails to disclose of a plurality of status and of a plurality of status. In the field of monitoring systems, Skaaksrud et al. teaches:
a plurality of status [RFID sensors measuring and acquiring data related to temperature, humidity, and acceleration (paragraph 0014)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al. and Skaaksrud et al. to create an RFID communications system wherein an RFID interrogator determines a temperature based upon the status of an RFID tag in order to determine if the tag has experienced any type of temperature changes caused by the temperature experienced by the RFID tag. However, the combination of Watt et al. and Skaaksrud et al. fails to disclose of each RFIC is configured to perform wireless communications using beamforming. In the field of RFID communications, Mendolia et al. teaches:
each RFIC is configured to perform wireless communications using beamforming [a multi-beamforming communication network used in communicating with RIFD tags capable of beamforming types of communications (paragraphs 0013, 0017, and 0217)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Mendolia et al. to create an RFID communications system wherein an RFID interrogator determines a temperature based upon the status of an RFID tag via beamforming communications in order to determine if the tag has experienced any type of temperature changes caused by the temperature experienced by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 8, Watt et al. meets the limitation of:
determining a first set of RFIC having a first status [temperature information being obtained from a requested RFID tag (figures 3A and 3B as well as paragraphs 0038 and 0039)]
the RFIC is available based on a throughput target for each RFIC of the first set of RFICs [a transceiver initializing a communication to a group of reachable RFID tags according to the command of a host device (paragraphs 0037 and 0038 as well as Table 1 and figure 3A, items 102, 104, 106 and 108)]
wherein the RFIC of the plurality of RFICs is included in the first set of RFICs and selected from the first set of RFICs based on a determination that the RFIC is available [a transceiver initializing a communication to a group of reachable RFID tags according to the command of a host device (paragraphs 0037 and 0038 as well as Table 1 and figure 3A, items 102, 104, 106 and 108)]
With regard to claim 9, Watt et al. meets the limitation of:
a user equipment (UE) [a host device used for communicating with RFID tags via a transceiver module (paragraph 0023 and figure 1, items 12, 22, and 28)]
a plurality of radio frequency integrated circuits (RFICs) of the UE, each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs configured for wireless communication [a host device used for communicating with RFID tags via a transceiver module (paragraph 0023 and figure 1, items 12, 22, and 28) thereby denoting the use of wireless communications existing between the transceiver and RFID tags]
a memory storing processor-readable code and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code [a host device being a processor-based computing device with memory that stores computer-readable program code including a software application for communicating with the transceiver module (paragraph 0024)]
for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs, determine a status of the RFIC based on a temperature associated with the RFIC [RFID tags having the ability to measure environmental conditions like temperature (paragraph 0029)]
select an RFIC of the plurality of RFICs for wireless communication of data [temperature information being obtained from a requested RFID tag (figures 3A and 3B as well as paragraphs 0038 and 0039) and temperature data being transmitted to the host device via the transceiver from the requested RFID tag (paragraph 0038 and 0039)]
However, Watt et al. fails to disclose of a plurality of status. In the field of monitoring systems, Skaaksrud et al. teaches:
a plurality of status [RFID sensors measuring and acquiring data related to temperature, humidity, and acceleration (paragraph 0014)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al. and Skaaksrud et al. to create an RFID communications system wherein an RFID interrogator determines a temperature based upon the status of an RFID tag in order to determine if the tag has experienced any type of temperature changes caused by the temperature experienced by the RFID tag. However, the combination of Watt et al. and Skaaksrud et al. fails to disclose of wireless communications using beamforming. In the field of RFID communications, Mendolia et al. teaches:
wireless communications using beamforming [a multi-beamforming communication network used in communicating with RIFD tags capable of beamforming types of communications (paragraphs 0013, 0017, and 0217)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Mendolia et al. to create an RFID communications system wherein an RFID interrogator determines a temperature based upon the status of an RFID tag via beamforming communications in order to determine if the tag has experienced any type of temperature changes caused by the temperature experienced by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 10, Watt et al. meets the limitation of:
the plurality of RFICs includes one or more transceivers, one or more antenna elements, or a combination thereof [an RFID tag having an antenna (figure 4, item 170)]
With regard to claim 11, Watt et al. meets the limitation of:
a modem including the plurality of RFICs [a host device used for communicating with RFID tags via a transceiver module (paragraph 0023 and figure 1, items 12, 22, and 28)]
With regard to claim 18, please refer to the rejection for claim 8 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 19, please refer to the rejection for claim 1 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 24, please refer to the rejection for claim 8 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 25, please refer to the rejection for claim 9 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 30, please refer to the rejection for claim 8 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
Claim(s) 2, 4-7, 12, 14-17, 20-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. [U.S. Patent Application 2013/0057390] in view of Skaaksrud et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0297525], and in further view of Mendolia et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0110641] and Allen [U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0220711]
With regard to claim 2, Watt et al. meets the limitations of:
for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs, determining the temperature of the RFIC [temperature information being obtained from a requested RFID tag (figures 3A and 3B as well as paragraphs 0038 and 0039)]
However, Watt et al. fails to disclose of wherein, for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs, the status is determined from a set of status including a preferred status or a non-preferred status. In the field of RFID communications, Allen teaches:
wherein, for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs, the status is determined from the plurality of status including a preferred status or a non-preferred status [a temperature reading performed by an RFID tag where the measured temperature meets a trigger threshold where the meeting of the threshold can be preferred/allowed or non-preferred/not desirable (paragraph 0061)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Allen to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature is withing a preferred threshold based upon the temperature measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 4, Watt et al. fails to disclose of determining the status of the RFIC includes performing a comparison based on the temperature of the RFIC and a threshold for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs and the status is determined based on the comparison. In the field of RFID communications, Allen teaches:
determining the status of the RFIC includes performing a comparison based on the temperature of the RFIC and a threshold for each RFIC of the plurality of RFICs and the status is determined based on the comparison [a temperature reading performed by an RFID tag where the measured temperature meets a trigger threshold where the meeting of the threshold can be preferred/allowed or non-preferred/not desirable (paragraph 0061)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Allen to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature is withing a preferred threshold based upon the temperature measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 5, Watt et al. fails to disclose of determining a plurality of consecutive temperatures associated with the RFIC, determining a change in temperature; and performing a comparison based on the change in temperature and a threshold for each pair of consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures, and wherein the status is determined based on the comparison for each pair of the consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures. In the field of RFID communications, Allen teaches:
determining a plurality of consecutive temperatures associated with the RFIC, determining a change in temperature; and performing a comparison based on the change in temperature and a threshold for each pair of consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures, and wherein the status is determined based on the comparison for each pair of the consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures [temperatures being measured over time and evaluated to determine if they exceed a threshold or fall below a threshold (paragraph 0034 and figure 2)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Allen to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature is withing a preferred threshold based upon the temperature measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 6, Watt et al. fails to disclose of a result of the comparison indicates whether the change in temperature is greater than or equal to the threshold for each pair of consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures. In the field of RFID communications, Allen teaches:
for each pair of consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures, a result of the comparison indicates whether the change in temperature is greater than or equal to the threshold [temperatures being measured over time and evaluated to determine if they exceed a threshold or fall below a threshold (paragraph 0034 and figure 2)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Allen to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature is withing a preferred threshold based upon the temperature measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 7, Watt et al. fails to disclose of the plurality of consecutive temperatures includes multiple pairs of consecutive temperatures, is measured during a time period, or a combination thereof and the status is determined based on whether a result of the comparison for each pair of the consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures indicates that the change in temperature is greater than or equal to the threshold. In the field of RFID communications, Allen teaches:
the plurality of consecutive temperatures includes multiple pairs of consecutive temperatures, is measured during a time period, or a combination thereof and the status is determined based on whether a result of the comparison for each pair of the consecutive temperatures of the plurality of consecutive temperatures indicates that the change in temperature is greater than or equal to the threshold [temperatures being measured over time and evaluated to determine if they exceed a threshold or fall below a threshold (paragraph 0034 and figure 2)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., and Allen to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature is withing a preferred threshold based upon the temperature measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 12, please refer to the rejection for claim 2 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 14, please refer to the rejection for claim 4 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 15, please refer to the rejection for claim 5 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 16, please refer to the rejection for claim 7 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 17, please refer to the rejection for claim 7 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 20, please refer to the rejection for claim 2 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 21, please refer to the rejection for claim 4 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 22, please refer to the rejection for claim 5 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 23, please refer to the rejection for claim 7 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 26, please refer to the rejection for claim 2 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 27, please refer to the rejection for claim 4 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 28, please refer to the rejection for claim 5 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 29, please refer to the rejection for claim 7 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. [U.S. Patent Application 2013/0057390] in view of Skaaksrud et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0297525], and in further view of Mendolia et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0110641], and Chauhan et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0136369]
With regard to claim 3, Watt et al. fails to disclose of the temperature is a junction temperature of the RFIC. In the field of circuitry devices, Chauhan et al. teaches:
the temperature is a junction temperature of the RFIC [the temperature of a junction in a circuit being monitored (paragraph 0045)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Watt et al., Skaaksrud et al., Mendolia et al., and Chauhan et al. to create a system for monitoring temperatures using RFIDs where the measured temperature of a circuit junction is measured by the RFID tag wherein the motivation to combine is create a system of monitoring RFID tags in extreme environments (Watt et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 13, please refer to the rejection for claim 3 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mendolia et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0110641]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights