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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/28/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma et al. (US 20210081620 hereinafter Yaginuma) in view of Ono et al. (CN 110008769 hereinafter Ono) and further in view of Ohishi (US 20070063845).
Regarding claim 1, Yaginuma teaches A communication apparatus, comprising: one or more antennas that communicate with a wireless tag (0023 “As shown in FIG. 2, the antenna 6A, the antenna 6B, and the conveying mechanism 7 are disposed below the predetermined zone (the zone in which the wireless tag 21 to be read is disposed) 23 above the table 5.”);
a first driving device that causes an antenna to move in a first direction (0026 “In FIG. 2, the conveying mechanism 7 moves the antennas 6A and 6B in the direction of the arrow “a” or the arrow “b””);
(0044 “The wireless tag reader apparatus 1 executes reading of the wireless tag at each of the first antenna 6A that moves in the first direction and the second antenna 6B that moves in the second direction.”); and
a processor configured to determine a position of the wireless tag on a basis of tag data of the wireless tag acquired on a basis of movement of the antenna along the first direction and tag data of the wireless tag acquired on a basis of movement of the antenna or the different antenna along the second direction that crosses the first direction (0050 “Furthermore, the reader 16 acquires position information indicating the position of the wireless tag which is estimated from the temporal change of the phase difference due to the movement of the first antenna 6A.”).
While Yaginuma discloses one driving devices that moves antennas in two different directions, Yaginuma does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ono teaches a second driving device that causes the antenna or a different antenna different from the antenna in a second direction different from the first direction
(Ono p.4 “the drive part has a first driving part and a second driving part, the first antenna by the first driving part supporting the side surface of the one side of the holding chamber of the upper and the second antenna through the second drive unit is supported on the lower part of the bottom surface of the containing chamber”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision in reading RFID tags (Ono p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ohishi teaches
a different antenna different from the antenna in a second direction that crosses the first direction (0043 “The first and second readers 55a and 55b rotates the antennas 54a and 54b respectively. With the rotation of the antennas 54a and 54b, it is possible for the readers 55a and 55b to read out information of IC tags of many IC tag-attached articles placed on the shelf 51.”; fig 5 [antennas cross the same field of view]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ohishi with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce costs (Ohishi 0006). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ohishi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since the cited prior art and Ohishi disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first driving device causes the antenna to move from outside of one end of a predetermined region in the first direction to outside of the other end in the first direction (Yaginuma fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second driving device (Ono p.4 “the drive part has a first driving part and a second driving part, the first antenna by the first driving part supporting the side surface of the one side of the holding chamber of the upper and the second antenna through the second drive unit is supported on the lower part of the bottom surface of the containing chamber”) causes the antenna or the different antenna to move from outside of one end of the predetermined region in the second direction to outside of the other end in the second direction (Yaginuma fig 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase communication distance (Ono 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the position of the wireless tag is included in the predetermined region (Yaginuma Abstract “The processor determines whether or not the wireless tag is in the predetermined zone based on the position information acquired by the reader.”).
Regarding claim 5, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the first direction (Yaginuma 0024 “For example, the conveying mechanism 7 includes a conveying belt for conveying the antenna 6A and the antenna 6B, a motor for driving the conveying belt, and the like.”), and the second driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the second direction (Ono claim 5 “the first drive part has the first ball screw and the first motor, the second drive part has a second ball screw and a second motor.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase communication distance (Ono 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to drive the second driving device after finishing driving the first driving device (Ono p.33 “In addition, control unit 76B can make the first antenna 41 and second antenna 42 back and forth. reciprocating movement can be one time, or may also be a plurality of times.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase communication distance (Ono 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the first direction (Yaginuma 0024 “For example, the conveying mechanism 7 includes a conveying belt for conveying the antenna 6A and the antenna 6B, a motor for driving the conveying belt, and the like.”),
the second driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the second direction (Ono p.4 “the drive part has a first driving part and a second driving part, the first antenna by the first driving part supporting the side surface of the one side of the holding chamber of the upper and the second antenna through the second drive unit is supported on the lower part of the bottom surface of the containing chamber”), and
the processor is further configured to drive the second driving device after finishing driving the first driving device (Ono p.33 “In addition, control unit 76B can make the first antenna 41 and second antenna 42 back and forth. reciprocating movement can be one time, or may also be a plurality of times.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase communication distance (Ono 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the first direction (Yaginuma fig 2), and the second driving device includes a motor that causes the different antenna to move in the second direction (Ono p.4 “the drive part has a first driving part and a second driving part, the first antenna by the first driving part supporting the side surface of the one side of the holding chamber of the upper and the second antenna through the second drive unit is supported on the lower part of the bottom surface of the containing chamber”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision in reading RFID tags (Ono p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to simultaneously drive the first driving device and the second driving device (Ono p.35 “At this time, the control section 76B as described above at the relative position between the first antenna and the second antenna 42 keep certain while moving the first antenna 41 and the second antenna 42.” [thus both driving devices are moving at the same time]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision in reading RFID tags (Ono p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, The cited prior art teach The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a position of the antenna in a vertical direction and a position of the different antenna in the vertical direction are the same (Yaginuma fig 2),
the first driving device includes a motor that causes the antenna to move in the first direction (Yaginuma 0026 “In FIG. 2, the conveying mechanism 7 moves the antennas 6A and 6B in the direction of the arrow “a” or the arrow “b””),
the second driving device includes a motor that causes the different antenna to move in the second direction (Ono p.4 “the drive part has a first driving part and a second driving part, the first antenna by the first driving part supporting the side surface of the one side of the holding chamber of the upper and the second antenna through the second drive unit is supported on the lower part of the bottom surface of the containing chamber”), and
the processor is further configured to simultaneously drive the first driving device and the second driving device (Ono p.35 “At this time, the control section 76B as described above at the relative position between the first antenna and the second antenna 42 keep certain while moving the first antenna 41 and the second antenna 42.” [thus both driving devices are moving at the same time]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ono with the teachings of Yaginuma. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision in reading RFID tags (Ono p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ono merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since Yaginuma and Ono disclose similar RFID tag communication system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma et al. (US 20210081620 hereinafter Yaginuma) in view of Ono et al. (CN 110008769 hereinafter Ono), and further in view of Ohishi (US 20070063845) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qu (CN 106093604).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The communication apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first rotation shaft that rotates by driving force of the first driving device (0043 “The first and second readers 55a and 55b rotates the antennas 54a and 54b respectively. With the rotation of the antennas 54a and 54b, it is possible for the readers 55a and 55b to read out information of IC tags of many IC tag-attached articles placed on the shelf 51.”);
a first rail that extends along the first direction (Yaginuma fig 2)
a first moving stage that moves with the antenna placed on the first moving stage in the first direction along the first rail by the rotation of the first rail (Yaginuma fig 2);
(Yaginuma “move second antenna in second direction”).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Qu teaches
a first rail that extends along the first direction and rotates by the rotation of the first rotation shaft (Qu Abstract “The invention claims a probe antenna scanning device, comprises base and set on the base and moving along the guide rail on the base of the tower frame”)
a second rotation shaft that rotates by driving force of the second driving device; a second rail that extends along the second direction and rotates by the rotation of the second rotation shaft (p.3 “the tower frame is provided with a vertical guide rail, the fixing plate is set on the vertical lead rail.”; Abstract “the tower frame is provided with a thread hole along the guide rail direction”)
with the antenna or the different antenna placed on the second moving stage in the second direction along the second rail by the rotation of the second rail (p.2 “A probe antenna scanning device, comprising a base and a base and moving along the guide rail on the base of the tower frame”; p.2 “As a preference, the lifting control device comprises a hydraulic cylinder fixed on the tower frame.”; p.3 “a vertical guide rail”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Qu with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision (Qu p.3). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Qu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since previous combination and Qu teach similar antennas, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648