DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 12/29/2025:
The amendment to claims 1 and 6-8 are acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of new claim 15 is 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 15 are 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 3 recites “said target tag is selected when...”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “the target tag is selected” since claim 1 no longer recites selecting a target tag. Please clarify.
Claim 4 recites “said TID is used by said reader to select said target tag”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “to select the target tag” since claim 1 no longer recites selecting a target tag. Please clarify.
Claim 15 recites “said reader determines said modified communication is with said target tag using said TID.” It is unclear what the applicant means by “said modified communication is with said target tag”. Please clarify.
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, 5-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. (US 8,810,376) in view of Yamazaki et al. (2007/0046430), Bloy (US 2013/0099898) and Karttaavi et al. (US 2012/0068813).
With respect to claims 1 and 10-12, Picasso et al. discloses a method for programming of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader, the reader being in communication with a field of RFID tags ([0027]);
locating a target tag in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (singulating a tag from the other tags in a group of tags) (col. 10, lines 35-60), said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) identifying said the target tag (col. 9, lines 15-18);
the reader sends a write operation to the target tag (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2); and
verifying said write operation was carried out by the reader on the target tag (col. 11, lines 12-13).
Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose the locating of the target tag is by identifying the target tag in said field of tags for a write operation. Picasso et al. 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. Picasso et al. 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.
Yamazaki et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a RFID reader/writer to singulate/locate a target tag from a group of tags using an identification of the target tag (tag’s ID number) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the target tag by first identifying the target tag in order to write or rewrite to only a specific singulated target tag in a group of tags.
The combined teachings of Picasso et al. and Yamazaki et al. disclose the invention set forth above, however they fail 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. The combined teachings 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.
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 Picasso et al. discloses said distance comprises at least 15 meters (Bloy: [0044]).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said target tag is selected when it enters said field of tags (Picasso: col. 10, lines 53-57).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said write operation writes an Electronic Product Code (EPC) to said target tag (Picasso: col. 10, lines 1-4; col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said 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 EP (Picasso: col. 9, lines 47-49; col. 10, lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. modified by Yamazaki et al., Bloy and Karttaavi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drago et al. (US 2008/0165007).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose said TID is used by said reader to select said target tag.
Drago et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a TID to be used by a reader to select for target tag for a command ([0061]).
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 TID to be used by said reader to select said target tag in order to transmit the write command to the proper tag (to the tag having its TID read).
With respect to claim 9, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Picasso et al. 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) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. modified by Yamazaki et al., Bloy and Karttaavi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrow et al. (US 2015/0091707).
With respect to claim 8 and 14, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses said target tag to include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) (Picasso: col. 5, lines 63-65; col. 9, lines 33-49).
However, the modified Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose said selecting is based on said existing EPC. The modified Picasso et al. also 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 include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said selecting the target tag is based on said existing EPC, and said target tag is 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 selecting to be based on said existing EPC, and 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. in view of Yamazaki et al., Bloy and Butler et al. (US 2008/0186137).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Picasso et al. discloses a method for programming of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader, the reader being in communication with a field of RFID tags ([0027]);
locating a target tag in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (singulating a tag from the other tags in a group of tags) (col. 10, lines 35-60), said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) identifying said the target tag (col. 9, lines 15-18);
the reader sends a write operation to the target tag (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2); and
verifying said write operation was carried out by the reader on the target tag (col. 11, lines 12-13).
Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose the locating of the target tag is by identifying the target tag in said field of tags for a write operation. Picasso et al. 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. Picasso additionally fails to expressly disclose said modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag.
Yamazaki et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a RFID reader/writer to singulate/locate a target tag from a group of tags using an identification of the target tag (tag’s ID number) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the target tag by first identifying the target tag in order to write or rewrite to only a specific singulated target tag in a group of tags.
The combined teachings of Picasso et al. and Yamazaki et al. disclose the invention set forth above, however fail 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. The combined teachings additionally fails to expressly disclose said modifying its communication comprises determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag.
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 determining a best power level to communicate with said target tag ([0021], [0045]). Butler et al. teaches it is well known in the art to determine if reader power needs to be increased to complete desired operations, including completing a write cycle ([0411]-[0413]).
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 determine desired power to singulate an RFID tag and complete a write cycle on the RFID tag.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. in view of Duckett et al. (US 2022/0012439).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Picasso et al. discloses a method for programming of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag at a distance, the method comprising:
providing a control system including a reader, the reader being in communication with a field of RFID tags ([0027]);
locating a target tag in a field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with (singulating a tag from the other tags in a group of tags) (col. 10, lines 35-60), said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) identifying said the target tag (col. 9, lines 15-18);
the reader sends a write operation to the target tag (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2); and
verifying said write operation was carried out by the reader on the target tag (col. 11, lines 12-13).
Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose the locating of the target tag is by identifying the target tag in said field of tags for a write operation. Picasso et al. 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. Picasso additionally fails to expressly disclose said 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 for a RFID reader/writer to singulate/locate a target tag from a group of tags using an identification of the target tag (singulate particular tag containing serial number in an encode command) ([0055]). Duckett et al. additionally 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 to locate the target tag by first identifying the target tag in order to write or rewrite to only a specific singulated target tag in a group of tags. 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 3, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said target tag is selected when it enters said field of tags (Picasso: col. 10, lines 53-57).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said write operation writes an Electronic Product Code (EPC) to said target tag (Picasso: col. 10, lines 1-4; col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 2).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the modified Picasso et al. discloses said target tag includes an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said 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 EP (Picasso: col. 9, lines 47-49; col. 10, lines 1-4).
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]).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. modified by Duckett et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drago et al.
With respect to claim 4, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose said TID is used by said reader to select said target tag.
Drago et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a TID to be used by a reader to select for target tag for a command ([0061]).
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 TID to be used by said reader to select said target tag in order to transmit the write command to the proper tag (to the tag having its TID read).
With respect to claim 9, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Picasso et al. 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) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picasso et al. modified by Duckett et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrow et al.
With respect to claim 8 and 14, the modified Picasso et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses said target tag to include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) (Picasso: col. 5, lines 63-65; col. 9, lines 33-49).
However, the modified Picasso et al. fails to expressly disclose said selecting is based on said existing EPC. The modified Picasso et al. also 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 include an existing Electronic Product Code (EPC) and said selecting the target tag is based on said existing EPC, and said target tag is 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 selecting to be based on said existing EPC, and 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.
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. identifying selecting a target tag in said field of tags for a write operation, said target tag having a Transponder ID (TID) identifying said the target tag; locating said target tag in a said field of RFID tags said reader is in communication with).
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, 11:00 am - 7:00 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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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