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 .
Priority
The pending application 18/112,147, filed on 22 FEB 2023, claims priority from provisional application 63/312,539, filed on 22 FEB 2022.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 DEC 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10 DEC 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 14 have been amended. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-3 and 6-21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 14, and 21 being independent.
Newly added claim 21 incorporates allowable subject matter that was indicated in the previous office action dated 11 SEP 2025. However, upon further consideration and search, the indication of allowable subject matter is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all but one of the objections raised in the previous office action dated 11 SEP 2025 (see below).
Status of the Claims
Pending claims 1-3 and 6-21 have been examined. In summary, the prior art rejections of the instant office action are:
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, and 14-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds (US 8,044,804 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Douglas et al. (WO 2014/006417 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds in view of Douglas et al. and Connolly et al. (US 8,305,192 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds in view of Douglas et al. and Peternel et al. (EP 3,916,616 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds in view of Ozbal (US 2020/0386725 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 DEC 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over McReynolds, the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically the application of vial tracking in sample trays.
Applicant argues that the cable tracking application disclosed by McReynolds presents “fundamentally different technical challenges and solutions compared to ‘affixing an RFID tag on each vial in a sample tray’ such that ‘each sample can be uniquely identified and its location within the sample tray determined.’” (Applicant’s remarks p. 7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. McReynolds discloses that “the systems and methods described herein may, of course, also be used to identify, track, and/or localize any other asset, which may have a tag associated therewith.” (McReynolds Col. 4, lines 19-22).
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitations of canceled claim 5, which specify the application of vial tracking in a sample tray. In the previous office action, Douglas was relied upon to teach these limitations. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitations of canceled claim 5. Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of previously presented claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over McReynolds in view of Douglas, the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically “wherein each location cell includes a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although McReynolds does not explicitly disclose cells defined by locations of vials in a sample tray, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of the operational method McReynolds to determine the location of an object via an array of location cells. McReynolds discloses “the responsive signal may be localized by correlating the tag with the signal range of the transmitted RF signal and the location of the antenna which transmitted the RF signal” (McReynolds Col. 9, line 66 – Col. 10, line 2) and “the controller may provide a predetermined amount of power, for instance to the one or more antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to transmit an RF signal have the specified signal range.” (McReynolds Col. 7, lines 37-40). McReynolds further discloses that the controller may iterate the power delivered to one or more of the antennas, increasing the power by a certain level each time (McReynolds Col. 7, lines 12-20). It would have been obvious to impose a reference frame, where the antenna positions define an x-axis, and each range associated with each power level define a y-axis, such that the antenna positions and signal ranges define location cells for the RFID tags. The locations cells enable the RFID reader to quickly and easily locate the detected objects. Douglas is relied upon to teach that the cell coordinates correspond to locations within a sample tray. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill would not to combine the interference avoidance of Douglas with the variable gain operation of McReynolds, because Douglas’s interference-avoidance approach would require modification to achieve McReynolds’s multiple location detection capability (Applicant’s remarks p. 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine McReynolds with Douglas, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, regarding applicant’s arguments that Douglas teaches away from the proposed modification, it is noted that the applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, Douglas discloses that providing each antenna configured to work over a confined range so that it only interacts with a designated vial achieves the function of not interfering with adjacent vials for the benefit of taking quick and reliable readings. (Douglas p. 3, line 30 – p. 4, line 3). However, Douglas does not criticize or discredit other approaches to avoid interference.
Additionally, McReynolds considers the problem that “the use of multiple antennas often creates cross-reads, which occur when the RF fields of multiples antennas interfere with each other…” (McReynolds Col. 1, lines 34-36). McReynolds addresses the problem of interference by sequentially activating the antennas and isolating the antennas with RLC circuits and switches (McReynolds Col. 8, line 57 – Col. 9, line 7). Similarly, Douglas discloses that “The reader circuitry 3 of a strip is only connected to one multilayer antenna 1 of that strip at any given time.” (Douglas p. 8, lines 34-35), and “the activation of side-by-side antennas is avoided so that that risk of mutual coupling/cross reading is minimized.” (Douglas p. 12, lines 6-7). Thus, McReynolds and Douglas teach similar aspects of interference avoidance, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings from McReynolds and Douglas. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
The foregoing similarly applies to independent claim 14.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 6, “the a subspace” should be “the subspace”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds (US 8,044,804 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Douglas et al. (WO 2014/006417 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently amended), McReynolds discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
A method for locating and identifying one or more objects in a search space (McReynolds RFID system 100, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
(a) providing an array of radio frequency identification (RFID) reader antennas (McReynolds antennas 106a, 106b, 106c, Figs. 1-2) adjacent to the search space defined by an array of location cells in which to determine the location for the one or more objects that include one or more RFID tags (McReynolds tags 108a, 108b, 108c, Fig 1) each secured to each object of the one or more objects (McReynolds “The tag localizing system 200 may also include a number of tags 108a, 108b, and 108c (shown in FIG. 1), which may be associated with a number of assets to be localized and tracked.” – Col. 5, lines 59-62), each of the RFID reader antennas configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal (McReynolds “each antenna is configured to transmit an RF signal” – Col. 2, line 16) into a subspace (McReynolds each subspace is defined by the position, beam width and range of the transmitted RF signal associated with each antenna) of the search space and to receive a reply signal from RFID tags that are present in the subspace (McReynolds “In response to receiving the RF signal transmitted by the antennas, the RFID tag may transmit a responsive signal, which may be received by the antennas or a reader device.” – Col. 1, lines 19-22), wherein each RFID antenna in the array of RFID reader antennas is configured to detect RFID tags in multiple locations (McReynolds “Each antenna may transmit RF signals at variable signal ranges.” – Col. 2, lines 49-50);
(b) for each RFID reader antenna:
transmitting an RF signal into a respective one of the subspaces of the search space (McReynolds “The systems may include an array of antennas, where each antenna is configured to transmit an RF signal.” – Col. 1, lines 15-16); and
detecting one or more RFID reply signals (McReynolds “response signal detected?” – step 304, Fig. 3) if one or more RFID tags are present in the respective subspace, each of the RFID reply signals comprising identification data for a respective one of the RFID tags (McReynolds “If the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c comprise passive or semi-passive tags, the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may convert the RF signals emitted by the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to electrical energy, which the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may use to transmit information, such as, ID information, back to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c.” – Col. 3, lines 37-42); and
(c) determining an identity and location for one or more objects in the search space in response to the detected RFID reply signals (McReynolds “Accordingly, the controller 204 may detect not only the presence of any given asset, but may also determine the location of a particular asset by the ID code of the tag 108a, 108b, and 108c associated with the asset.”) – Col. 6, lines 59-62).
Although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of McReynolds to determine the location of an object by via an array of location cells, wherein each location cell includes a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis. McReynolds discloses “the responsive signal may be localized by correlating the tag with the signal range of the transmitted RF signal and the location of the antenna which transmitted the RF signal” (McReynolds Col. 9, line 66 – Col. 10, line 2). McReynolds further discloses that “The RF signal transmitted by the antennas to the RFID tag may have a variable signal range, which means that the antennas may transmit the RF signal at different strengths, distances and/or directions,” and “the controller 204 may provide a predetermined amount of power, for instance, to the one or more of the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to transmit an RF signal have the specific signal range” (McReynolds Col. 2, lines 23-26; Col. 7, lines 37-40). Thus, McReynolds also discloses that each RFID antenna in the RFID reader antenna is configured to detect RFID tags in multiple locations. Additionally, McReynolds uses two dimensions to determine the location of the detected object, where one axis is suggested by the length of the antenna array and a perpendicular axis is suggested by the range of the signal emitted from the antennas. Each of these axes can be arbitrarily assigned as the x-axis and y-axis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that by controlling the transmitting antennas to achieve particular signal ranges, or distances, would be advantageous to use the resulting location cells with coordinates defined along an x-axis and a y-axis to quickly and easily locate the detected objects.
Douglas et al. discloses:
wherein each of the subspaces in the search space is defined by one of the location cells of the array of location cells, wherein the one or more objects are vials (Douglas et al. vials 5, Fig. 5) in a sample tray (Douglas et al. box 6, Fig. 5) and wherein the search space is defined by the sample tray and the determined location of the vials in the sample tray (Douglas et al. “Vials could then be stored in a 10x10 box and a different reader e.g. 10x10 box reader configured only to read the vials could be used to carry out auditing/tracking of the vials stored in the 10x10 box.” – p. 9, lines 14-17)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Douglas et al. into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 1. Both McReynolds and Douglas et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of antennas for reading RFID tags. McReynolds discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the object is a vial in a sample tray and wherein the search space is defined by the sample tray and the determined location is a location of the vial within the sample tray. This feature is disclosed by Douglas et al. where “Vials could then be stored in a 10x10 box and a different reader e.g. 10x10 box reader configured only to read the vials could be used to carry out auditing/tracking of the vials stored in the 10x10 box.” (Douglas et al. p. 9, lines 14-17). The combination of McReynolds and Douglas et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The method of claim 1 further comprising repeating step (b) one or more times wherein, for each repetition (McReynolds “This cycle may be repeated until a responsive signal from one or more of the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c is detected.” – Col. 9, lines 34-36), a gain of the RFID reader antenna is different from prior values of the gain (McReynolds “At step 310, the signal range of the RF signal transmitted by the activated antenna is altered. The signal range may be increased or decreased by a number of different methods, as described above.” – Col. 10, lines 5-8) and wherein the subspace is determined by the gain (McReynolds “For instance, the power provided to the activated antenna may be proportional to the signal range of the antenna.” – Col. 10, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently amended), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1
Although McReynolds does not explicitly disclose each location cell includes a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis, McReynolds discloses “the responsive signal may be localized by correlating the tag with the signal range of the transmitted RF signal and the location of the antenna which transmitted the RF signal” (McReynolds Col. 9, line 66 – Col. 10, line 2). In other words, McReynolds uses two dimensions to determine the location of the detected object, where one axis is suggested by the length of the antenna array and a perpendicular axis is suggested by the range of the signal emitted from the antennas. Each of these axes can be arbitrarily assigned as the x-axis and y-axis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to provide a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis in order to quickly and easily locate the detected objects.
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1
Douglas et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the array of RFID reader antennas is a two-dimensional array (Douglas et al. 10x 10 array of antennas 1, Fig. 2) and the search space is a three-dimensional space (Douglas et al. internal volume of box 6, Fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Douglas et al. into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 6 above. Both McReynolds and Douglas et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of antennas for reading RFID tags. McReynolds as modified above discloses the method of claim 1. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the array of RFID reader antennas is a two-dimensional array and the search space is a three-dimensional space. This feature is disclosed by Douglas et al. where an RFID reader comprises antennas arranged in a two-dimensional array that searches the internal volume of a box. The combination of McReynolds and Douglas et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 6
Douglas et al. discloses:
The method of claim 6 wherein each subspace includes a portion of a volume defining the three-dimensional space (Douglas et al. “Each antenna is configured to work over a confined range approximately equal to the spacing of the vials so that is only interacts with the designated vial it is aligned with and does not interfere with adjacent vials.” – p. 3, lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Douglas et al. into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 7 above. Both McReynolds and Douglas et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of antennas for reading RFID tags. McReynolds as modified above discloses the method of claim 6. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose each subspace includes a portion of a volume defining the three-dimensional space. This feature is disclosed by Douglas et al. where each antenna is configured to work over a confined range within the box. The combination of McReynolds and Douglas et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and avoid interference (Douglas et al. p. 3, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein the subspace of one of the RFID antennas overlaps a subspace of one or more of the other RFID reader antennas for a same gain (McReynolds “That is, multiple antennas 106a, 106b, or 106c may each transmit an RF signal, which elicits a response from a single RFID tag, for example, tag 108a.” – Col. 10, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein, for each repetition of step (b), the gain is decreased from a preceding gain (McReynolds “Alternatively, however, the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c may be provided with a maximum amount of power to transmit an RF signal having a maximum signal range. The power delivered to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c may be decreased to iteratively decrease the signal ranges of the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c.” – Col. 4, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The method of claim 11 wherein the subspace for each RFID reader antenna is decreased in response to the decrease in the gain (McReynolds “less power is delivered to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c the signal ranges decrease.” – Col. 4, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently amended), McReynolds discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
A system (McReynolds RFID system 100, Fig. 1) for locating and identifying one or more objects in a search space, comprising:
an array of radio frequency identification (RFID) reader antennas (McReynolds antennas 106a, 106b, 106c are arranged in a linear array, Fig. 3), each of the RFID reader antennas configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal (McReynolds “The systems may include an array of antennas, where each antenna is configured to transmit an RF signal.” – Col. 1, lines 15-16) into a subspace of a search space defined by an array of location cells in which to determine the location for the one or more objects and to receive a reply signal from RFID tags that are present in the a subspace of the search space (McReynolds “In response to receiving the RF signal transmitted by the antennas, the RFID tag may transmit a responsive signal, which may be received by the antennas or a reader device.” – Col. 1, lines 19-22), (McReynolds “Each antenna may transmit RF signals at variable signal ranges.” – Col. 2, lines 49-50); and
a computing system (McReynolds “The computer system 500 includes a processor 502 that may be used to execute some or all of the steps described in the methods 300, 400.” – Col. 12, lines 44-46; Fig. 5) comprising a processor (McReynolds processor 502, Fig. 5) and a memory module (McReynolds main memory 506, secondary memory 508, Fig. 5), the computer system in communication with the array of RFID reader antennas (McReynolds “The controller 204 may process the information received from the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c and/or may transmit the information to another controller or computer system.” – Col. 7, lines 56-59), the computing system configured, for each RFID reader antenna, to cause a transmission of an RF signal into a subspace of the search space and to detect one or more RFID reply signals at the RFID reader antenna (McReynolds “response signal detected?” – step 304, Fig. 3) if one or more RFID tags are present in the respective subspace, each of the RFID reply signals comprising identification data for a respective one of the RFID tags (McReynolds “If the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c comprise passive or semi-passive tags, the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may convert the RF signals emitted by the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to electrical energy, which the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may use to transmit information, such as, ID information, back to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c.” – Col. 3, lines 37-42), the computing system further configured to determine an identity and location for the RFID tags in the search space in response to the detected RFID reply signals (McReynolds “Accordingly, the controller 204 may detect not only the presence of any given asset, but may also determine the location of a particular asset by the ID code of the tag 108a, 108b, and 108c associated with the asset.” – Col. 6, lines 59-62).
Although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of McReynolds to determine the location of an object by via an array of location cells, wherein each location cell includes a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis. McReynolds discloses “the responsive signal may be localized by correlating the tag with the signal range of the transmitted RF signal and the location of the antenna which transmitted the RF signal” (McReynolds Col. 9, line 66 – Col. 10, line 2). McReynolds further discloses that “The RF signal transmitted by the antennas to the RFID tag may have a variable signal range, which means that the antennas may transmit the RF signal at different strengths, distances and/or directions,” and “the controller 204 may provide a predetermined amount of power, for instance, to the one or more of the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to transmit an RF signal have the specific signal range” (McReynolds Col. 2, lines 23-26; Col. 7, lines 37-40). Thus, McReynolds also discloses that each RFID antenna in the RFID reader antenna is configured to detect RFID tags in multiple locations. Additionally, McReynolds uses two dimensions to determine the location of the detected object, where one axis is suggested by the length of the antenna array and a perpendicular axis is suggested by the range of the signal emitted from the antennas. Each of these axes can be arbitrarily assigned as the x-axis and y-axis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that by controlling the transmitting antennas to achieve particular signal ranges, or distances, would be advantageous to use the resulting location cells with coordinates defined along an x-axis and a y-axis to quickly and easily locate the detected objects.
Douglas et al. discloses:
wherein each of the subspaces in the search space is defined by one of the location cells of the array of location cells, wherein the one or more objects are vials (Douglas et al. vials 5, Fig. 5) in a sample tray (Douglas et al. box 6, Fig. 5) and wherein the search space is defined by the sample tray and the determined location of the vials in the sample tray (Douglas et al. “Vials could then be stored in a 10x10 box and a different reader e.g. 10x10 box reader configured only to read the vials could be used to carry out auditing/tracking of the vials stored in the 10x10 box.” – p. 9, lines 14-17)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Douglas et al. into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 14. Both McReynolds and Douglas et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of antennas for reading RFID tags. McReynolds discloses the limitations of claim 14 outlined above. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the object is a vial in a sample tray and wherein the search space is defined by the sample tray and the determined location is a location of the vial within the sample tray. This feature is disclosed by Douglas et al. where “Vials could then be stored in a 10x10 box and a different reader e.g. 10x10 box reader configured only to read the vials could be used to carry out auditing/tracking of the vials stored in the 10x10 box.” (Douglas et al. p. 9, lines 14-17). The combination of McReynolds and Douglas et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 14 wherein the computing system is further configured to repeat one or more times (McReynolds “This cycle may be repeated until a responsive signal from one or more of the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c is detected.” – Col. 9, lines 34-36), for each RFID reader antenna, the transmission of the RF signal and the detection of the one or more reply signals, wherein a gain of the RFID reader antenna is different from prior values of the gain (McReynolds “At step 310, the signal range of the RF signal transmitted by the activated antenna is altered… For instance, the power provided to the activated antenna may be proportional to the signal range of the antenna.” – Col. 10, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 14 wherein the computing system comprises a memory module (McReynolds “The computer system 500 also includes a main memory 506” – Col. 12, line 48) comprising computer memory hardware (McReynolds “The computer system 500 also includes a main memory 506, such as a random access memory (RAM), where the program code for, for instance, the controller 204, may be executed during runtime, and a secondary memory 508. The secondary memory 508 includes, for example, one or more hard disk drives 510 and/or a removable storage drive 512, representing a floppy diskette drive, a magnetic tape drive, a compact disk drive, etc., where a copy of the program code for localizing and/or tracking tags may be stored.” – Col. 12, lines 48-56) configured to store the identity and the location of the one or more RFID tags in the search space (McReynolds “In addition, information pertaining to at least one of the locations of the tags 108a, 108b, or 108c and the identities of associated assets may also be stored in at least one of the main memory 506 and the secondary memory 508.” – col. 12, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 17 (Original), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 14 wherein the computing system comprises a user interface (McReynolds “User input and output devices may include, for instance, a keyboard 516, a mouse 518, and a display 520.” – Col. 12, lines 63-64) to display data corresponding to the identity and the location of the one or more RFID tags in the search space (McReynolds “A display adaptor 522 may interface with the communication bus 504 and the display 520 and may receive display data from the processor 502 and convert the display data into display commands for the display 520.” – Col. 12, line 54 – Col. 13, line 1).
Regarding claim 18 (Original), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 14 wherein each RFID tag is affixed to an object (McReynolds “The tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may comprise, for instance, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags programmed with substantially unique identification (ID) codes that may be used to identify an asset (not shown) associated with one or more of the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c.” – Col. 3, lines 9-13) and wherein an RFID reply signal from the RFID tag includes identification data (McReynolds “If the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c comprise passive or semi-passive tags, the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may convert the RF signals emitted by the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to electrical energy, which the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may use to transmit information, such as, ID information, back to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c.” – Col. 3, lines 37-42).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds (US 8,044,804 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Douglas et al. (WO 2014/006417 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Connolly et al. (US 8,305,192 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 2
Connolly et al. discloses:
wherein the gain of each RFID reader antenna is a receiver sensitivity gain (Connolly et al. “the interrogation range 302 is relatively expansive for the far-field mode, due to a relatively high interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a relatively high receiver sensitivity or gain) … the near-field interrogation range 308 depicted in FIG. 4 is relatively small, due to a comparatively low interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a comparatively low receiver sensitivity or gain).” – Col. 6, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Connolly et al. into the invention of McReynolds as modified above to yield the invention of claim 9. McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
McReynolds discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
Douglas et al. discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where the antennas read RFID tags to identify and locate vials within a sample tray
Connolly et al. discloses: an RFID reader device that detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
McReynolds as modified above discloses the method of claim 2. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the gain of each antenna is a receiver sensitivity gain. This feature is disclosed by Connolly et al. where the range of the signal depends on the receiver sensitivity gain (Connolly et al. Col. 6, lines 22-34). The combination of McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and quickly and easily change the read zone of the RFID reader (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 46-51) in order to reliably identify an RFID-tagged item from a large group of tagged items (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 2
Connolly et al. discloses:
the gain of each RFID reader antenna is a transmit power gain (Connolly et al. “the interrogation range 302 is relatively expansive for the far-field mode, due to a relatively high interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a relatively high receiver sensitivity or gain) … the near-field interrogation range 308 depicted in FIG. 4 is relatively small, due to a comparatively low interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a comparatively low receiver sensitivity or gain).” – Col. 6, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Connolly et al. into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 10 above. McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
McReynolds discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
Douglas et al. discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where the antennas read RFID tags to identify and locate vials within a sample tray
Connolly et al. discloses: an RFID reader device that detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
McReynolds as modified above discloses the method of claim 2. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the gain of each antenna is a transmit power gain. This feature is disclosed by Connolly et al. where the range of the signal depends on the transmit power (Connolly et al. Col. 6, lines 22-34). The combination of McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and quickly and easily change the read zone of the RFID reader (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 46-51) in order to reliably identify an RFID-tagged item from a large group of tagged items (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 19 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The system of claim 15
Connolly et al. discloses:
the gains of the RFID reader antennas are receiver sensitivity gains (Connolly et al. “the interrogation range 302 is relatively expansive for the far-field mode, due to a relatively high interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a relatively high receiver sensitivity or gain) … the near-field interrogation range 308 depicted in FIG. 4 is relatively small, due to a comparatively low interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a comparatively low receiver sensitivity or gain).” – Col. 6, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Connolly et al. into the invention of McReynolds as modified above to yield the invention of claim 19. McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
McReynolds discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
Douglas et al. discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where the antennas read RFID tags to identify and locate vials within a sample tray
Connolly et al. discloses: an RFID reader device that detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
McReynolds as modified above discloses the system of claim 15. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the gains of the RFID antennas are receiver sensitivity gains. This feature is disclosed by Connolly et al. where the range of the signal depends on the receiver sensitivity gain (Connolly et al. Col. 6, lines 22-34). The combination of McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and quickly and easily change the read zone of the RFID reader (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 46-51) in order to reliably identify an RFID-tagged item from a large group of tagged items (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 20 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The system of claim 15 wherein the gains of the RFID reader antennas are transmit power gains.
Connolly et al. discloses:
the gains of the RFID reader antennas are transmit power gains (Connolly et al. “the interrogation range 302 is relatively expansive for the far-field mode, due to a relatively high interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a relatively high receiver sensitivity or gain) … the near-field interrogation range 308 depicted in FIG. 4 is relatively small, due to a comparatively low interrogation transmit power setting (and/or a comparatively low receiver sensitivity or gain).” – Col. 6, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Connolly et al. into the invention of McReynolds as modified above to yield the invention of claim 20. McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
McReynolds discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
Douglas et al. discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where the antennas read RFID tags to identify and locate vials within a sample tray
Connolly et al. discloses: an RFID reader device that detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
McReynolds as modified above discloses the system of claim 15. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose the gain of each antenna is a transmit power gain. This feature is disclosed by Connolly et al. where the gains of the RFID antennas are transmit power gains (Connolly et al. Col. 6, lines 22-34). The combination of McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Connolly et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and quickly and easily change the read zone of the RFID reader (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 46-51) in order to reliably identify an RFID-tagged item from a large group of tagged items (Connolly et al. Col. 1, lines 34-35).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds (US 8,044,804 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Douglas et al. (WO 2014/006417 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Peternel et al. (EP 3,916,616 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), McReynolds as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
The method of claim 11
Peternel et al. discloses:
for each repetition of step (b), transmitting an RF signal from an RFID reader antenna into a subspace is omitted if there is no RFID reply signal detected for the RFID reader antenna according to a first occurrence of step (b) or a prior occurrence of transmitting the RF signal from the RFID reader antenna into the respective subspace according to a repetition of step (b) (Peternel et al. “In this fashion, the processor 302 can sequentially power each antenna of the antennas 106 at a maximum or full power level and can gradually decrease the power until the RFID tag is not identified by any of the antennas. Furthermore, the processor 302 can identify the antenna which last read or identified the RFID tag before the transmit power at which the example implementation of the RFID readers 108 operates the antennas 106 is reduced to a value at which no RFID tag was identified.” – ¶ [0055]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Peternel et al. into the invention of McReynolds as modified above to yield the invention of claim 13. McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Peternel et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
McReynolds discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
Douglas et al. discloses: an RFID reader device comprising an array of antennas, where the antennas read RFID tags to identify and locate vials within a sample tray
Peternel et al. discloses: an array of antennas, where each antenna detects objects by reading RFID tags at different locations using a variable range operation
McReynolds as modified above discloses the method of claim 11. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose for each repetition of step (b), transmitting an RF signal from an RFID reader antenna into a subspace is omitted if there is no RFID reply signal detected for the RFID reader antenna according to a first occurrence of step (b) or a prior occurrence of transmitting the RF signal from the RFID reader antenna into the respective subspace according to a repetition of step (b). This feature is disclosed by Peternel et al. where the antennas are sequentially powered, starting from a maximum power and gradually decreasing in power until the RFID tag is not identified. The combination of McReynolds, Douglas et al., and Peternel et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently and reliably identify and locate tagged assets in a box (Douglas et al. p. 4, lines 1-3) and efficiently determine which antenna is closest to the RFID tag and determine the location of the RFID tag (Peternel et al. ¶ [0055]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McReynolds (US 8,044,804 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Ozbal (US 2020/0386725 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 21 (New), McReynolds discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by McReynolds has been struck-through]
A method for locating and identifying one or more objects in a search space (McReynolds RFID system 100, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
(a) providing an array of radio frequency identification (RFID) reader antennas (McReynolds antennas 106a, 106b, 106c, Figs. 1-2) adjacent to the search space defined by an array of location cells in which to determine the location for the one or more objects that include one or more RFID tags (McReynolds tags 108a, 108b, 108c, Fig 1) each secured to each object of the one or more objects (McReynolds “The tag localizing system 200 may also include a number of tags 108a, 108b, and 108c (shown in FIG. 1), which may be associated with a number of assets to be localized and tracked.” – Col. 5, lines 59-62), each of the RFID reader antennas configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal (McReynolds “each antenna is configured to transmit an RF signal” – Col. 2, line 16) into a subspace (McReynolds each subspace is defined by the position, beam width and range of the transmitted RF signal associated with each antenna) of the search space and to receive a reply signal from RFID tags that are present in the subspace (McReynolds “In response to receiving the RF signal transmitted by the antennas, the RFID tag may transmit a responsive signal, which may be received by the antennas or a reader device.” – Col. 1, lines 19-22), (McReynolds “Each antenna may transmit RF signals at variable signal ranges.” – Col. 2, lines 49-50);
(b) for each RFID reader antenna:
transmitting an RF signal into a respective one of the subspaces of the search space (McReynolds “The systems may include an array of antennas, where each antenna is configured to transmit an RF signal.” – Col. 1, lines 15-16); and
detecting one or more RFID reply signals (McReynolds “response signal detected?” – step 304, Fig. 3) if one or more RFID tags are present in the respective subspace, each of the RFID reply signals comprising identification data for a respective one of the RFID tags (McReynolds “If the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c comprise passive or semi-passive tags, the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may convert the RF signals emitted by the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to electrical energy, which the tags 108a, 108b, and 108c may use to transmit information, such as, ID information, back to the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c.” – Col. 3, lines 37-42); and
(c) determining an identity and location for one or more objects in the search space in response to the detected RFID reply signals (McReynolds “Accordingly, the controller 204 may detect not only the presence of any given asset, but may also determine the location of a particular asset by the ID code of the tag 108a, 108b, and 108c associated with the asset.”) – Col. 6, lines 59-62).
Although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of McReynolds to determine the location of an object by via an array of location cells, wherein each location cell includes a cell coordinate defined along an x-axis and a y-axis. McReynolds discloses “the responsive signal may be localized by correlating the tag with the signal range of the transmitted RF signal and the location of the antenna which transmitted the RF signal” (McReynolds Col. 9, line 66 – Col. 10, line 2). McReynolds further discloses that “The RF signal transmitted by the antennas to the RFID tag may have a variable signal range, which means that the antennas may transmit the RF signal at different strengths, distances and/or directions,” and “the controller 204 may provide a predetermined amount of power, for instance, to the one or more of the antennas 106a, 106b, and 106c to transmit an RF signal have the specific signal range” (McReynolds Col. 2, lines 23-26; Col. 7, lines 37-40). Thus, McReynolds also discloses that each RFID antenna in the RFID reader antenna is configured to detect RFID tags in multiple locations. Additionally, McReynolds uses two dimensions to determine the location of the detected object, where one axis is suggested by the length of the antenna array and a perpendicular axis is suggested by the range of the signal emitted from the antennas. Each of these axes can be arbitrarily assigned as the x-axis and y-axis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that by controlling the transmitting antennas to achieve particular signal ranges, or distances, would be advantageous to use the resulting location cells with coordinates defined along an x-axis and a y-axis to quickly and easily locate the detected objects.
Ozbal discloses:
the one or more objects that include one or more RFID tags each secured to each object of the one or more objects (Ozbal “one or more readable codes can be positioned on a surface of the monolithic column body 105 or the array body 605.” - ¶ [0078]; “One or more codes 1185 can be positioned on one or more of the specimen plate 1175, cartridge 1050, column 1100, fraction collection plate 1035, as well as individual wells 1170 of the collection plate 1035.” - ¶ [0120]))
wherein the object is a chromatography column (Ozbal column 100, Figs. 1, 6, 12; “The columns of the array 600 can be arranged linearly, circularly, a 2-deimensional array body 605… In some implementations, the array 600 can include 96 columns 100 manufactured in a 12x8 array for analysis of 96 specimens…” - ¶ [0077]) and wherein the search space is inside a column manager of a chromatography system (Ozbal system 1000, Fig. 12), wherein the RFID reader is located in the column manager of the chromatography system (Ozbal “The system 1000 can include a reader configured to read the one or more codes 1185.” - ¶ [0120])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ozbal into the invention of McReynolds to yield the invention of claim 21 above. Both McReynolds and Ozbal are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of RFID readers and RFID tags for identifying one or more objects in a search space. McReynolds discloses the limitations of claim 21 outlined above. However, McReynolds fails to explicitly disclose wherein the object is a chromatography column and wherein the search space is inside a column manager of a chromatography system, wherein the array of RFID reader antennas are located in the column manager of the chromatography system. This feature is disclosed by Ozbal where (Ozbal “The system 1000 can include a reader configured to read the one or more codes 1185.” - ¶ [0120]). The combination of McReynolds and Ozbal would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “identify a solvent assembly as compatible with a single-use column 100 (or array of columns)… and alert the user to an incompatibility between column 100 (or array of columns) and solvent with a visual alarm, an audio alarm, or both… prevent analysis from progressing when incompatible solvents are detected in the form of an incompatible solvent assembly.” (Ozbal ¶ [0078]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
22 JAN 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648