DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 12/03/2025. Claims 1, 4-19, and 21 are pending; claims 9-19 are withdrawn; and, claims 1, 4-8, and 21 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 12/06/2022.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21, dependent upon claim 1, recites “the generating the standardized RFID event” in line 3. However, in claim 1, there are two instances (first performed by the “at least one hardware processor” and then by “an edge server”) of generating the standardized RFID event. Therefore, it is unclear if in claim 21 Applicant is referring to the generating done by the processor(s) or the edge server. The examiner recommends amending claim 21 to include “wherein each of the generating the standardized RFID event. . . .” This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-8 and 21 relate to system/machine claims. Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
receiving one or more RFID events from passive and active sensor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B));
for each of the one or more RFID events (different info) from each passive and active sensor (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B)):
configured to receive RF signals within zone (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
configured to perform one or more of: interrogate passive RFID tags, or wirelessly communicate device to device (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I communicating a notification form device to device)
determining an RFID identifier for a corresponding particular active RFID tag or passive RFID tag (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B));
receiving one or more available sources of location data for the particular RFID tag selected from a group comprising each of: location data included in RFID data; (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B));
generates a standardized RFID event including the one or more available sources of location data; and based at least on the standardized RFID event, associating the RFID identifier and the one or more available sources of location data with a tracked asset (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.e; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).).
parse the RFID events for substrings corresponds to a respective RFID tag, a location, and identifier for RFID sensor (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.)
generate standardized RFID event (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.e; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).)
cloud service that receives the standardized RFID event and converts the location data into standard spatial coordinate data ((see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(B); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.e; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).)
When these abstract idea concepts are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that claim 1 recites abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - Exemplary claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 are, for instance: one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors (passive and active sensor) configured to be placed within a respective zone, for each zone, a RFID sensor (passive and active) configured to interrogate an RFID tag (passive and active); an active RFID sensor configured to wirelessly communicate with an active RFID tag using a wireless communication protocol and; one or more RFID antennas; RF frontend to wirelessly communicate; a network interface communicatively connected over a network to an asset tracking system; a memory that stores a location-based service (LBS) middleware application; a controller communicatively coupled to the RFID sensor, the network interface, and the memory; at least one hardware processor that executes the LBS middleware application, causing the at least one hardware processor to perform the following operations: [including the found abstract idea above]. . . ., edge server, cloud service. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and act as tools to implement the found abstract idea. For the one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors configured to be placed within a respective zone, for each zone, a RFID sensor configured to interrogate an RFID tag, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(h), generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For the claimed antennas, see “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f), with no improvement claimed or disclosed. For the claimed frontend (transmitters/receivers), see “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f), with no improvement claimed or disclosed. For the a network interface communicatively connected over a network to an asset tracking system, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: a post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network – Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359; and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). For the a memory that stores a location-based service (LBS) middleware application, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For the a controller communicatively coupled to the RFID sensor, the network interface, and the memory, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(I)(B), discussion around Alice and the finding relating to “communications controller” in Alice. For the at least one hardware processor that executes the LBS middleware application, causing the at least one hardware processor to perform the following operations: [including the found abstract idea above]. . . . the examiner refers to “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f). For the claimed edge server, see “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f), with no improvement claimed or disclosed. For the claimed cloud service, see “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f), with no improvement claimed or disclosed. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) citing Inventor Holdings, for the abstract idea of remotely receiving and processing data.
For the passive and active aspects, in the Background of Applicant’s Specification Applicant discloses the following:
[0002-3] discusses that asset tracking systems have in the past used different types of sensors being processed, and that conventional systems use a system where active tags and passive tags are used. Also discusses an active RFID sensor, such as, “active RFID tags are being incorporated into industrial processes that are capable of wirelessly communicating using low power communication protocols such as ultrawide band (UWB) and Bluetooth low energy (BLE). Sensors [such as active sensors for active tags] configured for wireless communication are used to check the status of the IIoT active RFID tags.” This Background section indicates the field of the invention and the relevant prior art. In other words, active and passive sensors were known before the effective filing date, as admitted by Applicant. Applicant also admits that such active/passive sensors are known to be incorporated into industrial processes. Applicant admits that sensors are known to communicate wirelessly. Applicant also admits in the Background section that the prior art includes where “An RFID reader or interrogator transmits an interrogation signal that activated the passive RFID tags and then receive a response from the passive RFID tags.”
Further in Applicant’s Specification, it discloses:
[0012] - using both passive radio frequency identification (RFID) technology and wireless communication to active RFID tags, according to one or more embodiments
[0015] - using both passive radio frequency identification (RFID) technology and wireless communication to active RFID tags
[0016] - primarily using RFID, ultrawide band (UWB), Bluetooth low energy (BLE), IEEE 802.11 wireless technology using passive or active tags. Standard technology as admitted by Applicant in Background.
[0030], etc.
All of these portions of Applicant’s Specification, including even in the Background section, appear to simply be using the active/passive sensor(s) and tag(s), in a standard conventional manner. For these additional limitations and aspects, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instructions to apply an exception. Also referred to as “apply it” rationale. Further these additional limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The particular technological environment is passive/active sensor and tags in order to track asset. This applies here because, based on Applicant’s Spec, the claimed system merely uses these as tools to implement the abstract idea.
When these additional elements are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - Exemplary claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional element analysis from Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied at Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d). For the well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) analysis, the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(d), which indicates various limitations that are similar to the claimed limitations and have been found to be WURC:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 1 for instance recites various parts of these findings, such as where claim 1 receives and transmits data, this is WURC activity.
Further, and as noted above, Applicant uses the word “conventional” right in the Background section, thereby described conventional aspects of the claimed subject matter. Applicant admits that at least RFID tags, interrogating said RFID tags, active and passivity of the tags, and industrial use of tracking and monitoring using RFID tags, is all conventional activity in the relevant art. In other words, Applicant admits that such technology is conventional to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
When these additional elements are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 4 recites more additional elements and the examiner refers to “apply it” at MPEP 2106.05(f). “Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Claim 5 recites more abstract idea of parsing data format, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claim 6 recites connected databases that store data, and the examiner refers to abstract idea at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Claim 7 refers to more abstract idea of identifying data (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and generating a notification by performing repetitive calculations at MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). For claim 21, converting the events from one format to another falls under abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0026690 to Wappler et al. (“Wappler”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0240088 to Robinette et al. (“Robinette”), in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0111974 to Kalmbach (“Kalmbach”).
With regard to claim 1, Wappler discloses the claimed information handling system (IHS) comprising:
one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors configured to be placed within a respective zone, for each zone, a RFID sensor configured to interrogate an RFID tag (see e.g. [0078] As a non-limiting example, the sensor data collection points and/or tag readers may be programmed as part of the logistics management system to trigger statistical calculations for compiled analytics and/or data sharing events, such as alert messages to selected users and/or system controllers; [0027] The scanning devices 104 may be standard RFID fixed portals consisting of one RFID reader and two proprietary antennas per portal; see where the sensor data includes “Region” data as e.g. Lot B);
a network interface communicatively connected over a network to an asset tracking system (see e.g. [0014] [0081] Fig. 2 etc.);
a memory that stores a location-based service (LBS) middleware application (see e.g. [0061] [0084]);
a controller communicatively coupled to the RFID sensor, the network interface, and the memory (see e.g. [0078] system controllers);
at least one hardware processor that executes the LBS middleware application, causing the at least one hardware processor to perform the following operations (see e.g. [0039] [0063] [0084] [0086] [0092]):
receiving one or more RFID events from the RFID sensor (see e.g. [0071] database receives the read event data from the sensor);
for each of the one or more RFID events (see e.g. [0083], Fig. 7):
determining the RFID for a corresponding particular RFID tag (see e.g. Fig. 7);
receiving one or more available sources of location data for the particular RFID tag selected from a group comprising: location data included in RFID data; signal strength and direction data detected by a corresponding RFID sensor; and information indicating a zone sensed by a corresponding RFID sensor (see Fig. 7, various location data from zone indication such as B-59 satisfying the location data limitation);
generates a standardized RFID event including the one or more available sources of location data (see e.g. Fig. 7, Table 400 in COS Database, showing where this is generating from e.g. [0040] Saturated plant Wi-Fi may be utilized to pass RFID tag and VIN associations to the database of the location management system. For vehicle assets 102, RFID tags may be installed on the windshield or near the bumper (e.g., one per vehicle).); and
based at least on the standardized RFID event, associating the RFID and the one or more available sources of location data with a tracked asset (see e.g. Fig. 7 412; [0083]).
Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate both active and passive RFID sensors, and corresponding active and passive tags. Wappler only mentions passive sensors and tags.
Wappler does not disclose the added limitations from claim 2, such as the antennas without zone range, RF frontend to communicate/interrogate with tag.
However, the examiner finds that using both passive and active sensors and tags was known and would have been an obvious design choice. The examiner refers to Applicant’s Specification at Background section [0002-3], which discloses the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
630
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This shows that both active and passive RFID sensors/tags were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as shown by Applicant. Nonetheless, the examiner refers to Robinette at e.g. [0011-16] [0068-70] [0076-77] [0108] to show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the RFID art to include both passive and active RFID sensor/tag, and further to includes the active sensor/tag system shown in Robinette [0068-70] [0076-77] [0108] etc.
For previous claim 2 limitations, see Robinette at [0013-14] Fig. 8 showing different ranges. See Robinette at [0012] showing RF frontend
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the RFID art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wappler to include such active RFID sensor/tag functionality, as shown throughout Robinette, where the advantage of incorporating the active RFID sensor/tag is for instance the invisibility aspect referred to in Robinette at [0034] - The invisibility of the security means that a thief will not know that an object is tagged or trackable, much less how to remove or disable the tag. This "invisibility" also allows a name badge, for instance, to act as a controller for entry to areas while also carrying an active RFID tag that allows the individual wearing the badge to be tracked by another controller. This technology permits a security service to unobtrusively go through a building to take inventory or have stationary observing position, integrated into a USB flash drive to observe any room that has a computer or USB port. This is discussed further below.
For the edge server and cloud service limitations: Wappler further discloses
a cloud service communicatively coupled
receive the standardized RFID event from [device]
convert the one or more available sources of the location data into a standard spatial coordinate system in response to the one or more available sources of location data (see e.g. Fig. 7).
Wappler/Robinette is silent on the specifics of an edge server connected with cloud server.
However, Kalmbach teaches at e.g. Fig. 3 [0027] [0036-37] [0039-40] [0057-58] etc. that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an edge device configured to parse/extract (e.g. [0039-40]) to couple with the cloud server in order to transmit data to and from the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wappler/Robinette to include an edge device capable of extracting data to couple with the cloud server in order to transmit data to and from the devices. Kalmbach at Fig. 3 [0027] [0036-37] [0039-40] [0057-58].
With regard to claim 4, Wappler further discloses the standard spatial coordinate system comprises world geodetic system (WGS) 84 (see [0025]); the RFID sensor and the second RFID sensor are provided by one device (see [0082]); and the wireless communication protocol (see [0034] [0089]). However, Wappler does not disclose where the wireless is at least one of ultrawide band (UWB) and Bluetooth low energy (BLE). Kalmbach teaches Bluetooth at e.g. [0061] [0065] etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data management art to include the wireless capability of Bluetooth as this is another means of transmitting data that can be used by such devices, as taught by Kalmbach at [0061, 65].
With regard to claim 5, Wappler further discloses where the controller parses the RFID event comprising a lightweight computer data interchange format for substrings that correspond to the RFID, the location of the particular RFID tag, and identifier for a corresponding RFID sensor (see e.g. Table 7, where the data has been parsed and placed in the various appropriately labeled fields).
With regard to claim 6, Wappler further discloses an asset database that stores one or more records that correspond respectively to an asset (see e.g. abstract), an RFID assigned to the asset, and a reported location for the asset (see e.g. Fig. 7); a historian that stores and distributes one or more standardized events from one or more controllers ([0011-12]); a sensor location database that stores one or more records that correspond respectively to a particular RFID sensor and the respective zone of the particular RFID sensor (see Fig. 7, Region B-59); a zone database that stores one or more records that correspond respectively to each zone and the respective set of standardized spatial coordinates for the zone (see e.g. Fig. 7); and an asset management system that is communicatively coupled to the asset database, the historian, the sensor location database, and the zone database for associating the RFID and the location with the tracked asset (see e.g. Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 7, Wappler further discloses where the asset management system: identifies a particular zone as having a hazardous condition to humans (see Fig. 7, where the RFID# and VIN identify the object which could be hazardous or safe according to different perspectives); identifies one or more RFIDs within the particular zone (see Fig. 7); and generates a notification to one or more of an automated control system and a user interface device in response to determining that at least one RFID within the particular zone is associated with an asset that is human (see e.g. Fig. 7 and associated text).
With regard to claim 8, Wappler further discloses a map report service; a user interface device having an input device and an output device and communicatively coupled to the asset management system and the map report service and which: receives, via the input device, a user input for a query of one or more selected assets; determines, via the asset management system, respective locations for the one or more selected assets; and presents, via the output device, a map of the respective locations (see e.g. Fig. 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wappler in view of Robinette, Kalmbach, in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0078216 to Pakovkin et al. (“Pankovcin”).
With regard to claim 21, Wappler is silent regarding claim 1. However, converting multiple formats into a standard format is common practice and is perform in Pankovcin at e.g. abstract and throughout, where this is performed in order to allow data from the records to be stored in a database. Pankovcin at abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data conversion art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wappler to include such conversion from multiple formats to a standard format so that records can be consolidated and stored together. See Pankovcin at e.g. [0002.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite eligible subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has updated the 101 rejection, above, to address the amendments and arguments. The examiner notes that Applicant’s background of the Spec even describes the technology use as “conventional.” This is addressed in e.g. Step 2B of the 101 analysis.
The examiner has fully addressed the several amendments and arguments for the 103 rejection, above. The examiner notes that the rejections and prior art has been updated to include the amended language. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art does not render obvious the claimed invention for the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627