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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12, and 14-15 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink (US 20030141962) in view of Mirzaee et al. (US 20220278794), Krepek et al. (US 20210148040), and Freeman et al. (US 20220207473) et al. and Breed (US 9030321).
Barink teaches:
a computer-implemented method (figures 1-2) comprising:
initiating a first transceiver (54, 58) associated with a first plurality of antenna chains (14a, 20a);
activating, utilizing the first transceiver, the first plurality of antenna chains (step 72, interrogate each antenna pair and list each unique transponder read and paragraph [0011]+ "For example, one selected pair selected by the multiplexer 54 could be antennas 14a and 20a which are located in shelves 12 and 18, respectively. Likewise, another pair of antennas selected by multiplexer 52 may be antenna 20a and antenna 26a located in shelves 18 and 24, respectively. Thus, it is seen that a single antenna may be a member of more than one interrogation pair”);
initiating the transceiver (54, 58) associated with a second plurality of antenna chains (14b and 20b);
activating, utilizing the transceiver, the second plurality of antenna chains (paragraph [0012] "if antenna pairs 14b and 20b are selected, the two antennas making up this pair will certainly read transponder 62a and 62b");
receiving a plurality of scan data comprising:
first scan data associated with a first plurality of locations, the first scan data received via the first plurality of antenna chains; and
second scan data associated with a second plurality of locations, the second scan data received via the second plurality of antenna chains (steps 70- 72 and paragraph [0011]+) and
determining, from the plurality of scan data, a location identifier associated with a target data identifier, the location identifier based at least in part on an antenna that detected the target data identifier (steps 76-96).
Barink is silent to explicitly reciting a second transceiver and receiving scan data in parallel.
Though known in the art for providing control, Mirzaee et al. teaches each transceiver has a plurality of antennas 43 (paragraph [0036]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious for each antenna chain to have a transceiver to provide more control to the chain.
Barink/ Mirzaee et al. is silent to parallel receiving of data.
Krepek et al. generally teaches such limitations (paragraph [0004]+) as one of a plurality of known ways to send and r3ecieve data.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for efficiency, for example.
Barink/ Mirzaee et al./ Krepek et al. are silent to the receiving the scan trigger signal in response to detecting/ receiving data of movement of a vehicle towards a next target travel point, that the scanned data is from tagged objects at locations within the vehicle, and identifying an antennas that detected the target data identifier from processing the data received.
Freeman et al. teaches location sensing technology where a logistic vehicle environment determines which antenna based on plural antennas and their interactions with environmental tags therein is associated with the asset location and is able to pinpoint the location of an asset therein (abstract+ and FIG. 7A).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to locate items for logistics and ease of location sensing as it pertains to items and shipping/ transport.
While it would have been obvious to receive a scan trigger based on movement of the storage unit, Freeman et al. is silent to movement triggering a scan trigger type response.
In analogous art, Breed teaches that multiple readers and tags are located in locations and along different storage units, and that the trailer is monitored at a frequency such as at rest, when it is moving, when people are detected, etc. (col 2, lines 63+), including RFID monitoring of items per FIG. 8.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to monitor based on movement/ conditions, in order to provide security and up to date information regarding the assets.
To clarify further, as target data is data from the target read and is part of the scan data (read data), a location identifier corresponding to a location of the antenna is interpreted as being determined, because the location identifier is intpereted as the identifier that identifies which reader device performed the reading. The identifier of the reading device that read the tagged data, (the tagged data is determined from the scanned data of the target object), corresponds to a location of the antenna because preferred mappings may assign each reader device a spatial area within the first unit that corresponds to a portion of the storage unit to predict an areas the asset is located with. These “mappings” are interpreted as correspond to a location of the antenna (paragraph [0096] Freeman et al.). The claim does not recite how a location is determined (GPS/ coordinates/ etc.) and therefore mappings are interpreted to “correspond” to a location of the antenna.
Re claim 3, the limitations have been discussed above via the location determination using the different antenna chains, but is silent to a first and second core of the processor as explicitly recited. The Examiner notes that as the steps are performed by software/ processor, the recitations of a specific core would have been an obvious in light of the software/ system performing the reading and location determining using different chains. As different data from different antenna chains is being processed, it would have been obvious that such processing/ software obviates first and second cores, such as software. It would have been obvious to have separate cores, such as separate software/ programming in order to have capability to process the data from each chain and transceiver.
Re claim 4, the steps of FIG. 2 teach such limitations.
Re claim 5, FIG. 1+ teaches a plurality of chains, thus obviating such limitations.
Re claim 8, the Examiner notes that each antenna is associated with a different location (FIG. 1+).
Re claim 9, the Examiner notes that the multiplexer (54) can be interpreted as the trigger/ switch.
Re claim 10, as discussed above. a plurality of locations/ points are identified. The target data identifier can be interpreted as information (identification) of the location of the antenna, for example. The next target travel point can be interpreted as a next location for a subsequent usage.
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the multiplexing, or computer 56 (with association software) can be interpreted as functionally equivalent to switches to control the chains, since it would have been obvious that routines of the system would control the activation of chains, such implementation being broadly interpreted as switches.
Re claim 12, computer 56 can read on such limitations.
Re claim 14, claims 2+ teach such limitations as discussed above.
Re claim 15, the antennas of the chains correspond to different portions of the environment (locations).
Re claims 21-25, the limitations have been discussed above. The Examiner notes that updated locations are interpreted as different from each other, but the claims do not recite limitations concerning updated locations.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al./ Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Garber et al. (US 7044373).
Re claim 2, Barink teaches ("56 computer", and steps 82, 86, 90, 96, 98) render obvious that the display of the computer will present the information of steps 82, 86, 90, 96, 98. Thus, the supplementary features of claim 2 are obvious in order to provide an indication of location for information providing purposes, but the prior art is silent to generating/ transmitting a signal that identifies each location environmental indicator to be activated corresponding tot eh location identifiers, wherein location identifiers are data/ information identifying a location and an indicator is a physical component like a light, for example, indicating the location.
Garber teaches a message or flashing light/ LED on the shelf is used to indicate where to put an item (which shelf).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide visual guidance at a shelf.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al/ Freeman et al./ Breed., as discussed above, in view of Hwang et al. (US 20210019926).
Re claim 6, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies.
Hwang et al. generally teaches a plurality of antennas at different frequencies (paragraph [0092]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust the frequencies of the RF signals.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Sadr et al. (US 91111156).
Re claim 6, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies.
Sadr et al. teaches a plurality of antennas at different frequencies (claim 2).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust the frequencies of the RF signals.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Papay (US 20160267781).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to different reference clocks.
Papay generally teaches timing the transmissions from each antenna separately, thus interpreted as reference clocks/ timings (paragraph [0050]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to produce transmissions in a certain sequence/ order (control).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20070188328).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to different reference clocks.
Mochizuki et al. generally teaches timing distinct for the antennas (paragraph [0065]+), thus interpreted as reference clocks/ timings.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to control antenna activation in sequence.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Nakada et al. (US 20100265998).
Re claims 6- 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies and reference clocks.
Nakada et al. generally teaches a plurality of antennas operating with different waveforms (wherein frequencies is an obvious expedient for waveform changing; see abstract+) at different clock frequencies (paragraph [0037]+ which teaches clock generator A10 and controller A11 generating different frequency clock signals / timings, interpreted as reference clock signals, and paragraph [0010]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust/ control the frequencies of the RF system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed, as discussed above, in view of Paidimarri et al. (US 20200266669).
Re claim 13, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Breed have been discussed above but are silent to each transceiver having a corresponding microprocessor which sends the data to the processor (central computer).
In analogous art, Paidimarri et al. teaches an RFID array of a reader with a microprocessor 220 and processing engines 221+.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Paidimarri et al. so that each array of the prior art has a microprocessor and processing engines (which reads on cores and microprocessors) for processing and controlling each antenna array, which is sent to the main computer (processor as per the prior art discussed above.). In addition, the duplicating of parts such as separate microprocessors/ transceivers for each chain is an obvious expedient for distributed computing, such as to uniquely control and separately control. Providing duplicate or separate parts for benefits as distributed computing and separation of controls, using known elements for known results, is an obvious expedient.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12, and 14-15 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink (US 20030141962) in view of Mirzaee et al. (US 20220278794), Krepek et al. (US 20210148040), and Freeman et al. (US 20220207473) and Bianculli et al. ((US 20230055289).
Barink teaches:
a computer-implemented method (figures 1-2) comprising:
initiating a first transceiver (54, 58) associated with a first plurality of antenna chains (14a, 20a);
activating, utilizing the first transceiver, the first plurality of antenna chains (step 72, interrogate each antenna pair and list each unique transponder read and paragraph [0011]+ "For example, one selected pair selected by the multiplexer 54 could be antennas 14a and 20a which are located in shelves 12 and 18, respectively. Likewise, another pair of antennas selected by multiplexer 52 may be antenna 20a and antenna 26a located in shelves 18 and 24, respectively. Thus, it is seen that a single antenna may be a member of more than one interrogation pair”);
initiating the transceiver (54, 58) associated with a second plurality of antenna chains (14b and 20b);
activating, utilizing the transceiver, the second plurality of antenna chains (paragraph [0012] "if antenna pairs 14b and 20b are selected, the two antennas making up this pair will certainly read transponder 62a and 62b");
receiving a plurality of scan data comprising:
first scan data associated with a first plurality of locations, the first scan data received via the first plurality of antenna chains; and
second scan data associated with a second plurality of locations, the second scan data received via the second plurality of antenna chains (steps 70- 72 and paragraph [0011]+) and
determining, from the plurality of scan data, a location identifier associated with a target data identifier, the location identifier based at least in part on an antenna that detected the target data identifier (steps 76-96).
Barink is silent to explicitly reciting a second transceiver and receiving scan data in parallel.
Though known in the art for providing control, Mirzaee et al. teaches each transceiver has a plurality of antennas 43 (paragraph [0036]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious for each antenna chain to have a transceiver to provide more control to the chain.
Barink/ Mirzaee et al. is silent to parallel receiving of data.
Krepek et al. generally teaches such limitations (paragraph [0004]+) as one of a plurality of known ways to send and r3ecieve data.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for efficiency, for example.
Barink/ Mirzaee et al./ Krepek et al. are silent to the receiving the scan trigger signal in response to detecting/ receiving data of movement of a vehicle towards a next target travel point, that the scanned data is from tagged objects at locations within the vehicle, and identifying an antennas that detected the target data identifier from processing the data received.
Freeman et al. teaches location sensing technology where a logistic vehicle environment determines which antenna based on plural antennas and their interactions with environmental tags therein is associated with the asset location and is able to pinpoint the location of an asset therein (abstract+ and FIG. 7A).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to locate items for logistics and ease of location sensing as it pertains to items and shipping/ transport.
While it would have been obvious to receive a scan trigger based on movement of the storage unit, Freeman et al. is silent to movement triggering a scan trigger type response.
In analogous art, Bianculli et al. teaches (paragraph [0044]+) that a vehicle travels from current to next travel points, and that a scan trigger signal is received indicating movement (FIG. 4+ and paragraph [0044]+) after the loading process that the items to be delivered next and their locations are fetched and then outputs provided to the user to indicate their locations. Thus, at FIG. 4, step 405 can be interpreted as a trigger signal detecting or receiving data indicating movement from a current to a next travel point, as the cargo is loaded and expected to be delivered and then locating the antenna and corresponding item location to be delivered.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to locate assets on the vehicle prior to them being delivered so as to have accurate data when delivery time occurs to improve efficiency.
To clarify further, as target data is data from the target read and is part of the scan data (read data), a location identifier corresponding to a location of the antenna is interpreted as being determined, because the location identifier is intpereted as the identifier that identifies which reader device performed the reading. The identifier of the reading device that read the tagged data, (the tagged data is determined from the scanned data of the target object), corresponds to a location of the antenna because preferred mappings may assign each reader device a spatial area within the first unit that corresponds to a portion of the storage unit to predict an areas the asset is located with. These “mappings” are interpreted as correspond to a location of the antenna (paragraph [0096] Freeman et al.). The claim does not recite how a location is determined (GPS/ coordinates/ etc.) and therefore mappings are interpreted to “correspond” to a location of the antenna.
Re claim 3, the limitations have been discussed above via the location determination using the different antenna chains, but is silent to a first and second core of the processor as explicitly recited. The Examiner notes that as the steps are performed by software/ processor, the recitations of a specific core would have been an obvious in light of the software/ system performing the reading and location determining using different chains. As different data from different antenna chains is being processed, it would have been obvious that such processing/ software obviates first and second cores, such as software. It would have been obvious to have separate cores, such as separate software/ programming in order to have capability to process the data from each chain and transceiver.
Re claim 4, the steps of FIG. 2 teach such limitations.
Re claim 5, FIG. 1+ teaches a plurality of chains, thus obviating such limitations.
Re claim 8, the Examiner notes that each antenna is associated with a different location (FIG. 1+).
Re claim 9, the Examiner notes that the multiplexer (54) can be interpreted as the trigger/ switch.
Re claim 10, as discussed above. a plurality of locations/ points are identified. The target data identifier can be interpreted as information (identification) of the location of the antenna, for example. The next target travel point can be interpreted as a next location for a subsequent usage.
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the multiplexing, or computer 56 (with association software) can be interpreted as functionally equivalent to switches to control the chains, since it would have been obvious that routines of the system would control the activation of chains, such implementation being broadly interpreted as switches.
Re claim 12, computer 56 can read on such limitations.
Re claim 14, claims 2+ teach such limitations as discussed above.
Re claim 15, the antennas of the chains correspond to different portions of the environment (locations).
Re claims 21-25, the limitations have been discussed above. The Examiner notes that updated locations are intpereted as different from each other, but the claims do not recite limitations concerning updated locations.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al./ Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Garber et al. (US 7044373).
Re claim 2, Barink teaches ("56 computer", and steps 82, 86, 90, 96, 98) render obvious that the display of the computer will present the information of steps 82, 86, 90, 96, 98. Thus, the supplementary features of claim 2 are obvious in order to provide an indication of location for information providing purposes, but the prior art is silent to generating/ transmitting a signal that identifies each location environmental indicator to be activated corresponding tot eh location identifiers, wherein location identifiers are data/ information identifying a location and an indicator is a physical component like a light, for example, indicating the location.
Garber teaches a message or flashing light/ LED on the shelf is used to indicate where to put an item (which shelf).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide visual guidance at a shelf.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al/ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al.., as discussed above, in view of Hwang et al. (US 20210019926).
Re claim 6, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies.
Hwang et al. generally teaches a plurality of antennas at different frequencies (paragraph [0092]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust the frequencies of the RF signals.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Sadr et al. (US 91111156).
Re claim 6, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies.
Sadr et al. teaches a plurality of antennas at different frequencies (claim 2).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust the frequencies of the RF signals.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Papay (US 20160267781).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different reference clocks.
Papay generally teaches timing the transmissions from each antenna separately, thus interpreted as reference clocks/ timings (paragraph [0050]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to produce transmissions in a certain sequence/ order (control).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20070188328).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different reference clocks.
Mochizuki et al. generally teaches timing distinct for the antennas (paragraph [0065]+), thus interpreted as reference clocks/ timings.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to control antenna activation in sequence.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Nakada et al. (US 20100265998).
Re claims 6- 7, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different frequencies and reference clocks.
Nakada et al. generally teaches a plurality of antennas operating with different waveforms (wherein frequencies is an obvious expedient for waveform changing; see abstract+) at different clock frequencies (paragraph [0037]+ which teaches clock generator A10 and controller A11 generating different frequency clock signals / timings, interpreted as reference clock signals, and paragraph [0010]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to adjust/ control the frequencies of the RF system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al., as discussed above, in view of Paidimarri et al. (US 20200266669).
Re claim 13, the teachings of Barink/ Mirzaee et al. / Krepek et al./ Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. have been discussed above but are silent to each transceiver having a corresponding microprocessor which sends the data to the processor (central computer).
In analogous art, Paidimarri et al. teaches an RFID array of a reader with a microprocessor 220 and processing engines 221+.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Paidimarri et al. so that each array of the prior art has a microprocessor and processing engines (which reads on cores and microprocessors) for processing and controlling each antenna array, which is sent to the main computer (processor as per the prior art discussed above.). In addition, the duplicating of parts such as separate microprocessors/ transceivers for each chain is an obvious expedient for distributed computing, such as to uniquely control and separately control. Providing duplicate or separate parts for benefits as distributed computing and separation of controls, using known elements for known results, is an obvious expedient.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al., as discussed above, in view of Bianculli et al., as discussed above, Mirzaee et al. as discussed above, and Krepek et al. as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Freeman et al. teaches a logistic vehicle can have storage shelfs/ units that have a plurality of antenna chains, and that based on the data obtained a target is identified enabling precise determination of an antenna and therefore an object and includes environmental tags 760 and antenna/ reader devices 732+ (and FIG. 1+).
Freeman et al. is silent to the scan trigger in response to data indicating movement.
Bianculli et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to locate items to prepare for delivery by increasing efficiency.
Freeman et al./ Bianculli et al. are silent to the recitations of two transceivers and parallel scanning, though both are known and conventional in the art.
Mirzaee et al. and Krepek et al. teach such limitations, as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to increase accuracy of detection with plural transceivers/ antennas with the efficiency of parallel processing.
To clarify further, as target data is data from the target read and is part of the scan data (read data), a location identifier corresponding to a location of the antenna is interpreted as being determined, because the location identifier is intpereted as the identifier that identifies which reader device performed the reading. The identifier of the reading device that read the tagged data, (the tagged data is determined from the scanned data of the target object), corresponds to a location of the antenna because preferred mappings may assign each reader device a spatial area within the first unit that corresponds to a portion of the storage unit to predict an areas the asset is located with. These “mappings” are interpreted as correspond to a location of the antenna (paragraph [0096] Freeman et al.). The claim does not recite how a location is determined (GPS/ coordinates/ etc.) and therefore mappings are interpreted to “correspond” to a location of the antenna.
Re claims 11 and 21, the limitations have been discussed above. Re claim 21, first and second locations are interpreted as different. Further, it would have been obvious that more updated data would be present when travelling through additional deliveries along a vehicle delivery route.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art applied above. Re the Applicants argument that Freeman does not teach “to identify at least an antenna” of the plurality of antennas that detected the trigger data identifier and “determining” a “location identifier associated with the target data identifier” (wherein the location identifier corresponds to a location of the antenna), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Freeman teaches signal strength, this does not preclude identifying the antenna. Paragraph [0082]+ says that reader devices read data includes an identifier identifying the tag, an identifier identifying the reader, and/or signal strength values. This indication is data/ information that identifies the antenna or chains that performed the reading. Thus, as target data is data from the target read and is part of the scan data (read data), a location identifier corresponding to a location of the antenna is interpreted as being determined, because the location identifier is intpereted as the identifier that identifies which reader device performed the reading. The identifier of the reading device that read the tagged data, (the tagged data is determined from the scanned data of the target object), corresponds to a location of the antenna because preferred mappings may assign each reader device a spatial area within the first unit that corresponds to a portion of the storage unit to predict an areas the asset is located with. These “mappings” are interpreted as correspond to a location of the antenna (paragraph [0096]).
The claim does not recite how a “location” is determined (GPS/ coordinates/ etc.) and therefore mappings are interpreted to “correspond” to a location of the antenna. Especially as the recitation of the claims is “corresponding” to a location, which can interpreted broadly.
The Examiner notes that the art to 18/089,925 is in the same field but does not qualify as prior art due to its date.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876