DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 10-15 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atherton (US Pub No. 2004/0066296 A1).
As per claim 8, Atherton discloses a RFID reader capable of reading and a configuration word both stored (paragraph [0098]: information stored in the memory and a determination of whether or not the chip may be written into) in a passive RFID chip of an electronic seal (paragraph [0074]), and capable of rewriting the value of the memory code according to the value of the memory code and the configuration word reading from the passive RFID chip (paragraph [0098]: determining the information indicates the label has been tampered with, writing data into the chip indicating the tamper and writing the data into the chip permanently and irreversibly)
As per claim 16, Atherton discloses the RFID reader according to claim 8, wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is a first state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is a first configuration value, the value of the memory code is maintained as the first state value by the RFID reader (paragraph [0014] & [0098]: the label has been tampered with and is non-writable); wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the first state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is a second configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a second state value by the RFID reader (paragraphs [0014] & [0098]: determining the information indicates the label has been tampered with, the label is writable, writing data values to the memory).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atherton in view of Tremblay et al. (Tremblay; US Pub No. 2019/0138874 A1).
As per claim 9, Atherton teaches the RFID reader according to claim 8, wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is a first state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is a first configuration value, the value of the memory code is maintained as the first state value by the RFID reader (paragraph [0014] & [0098]: the label has been tampered with and is non-writable); wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the first state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is a second configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a second state value by the RFID reader (paragraphs [0014] & [0098]: determining the information indicates the label has been tampered with, the label is writable, writing data values to the memory).
Atherton does not expressly teach wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the second state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is the first configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a third state value by the RFID reader; when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the third the [[a]] second configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a fourth state value by the RFID reader.
Tremblay teaches wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the second state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is the first configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a third state value by the RFID reader (paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0056]: torn); when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the third the [[a]] second configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a fourth state value by the RFID reader (paragraphs [0041], [0044], & [0070]: authenticity status).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the changing of security state of an RFID device as taught by Tremblay, since Tremblay states that such a modification would result in identifying a plurality of different security states entered into by an RFID device based on different tamper and breaching situations.
As per claim 17, Atherton teaches the RFID reader according to claim 16.
Atherton does not expressly teach wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the second state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is the first configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a third state value by the RFID reader.
Tremblay teaches wherein when the value of the memory code read by the RFID reader is the second state value and the value of the configuration word read by the RFID reader is the first configuration value, the value of the memory code is changed to a third state value by the RFID reader (paragraphs [0041], [0044], & [0070]: authenticity status).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the changing of security state of an RFID device as taught by Tremblay, since Tremblay states that such a modification would result in identifying a plurality of different security states entered into by an RFID device based on different tamper and breaching situations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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 J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685