DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed December 15, 2025, claims 1-4, 16, 19, 32, and 35-48 are pending in the application. Claims 5-15, 18, 20-31, 33, and 34 have been withdrawn pursuant to a restriction. The applicant has subsequently cancelled claims 5-10, 17, and 22-24. The applicant has added claims 35-48. The applicant has amended claims 1-4, 16, 19, and 32.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
3. An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
The application has been amended as follows:
49. (Currently Amended) The animal management system of Claim 35, wherein:
the second RF reader system generates a second tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag, scans for tags during the second tag scan window, and sends data regarding RFID tags detected during the second tag scan window to the first server system; and
wherein the server system determines whether the first tag scan window overlaps with the second tag scan window and dedupes any identical RFID tags between the first tag scan window and the second tag scan window.
50. (Currently Amended) The animal management system of Claim 49, wherein the server system analyzes a detection time of an RFID tag in each tag scan window to dedupe between tag scan windows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arneson et al. (US 2007/0200712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arneson discloses an animal management system (because the body of the claim does not make any reference to animal management, this limitation is mere preamble and is not limiting), the system comprising:
a server system comprising an electronic processor, the server system configured to receive tag scan data from radio frequency (RF) reader systems ([0055]); and
a first radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for radio frequency identification tags (RFID) tags in a first area ([0036]),
wherein the first RF reader system generates a tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag ([0036]),
scans for tags during the tag scan window ([0036]), and
sends data regarding RFID tags detected during the tag scan window to the server system ([0055]).
6. Claims 19 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel et al. (US 2014/0306804 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Stiefel discloses:
a first radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in a first area ([0035]; FIG. 1: 210),
the first RF reader system generating a first tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag and scanning for tags during the first tag scan window ([0042], [0045]); and
a second radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for RFID tags in a second area that does not overlap with the first area ([0042], [0045]), the second RF reader system generating a second tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag, scanning for tags during the second tag scan window ([0042], [0045]).
Regarding claim 41, Stiefel discloses a server system adapted to receive data regarding RFID tags detected during the first tag scan window from the first RF reader system and data regarding RFID tags detected during the second tag scan window from the second RF reader system ([0042], [0046]; FIG. 3: 300).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson in view of Ishikawa (US 2009/0002170 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Arneson does not disclose that the first RF reader system creates a tag scan period for each RFID tag detected during a tag scan window and updates the tag scan periods upon subsequent detections of the corresponding RFID tags during the tag scan window.
Ishikawa, addressing the same problem of how to arrange the tag scan period for RFID tags, teaches a wireless tag reader/writer control system and a wireless tag reader/writer control method for controlling the electromagnetic wave radiation time intervals of a wireless tag reader/writer for transmitting a signal to and receiving a signal from a wireless tag ([0003]), wherein the RF reader system creates a tag scan period for each RFID tag detected during a tag scan window ([0042], [0044]) and updates the tag scan periods upon subsequent detections of the corresponding RFID tags during the tag scan window ([0044], [0047]) for the benefit of providing a wireless tag reader/writer control system and a wireless tag reader/writer control method that can prevent a plurality of wireless tag readers/writers being operated within a limited geographical area from causing interferences of electromagnetic waves ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Ishikawa with the system of Arneson because that would have enabled the system to provide a wireless tag reader/writer control system and a wireless tag reader/writer control method that can prevent a plurality of wireless tag readers/writers being operated within a limited geographical area from causing interferences of electromagnetic waves.
9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson in view of Eriksson et al. (US 2019/0069512 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Arneson does not disclose a camera configured to capture an image of the first area, the first RF reader system adapted to determine if an animal is present in the image and in the first area based on a scan for RFID tags and activate the camera if an animal is present in the first area.
Eriksson, Eriksson, in the same field of animal management systems, teaches a camera arranged so that the view field covers an identification zone within a passageway, and a data processor is configured to detect the presence of any animal within the view field of the camera based on the recorded image data ([0006], [0027]), wherein the processor is configured to generate a trigger signal configured to activate a reader unit to read a radio-frequency identification tag on the animal if and only if an animal is detected within the identification zone ([0006], [0011], [0028]) for the benefit of reducing the risk of unnecessary operation of the reader unit ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the application to have combined the teachings of Eriksson with the system of Arneson because
that would have enabled the system to reduce the risk of unnecessary operation of a reader unit.
10. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel in view of Eriksson.
Regarding claim 32, Stiefel does not disclose a camera configured to capture an image of
the first area, the first RF reader system adapted to determine if an animal is present in the first area and scan for RFID tags and activate the camera if an animal is present in the first area.
Eriksson, in the same field of animal management systems, teaches a camera arranged SO
that the view field covers an identification zone within a passageway, and a data processor is configured to detect the presence of any animal within the view field of the camera based on the recorded image data ([0006], [0027]), wherein the processor is configured to generate a trigger signal configured to activate a reader unit to read a radio-frequency identification tag on the animal
if and only if an animal is detected within the identification zone ([0006], [0011], [0028]) for the benefit of reducing the risk of unnecessary operation of the reader unit ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Eriksson with the system of Stiefel because that would have enabled the system to reduce the risk of unnecessary operation of a reader unit.
11. Claims 35, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson in view of Stiefel.
Regarding claim 35, Arneson does not disclose:
a second radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for RFID tags in a second area that overlaps with the first area and send data regarding detected RFID tags in the second area to the server system;
wherein the server system is adapted to compare the RFID tags detected by the second RF reader system to those detected by the first RF reader system and dedupe detections of the same RFID tags.
Stiefel, addressing the same problem of how to arrange a second radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for RFID tags, teaches a system for determining item movement via wireless tracking ([0014]), comprising:
a second radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for RFID tags in a second area that overlaps with the first area and send data regarding detected RFID tags in the second area to the server system ([0045]);
Stiefel does not explicitly disclose that the first RF reader system compares
the RFID tags detected by the second RF reader system to those detected by the first RF reader system and dedupes detections of the same RFID tags, but Ryan does disclose that a processor determines that two RFID readers read tag information from the same RFID tag ([0045]) in order to determine
whether the two readers have overlapping read zones ([0045]), which suggests that the system of Stiefel comprises that first RF reader system compares the RFID tags detected by the second RF reader system to those detected by the first RF reader system and dedupes detections of the same RFID tags for the benefit of determining that the two readers have overlapping read zones;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Stiefel in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to determine that two readers have overlapping read zones.
Regarding claim 49, the above combination does not disclose:
the second RF reader system generates a second tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag, scans for tags during the second tag scan window, and sends data regarding RFID tags detected during the second tag scan window to the first server system; and
wherein the server system determines whether the first tag scan window overlaps with the second tag scan window and dedupes any identical RFID tags between the first tag scan window and the second tag scan window.
Stiefel, addressing the same problem of how to arrange a second radio frequency (RF) reader system adapted to scan for RFID tags, teaches a system for determining item movement via wireless tracking ([0014]), comprising:
the second RF reader system generates a second tag scan window upon detecting an RFID tag, scans for tags during the second tag scan window, and sends data regarding RFID tags detected during the second tag scan window to the first server system ([0042], [0045]); and
wherein the server system determines whether the first tag scan window overlaps with the second tag scan window and dedupes any identical RFID tags between the first tag scan window and the second tag scan window ([0042], [0045]),
for the benefit of quickly and automatically monitoring movement of groups of RFID tags within a facility ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Stiefel with the system of the above combination because that would have enabled the system to quickly and automatically monitor movement of groups of RFID tags within a facility.
Regarding claim 50, the above combination does not disclose that the server system analyzes a detection time of an RFID tag in each tag scan window to dedupe between tag scan windows.
Stiefel further teaches that the server system analyzes a detection time of an RFID tag in each tag scan window to dedupe between tag scan windows. ([0042], [0045])
12. Claims 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel.
Regarding claim 42, Stiefel does not explicitly disclose that the server system compares RFID tags detected by the second RF reader system to RFID tags detected by the first RF reader system and dedupes detections of the same RFID tag, but Stiefel does disclose does disclose that a server determines that two RFID readers read tag information from the same RFID tag ([0042], [0045]) in order to determine whether the two readers have overlapping read zones ([0045]), which suggests that the system of Stiefel comprises that server system compares the RFID tags detected by the second RF reader system to those detected by the first RF reader system and dedupes detections of the same RFID tag for the benefit of determining that the two readers have overlapping read zones ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Stiefel in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to determine that two readers have overlapping read zones.
13. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel in view of Kenney et al. (US 2021/0211152 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Stiefel does not disclose that the server system analyzes consecutive tag scan windows for the first RF reader system to analyze an animal's visit to the first area.
Kenney, addressing the same problem of how to configure an RF reader to detect movement, teaches a radiation safety mechanism based on Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) sensing ([0001]), wherein the mechanism compares measurements of consecutive scanning/mapping operations ([0048]) for the benefit of discriminating detected objects between inanimate objects or animal body ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Kenney with the system of Stiefel because that would have enabled the system to discriminate detected objects between inanimate objects or animal body.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 37 and 38 are objected to for the same reason as claim 36 because claims 37 and 38 depend from claim 36.
Claim 39 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 40 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 43 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 44 is objected to for the same reason as claim 43 because claim 44 depends from claim 43.
Claim 46 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 47 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 48 is objected to for the same reason as claim 47 because claim 48 depends from claim 47.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 16, 19, 32, and 35-48 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
15. 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689