FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 6/23/2026:
The amendments to claim 1, 3, 4, and 8 are acknowledged and accepted.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/15/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final office action on 2/23/206. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “said reader determines said modified communication is with said target tag using said TID”. The wording “said modified communication is with said target tag” is awkward and confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “said reader determines said modified communication is with said target tag using said TID.” The wording “said modified communication is with said target tag” is awkward and confusing. It is unclear what the applicant means by “said modified communication is with said target tag”. Please clarify. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as “said reader uses the modified communication to communicate with the target tag for the TID.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino (JP H1115932).
With respect to claim 1, in a first interpretation, Fujino discloses method for programming of a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader (3) ([0049]-[0052]);
identifying a target tag for a write operation, said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) (identification number) identifying said target tag ([0015], [0023], [0025], [0052]);
determining said target tag is located in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (confirm transponder is within communication range) ([0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047]);
said reader using said communication to send a write operation to said target tag ([0052]);
verifying said write operation was carried out by said reader on said target tag using said TID of said target tag ([0052]).
Fujino fails to expressly disclose in a same embodiment said reader modifying its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags.
Nevertheless, Fujino teaches another embodiment where a reader modifies its communication to improve communication with a target tag over other tags in a field of tags to communicate (change size of the communication range between interrogator and transponder without interference ([0071]-[0076], [0080]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reader in the same embodiment such that the reader modifies its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags and to use said modified communication to send the write operation to said target tag, in order to send said write operation with the target tag without interference.
With respect to claim 3, the modified Fujino discloses said target tag is determined to be in said field of tags when it enters said field of tags (Fujino: [0017]-[0026], [0040]-[0047], [0056], [0057]).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Fujino discloses the TID is used by said reader to determine said target tag is within the field of tags (Fujino: [0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Fujino applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaughlin (US 2006/0186999).
With respect to claim 13, regarding the first interpretation, the modified Fujino addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Fujino fails to expressly disclose modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag.
The modified Fujino discloses modifying the reader’s communication is modifying the reader’s communication range (([0071]-[0076], [0080]-[0084]). McLaughlin teaches it is well known in the art that a power level of an RFID reader is related to the RFID reader’s read/write range ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reader’s modified communication to comprise determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag, in order to determine the desired power level of the reader for reducing the reader’s communication range to its desired size.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Bloy (US 2013/0099898) and Karttaavi et al. (US 2012/0068813).
With respect to claims 1 and 10-12, in a second interpretation, Fujino discloses method for programming of a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader (3) ([0015], [0023], [0025],[0049]- [0052]);
identifying a target tag for a write operation, said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) (identification number) identifying said target tag ([0015], [0023], [0025], [0052]);
determining said target tag is located in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (confirm transponder is within communication range / detecting and monitoring the presence of transponder in the communication range) ([0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047], [0059]);
said reader using said communication to send a write operation to said target tag ([0052]);
verifying said write operation was carried out by said reader on said target tag using said TID of said target tag ([0052]).
Fujino fails to expressly disclose in a same embodiment said reader modifying its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags. Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose said modifying its communication comprises steering a steerable phased array antenna in said reader to said target tag, or said modifying its communication comprises using spread spectrum frequency analysis to determine a best frequency at which said target tag resonates, or said modifying its communication comprises determining a best RF to communicate with said target tag.
Fujino discloses monitoring the presence of the transponder in the communication range ([0059]). Bloy teaches it is well known in the art to modify a reader’s communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags, wherein the modifying its communication comprises steering a steerable phased array antenna in said reader to said target tag, or using spread spectrum frequency analysis to determine a best frequency at which the target resonates, or determining a best RF to communicate with the tag, or determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag ([0019], [0021], [0045]). Karttaavi et al. teaches using a steerable phased array antenna to communicate with an RF tag including to write information to the RFID tag ([0102], [0104], [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reader to modify its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags, wherein said reader using said modified communication to send the write operation, in order to point an antenna beam of the reader to a desired direction without physically turning the antenna, as taught by Karttaavi et al. ([0104]).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Fujino discloses said distance comprises at least 15 meters (Bloy: [0044]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of McLaughlin.
With respect to claims 1 and 13, in a third interpretation, Fujino discloses method for programming of a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader (3) ([0049]-[0052]);
identifying a target tag for a write operation, said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) (identification number) identifying said target tag ([0015], [0023], [0025], [0052]);
determining said target tag is located in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (confirm transponder is within communication range) ([0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047]);
said reader using said communication to send a write operation to said target tag ([0052]);
verifying said write operation was carried out by said reader on said target tag using said TID of said target tag ([0052]).
However, Fujino fails to expressly disclose said reader modifying its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags; and said reader using said modified communication to send the write operation. Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag.
McLaughlin teaches it is well known in the art to for an RFID reader to have different read and write transmission power levels ([0020], [0021])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified communication to comprise determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag and to use the modified communication to send the write operation to the target tag, in order to provide energy conservation while providing sufficient power to successfully write the target tag, as taught by McLaughlin ([0020], [0025]).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Fujino discloses said target tag is determined to be in said field of tags when it enters said field of tags (Fujino: [0017]-[0026], [0040]-[0047], [0056], [0057]).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Fujino discloses the TID is used by said reader to determine said target tag is within the field of tags (Fujino: [0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fujino modified by McLaughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Picasso (US 8810376).
With respect to claims 5-7, regarding the third interpretation, the modified Fujino addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Fujino fails to expressly disclose said write operation writes an Electronic Product Code (EPC) to said target tag. The modified Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said write operation will modify said existing EPC. The modified Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said write operation will overwrite said existing EPC.
Picasso et al. teaches it is well known in the art to perform a write operation to write an Electronic Product Code (EPC) to a target tag (col. 10, lines 1-4; col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2). Picasso et al. additionally teaches it is well known in the art for a target tag to include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and a write operation will modify said existing EPC/said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said write operation will overwrite said existing EPC (Picasso: col. 9, lines 47-49; col. 10, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a write operation to write an Electronic Product Code (EPC) to a target tag and/or to modify said target tag to include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said write operation will modify said existing EPC / said target tag to include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said write operation will overwrite said existing EPC, in order to provide an initial EPC to the tag as well as to provide a final EPC that is written over the initial EPC, as taught by Picasso et al. (col. 9, lines 46-49).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fujino modified by McLaughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (US 2022/0108092)
With respect to claim 8, regarding the third interpretation, the modified Fujino addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Fujino fails to expressly disclose said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said determining is based on said existing EPC.
The modified Fujino discloses an existing tag identifier (transponder identification number) and the determining is based on the existing tag identifier ([0015]-[0025]). Wan et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a tag identifier to be an Electronic Product Code (EPC) ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tag identifier to be an EPC in order to identify an associated object that the tag is attached to.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino modified by McLaughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drago et al. (US 2008/0165007).
With respect to claim 9, regarding the third interpretation, the modified Fujino addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Fujino fails to expressly disclose said write command is a kill command.
Drago et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a write command to include a kill command ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify said write command is a kill command in order to allow the reader to permanently disable the tag if desired.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Fujino modified by McLaughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrow et al. (US 2015/0091707).
With respect to claim 14, regarding the third interpretation, the modified Fujino addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose said target tag is one of a plurality of tags simultaneously sent said write command.
Morrow et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a target tag to be one of a plurality of tags simultaneously sent said write command ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify said target tag to be one of a plurality of tags simultaneously sent said write command, in order to bulk encode the tags and not need to read and write each tag separately and in series.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Ducklett et al. (US 2022/0012439).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, in a fourth interpretation, Fujino discloses method for programming of a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader (3) ([0049]-[0052]);
identifying a target tag for a write operation, said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) (identification number) identifying said target tag ([0015], [0023], [0025], [0052]);
determining said target tag is located in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (confirm transponder is within communication range) ([0016], [0018], [0023]-[0026], [0047]);
said reader using said communication to send a write operation to said target tag ([0052]);
verifying said write operation was carried out by said reader on said target tag using said TID of said target tag ([0052]).
However, Fujino fails to expressly disclose said reader modifying its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags; and said reader using said modified communication to send the write operation. Fujino additionally fails to expressly disclose modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag.
Duckett al. teaches it is well known in the art to modify a reader’s communication to improve communication with a target tag over other tags in a field of tags, wherein the modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with the target tag (increase power to a level necessary to write the tag) ([0054], [0055], [0077], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify said reader to modify its communication to improve communication with said target tag over other tags in said field of tags, wherein said reader using said modified communication to send the write operation which comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag, in order to increase the power to a level necessary to write to the tag.
With respect to claim 15, as best understood, the modified Picasso et al. discloses before said reader uses said modified communication to send a write operation, said reader determines said modified communication is with said target tag using said TID (power level is increased to level necessary to write the tag, thus has to be determined before writing) (Duckett: [0055], [0078]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claim 1 (e.g. determining is located in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection regarding the phrase said modified communication is with said target tag using the TID”, the applicant argues this phrase is clear and that the reader determines that the modified communication wit actually with the target tag. The applicant additionally points to para [065] for support. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification describes modifying its communication includes determining a best frequency at which the target resonates, steering a steerable phased array antenna, or determining a best power level to communicate with the target tag. As such, the modified communication is, for example, a best power level, or a steerable phased array antenna, or a best RF frequency. As such, “the reader determines that a best power level is with the target tag” or “the reader determines that a best RF frequency is with a target tag” or “the reader determines that a steerable phased array antenna is with a target tag” is still an unclear phrases. Para [065] does state that “the tag may be interrogated by the antenna for the TID and this may be used to verify that indeed the located and targeted tag is the target tag. If the TID is not known, the target tag (101) will typically be inquired for its TID to use in the write command and later verification of a successful write command”. It is not clear if the applicant is trying to claim that the reader uses modified communication to obtain the TID of the target tag. Nevertheless, the phrase “determines said modified communication is with said target tag using the TID” is still considered to be unclear. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claim 15 is maintained.
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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
