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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on February 23, 2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 15-29 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Etzkorn does not teach that the operation settings are only changed in response to the aircraft landing at the new destination (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Etzkorn does not disclose adjusting the operational settings of a limited number of RFID devices (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Etzkorn does not disclose or suggest reducing the amount of adjustments of the RFID devices (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
RFID sensor orchestrator in claim 15 and 21.
GPS locator in claim 15 and 24.
Geolocation translator in claim 15 and 24.
UHF regulator in claim 15.
The RFID sensor orchestrator, GPS locator, Geolocation translator, and UHF regulator are all interpreted as programming instructions (i.e., computer code) as disclosed in paragraph 37 and structural equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 4-6, 8, and 15-29 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.
In claim 1, line 28, the limitation "operational settings of the RFID devices" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the current operational settings previously recited on lines 16 and 19, the second RFID operational requirements previously recited on lines 14-15, 17-18, 20-23, or new operational settings.
In claim 1, line 28, the limitation "the RFID devices" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the first set of RFID devices previously recited on lines 17 and 19, the second set of RFID devices previously recited on lines 20 and 22-23, or both.
In claim 15, lines 20-21, the limitation "the different RFID devices" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the RFID devices, the RFID devices that are out of compliance, the RFID devices that are in compliance, or a new set of RFID devices.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 16-29 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 22, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzkorn (US 2013/0265141) in view of Lemmon (US 2010/0267375), Wright (US 6,167,238), and Schmidt (US 10,104,127).
Regarding claim 1, Etzkorn discloses a method of operating radio frequency identification (RFID) devices on an aircraft (Etzkorn, [0007] regarding a method for transmitting a radio signal from an RFID reader, [0014] regarding the RFID reader being installed in an operating environment, such as a vehicle, & [0015] regarding the vehicle being an aircraft), the method comprising:
at a first geographic location, tracking cargo positioned on the aircraft with RFID devices that are attached to the cargo (Etzkorn, [0017-0018] regarding using RFID tags to track a seat, seatbelt, flotation device, oxygen mask, fire extinguisher, and/or any other suitable article), the tracking performed by a computing device that is onboard the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0014] regarding the RFID reader being installed in an operating environment, such as a vehicle & [0015] regarding the vehicle being an aircraft);
storing RFID operational requirements for operating the RFID devices on the computing device (Etzkorn, [0027] regarding a look-up table which comprises the authorized frequency bands associated with teach geographic location being stored on a memory device & [0024] regarding the control module including a memory device & [0022] regarding the control module being on the RFID reader); and
at the first geographic location, operating the RFID devices and tracking the cargo with the computing device with the RFID devices operating in compliance with first RFID operational requirements (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding the RFID reader operating at the authorized frequency band).
Etzkorn does not explicitly disclose determining by a computing system that controls one or more flight functions of the aircraft and that is onboard the aircraft that the aircraft has flown and has landed at a second geographic location;
in response to the aircraft landing at the second geographic location, determining from the computing device second RFID operational requirement for the RFID devices;
determining current operational settings of the RFID devices;
determining that a first set of the RFID devices are in compliance with the second RFID operational requirements;
operating the first set of RFID devices at the current operational settings;
determining that a second set of the RFID devices are out of compliance with the second RFID operational requirements;
changing the second set of RFID devices to the second RFID operational requirements;
operating the second set of RFID devices at the second RFID operational requirements; and
saving at the computing system a log of operational settings of the RFID devices.
Lemmon teaches determining by a computing system that controls one or more flight functions of the aircraft and that is onboard the aircraft that the aircraft has flown and has landed (Lemmon, [0040] regarding detecting a landing event. By landing, the aircraft must first have flown.).
Etzkorn and Lemmon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn to incorporate detecting a landing event, as disclosed by Lemmon, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of knowing when the aircraft has taken landed.
Etzkorn, as modified, teaches determining by a computing system that controls one or more flight functions of the aircraft and that is onboard the aircraft that the aircraft has flown and has landed at a second geographic location (Lemmon teaches detection that the aircraft has flown and landed and Etzkorn, [0029] regarding a sensor module continuously determining the geographic location. By continuously determining the geographic location it would be able to determine that the location at landing is different from the location at takeoff.).
Wright teaches in response to the aircraft landing at the second geographic location, determining from the computing device second RFID operational requirement for the RFID devices (Wright, Col. 3, lines 25-31 regarding selecting a sub-band frequency channel based on the determined position of the aircraft to comply with any regulatory frequency requirements of the geographical area in which the aircraft has landed).
Etzkorn and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining sub-band frequency requirements after the aircraft has landed, as disclosed by Wright, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of operating the RFID devices at the required frequency for the location the aircraft landed at.
Schmidt teaches determining current operational settings of the RFID devices (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 1-2 regarding determining whether the entity is compliant. In order to determine if the entity is compliant the operational settings must first be determined.);
determining that a first set of the RFID devices are in compliance with the second RFID operational requirements (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 29-30 regarding determining the entity is compliant);
operating the first set of RFID devices at the current operational settings (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 29-34 regarding certifying compliance of the entity if the entity is compliant. By certifying compliance the entity does not need to make any changes.);
determining that a second set of the RFID devices are out of compliance with the second RFID operational requirements (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 3-5 regarding determining the entity is not compliant);
changing the second set of RFID devices to the second RFID operational requirements (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 4-7 regarding bringing the entity into compliance with the selected standards when the entity is not compliant);
operating the second set of RFID devices at the second RFID operational requirements (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 4-7 regarding bringing the entity into compliance with the selected standards when the entity is not compliant. By bringing the entity into compliance the device would be operating within the required standards.); and
saving at the computing system a log of operational settings of the RFID devices (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 44-47 regarding storing records relating to configuration changes).
Etzkorn and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of device compliance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate ensuring all devices are in compliance and continuing to operate them if they are complying and changing the operation for the devices that are not compliant, as disclosed by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of operating the RFID devices at the required frequency.
Regarding claim 5, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches determining a current frequency setting for the RFID devices;
determining that the current frequency setting for the RFID devices is outside of a frequency range; and
adjusting the RFID devices to operate within the frequency range (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding the RFID reader determining an authorized frequency band based on the geographic location and operates at the authorized frequency band (i.e., compares the current frequency to the authorized frequency band and changes to the authorized frequency band if the current frequency is not within the band).
Regarding claim 8, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches wherein determining the operation requirement comprises determining a Ultra High Frequency (UHF) spectrum regulatory operational requirement for operating the RFID devices within a country where the vehicle is located (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding determining an authorized frequency band ([0017] regarding operating from 850 to 960 MHz) based on the geographic location & [0027] regarding the geographic location including countries).
Regarding claim 22, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches interrogating tags of the RFID devices while the cargo is positioned on the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0023] regarding transmitting an interrogation radio signal and receiving a response radio signal from an RFID tag).
Regarding claim 27, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches wherein the computing system is a navigation system for the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0029] regarding a sensor module continuously determining the geographic location & [0033] regarding the sensor module using an aircraft navigation system to determine the geographic location).
Regarding claim 28, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches displaying information on a display onboard the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0014] regarding the RFID reader including a display for displaying information and the RFID reader being installed in a vehicle, & [0015] regarding the vehicle being an aircraft).
Regarding claim 29, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Etzkorn further teaches receiving commands from an input device that is onboard the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0014] regarding the RFID reader including a user input device for receiving input from a user and the RFID reader being installed in a vehicle, & [0015] regarding the vehicle being an aircraft).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt, and further in view of Kanagala (US 2009/0322551).
Regarding claim 4, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining the geographic location of the aircraft comprises determining latitude and longitude of the aircraft and determining a country code corresponding to the latitude and longitude.
Kanagala teaches wherein determining the geographic location of the aircraft comprises determining latitude and longitude of the aircraft and determining a country code corresponding to the latitude and longitude (Kanagala, [0041] regarding obtaining current locale information using GPS data (which includes latitude and longitude) & [0042] regarding calculating a country code from the GPS data).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining a country code corresponding to a latitude and longitude, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of country specific RFID requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Etzkorn in view of Lemmon, Wright, and Schmidt teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining the operational requirement for the RFID devices comprises determining a power level of the RFID devices.
Kanagala teaches wherein determining the operational requirement for the RFID devices comprises determining a power level of the RFID devices (Kanagala, [0029] regarding a power limit for each region/country code).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining a power level requirement, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using a power level that complies with the geographic location’s requirements.
Claims 15-19, 21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto (US 12,272,221).
Regarding claim 15, Etzkorn discloses a computing device positioned onboard an aircraft and configured to operate RFID devices that are positioned on cargo within the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0037] regarding the RFID reader and RFID tag being incorporated as part of an RFID system onboard a vehicle, such as an aircraft & [0017-0018] regarding using RFID tags to track a seat, seatbelt, flotation device, oxygen mask, fire extinguisher, and/or any other suitable article), the computing device comprising:
memory circuitry within the aircraft that stores program instructions comprising an RFID sensor orchestrator, a geolocation translator, and a Ultra High Frequency (UHF) regulator (Etzkorn, [0024] regarding a memory device)(Etzkorn, [0022] regarding a control module (i.e., RFID sensor orchestrator) and a sensor module (i.e., GPS locator) & [0029] regarding a look-up table (i.e., UHF regulator)); and
processing circuitry within the aircraft configured to execute the program instructions (Etzkorn, [0024] regarding a processing device) to cause the computing device to:
track the cargo within the aircraft through the RFID devices that are attached to the cargo (Etzkorn, [0017] regarding using RFID tags determine the position and/or location of the object);
wherein the memory circuity and the processing circuity are positioned onboard the vehicle (Etzkorn, [0037] regarding the RFID reader and RFID tag being incorporated as part of an RFID system onboard a vehicle, such as an aircraft).
Etzkorn does not explicitly disclose in response to the aircraft landing at a new location, receiving an updated geographic location at the RFID sensor orchestrator from a computing system that is operating one or more functions of the aircraft and that is onboard the aircraft;
receiving a code that corresponds to the updated geographic location at the RFID sensor orchestrator from the geolocation translator;
receiving a frequency range of operation for the RFID devices that corresponds to the code at the RFID sensor orchestrator from the UHF regulator;
adjusting settings of just the RFID devices that are out of compliance with the frequency range and maintaining the settings on the RFID devices that are in compliance; and
saving the geographic location, the code, and the frequency ranges of the different RFID devices in an event logging system that is maintained by the computing system.
Wright teaches in response to the aircraft landing at a new location, receiving an updated geographic location at the RFID sensor orchestrator from a computing system that is operating one or more functions of the aircraft and that is onboard the aircraft (Wright, Col. 34, lines 14-25 regarding a transmitter being operative after the aircraft completes its flight and lands at an airport and the sub-band frequency channel used for downloading flight performance data is chosen based on a position of the aircraft in order to comply with any regulatory frequency requirements of the geographic area in which the aircraft has landed (i.e., receiving geographic location after the aircraft has landed to determine the sub-band frequency)).
Etzkorn and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn to incorporate receiving an updated geographic location after the aircraft has landed at a new location, as disclosed by Wright, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the operating requirements for the RFID devices at the location the aircraft landed at.
Kanagala teaches receiving a code that corresponds to the updated geographic location at the RFID sensor orchestrator from the geolocation translator (Kanagala, [0042] regarding a country code corresponding to GPS data & [0029] regarding storing the country code in a look-up table).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining a country code corresponding to the geographic location and store it in a look-up table, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of country specific RFID requirements.
Etzkorn as modified teaches receiving a frequency range of operation for the RFID devices that corresponds to the code at the RFID sensor orchestrator from the UHF regulator (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding determining an authorized frequency band based on the geographic location).
Schmidt teaches adjusting settings of just the RFID devices that are out of compliance with the frequency range and maintaining the settings on the RFID devices that are in compliance (Schmidt, Col. 11, lines 29-34 regarding certifying compliance of the entity if the entity is compliant & Col. 11, lines 4-7 regarding bringing the entity into compliance with the selected standards when the entity is not compliant).
Etzkorn and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of device compliance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate ensuring all devices are in compliance and continuing to operate them if they are complying and changing the operation for the devices that are not compliant, as disclosed by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of operating the RFID devices at the required frequency.
Soto teaches saving the geographic location, the code, and the frequency ranges of the different RFID devices in an event logging system that is maintained by the computing system (Soto, Col. 5, lines 50-51 regarding storing RFID tag read information in a datastore using a server & Col. 6, lines 53-54 regarding the server being local to the facility).
Etzkorn and Soto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate saving RFID information, as disclosed by Soto, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a log of previous data for use at a future time.
Regarding claim 16, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Kanagala further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to configure one or more onboard systems and obtain the geographic location and the code (Kanagala, [0042] regarding a country code corresponding to GPS data & [0029] regarding reconfiguring itself to comply with the requirements of the country).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining a country code corresponding to the geographic location and reconfiguring itself to comply with the countries requirements, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of country specific RFID requirements.
Regarding claim 17, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Kanagala further teaches wherein the code is a country code that corresponds to a country where the aircraft is located (Kanagala, [0042] regarding a country code corresponding to GPS data).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate determining a country code corresponding to the geographic location an reconfigure itself to comply with the countries requirements, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of country specific RFID requirements.
Regarding claim 18, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit commands to adjust an operational feature of the RFID devices to operate within the frequency range (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding determining an authorized frequency band based on the geographic location & the RFID reader operating at the authorized frequency band).
Regarding claim 19, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that one or more of the RFID devices are operating within the frequency range and to prevent adjustment of the one or more RFID devices (Etzkorn, [0038] regarding the RFID reader determining an authorized frequency band based on the geographic location and operates at the authorized frequency band (i.e., compares the current frequency to the authorized frequency band and remains operating at the current frequency if it is within the authorized frequency band).
Regarding claim 21, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. Kanagala further teaches an onboard RFID sensor orchestrator that determines the geographic location and a code that corresponds to the geographic location (Kanagala, [0042] regarding a country code corresponding to GPS data & [0029] regarding storing the country code in a look-up table).
Etzkorn and Kanagala are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RFID frequency adjustment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate using a look-up table with country codes, as disclosed by Kanagala, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of country specific RFID requirements.
Regarding claim 23, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to interrogate readers that are attached to the cargo while the cargo is positioned on the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0023] regarding transmitting an interrogation radio signal and receiving a response radio signal from an RFID tag).
Regarding claim 25, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn further teaches a user interface comprising an input device and a display that are positioned on the aircraft to enable a person on the aircraft to control the computing device (Etzkorn, [0030-0031] regarding a user interface module including an input device and display).
Regarding claim 26, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn further teaches communication circuitry to communicate with a first computing system onboard the aircraft and to communicate with a second computing system located offboard the aircraft (Etzkorn, [0033] regarding a communications module being capable of communicating between a RFID reader and one or more vehicle systems).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto, and further in view of Li (CN 111859464).
Regarding claim 20, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15. Etzkorn discloses determining the location of the device but fails to teach the location represented as a code, i.e., wherein the code is a city code that corresponds to a city where the vehicle is located.
Li teaches wherein the code is a city code that corresponds to a city where the aircraft is located (Li, [0009] regarding determining a city code based on GPS information).
Etzkorn and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of location determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate using a city code, as disclosed by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of city requirement selection.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto, and further in view of Sharma (US 2020/0401528).
Regarding claim 24, Etzkorn in view of Wright, Kanagala, Schmidt, and Soto teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the geolocation translator each comprises an application programming interface.
Sharama teaches that it is well known to use APIs to receive information from external sources (i.e., GPS data) (Sharma, [0050] regarding application program interfaces referring to computer code that when executed facilitates an interaction between software components).
Etzkorn and Sharama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Etzkorn, as modified, to incorporate using APIs, as disclosed by Sharama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of communicating with other components.
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights