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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on October 13, 2025. Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-33 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 30-32 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3, “a third device” is presumed to recite “the third device”.
Claim 6, line 4, “a third device” is presumed to recite “the third device”.
Claim 6, line 8, delete “and the third”.
Claim 15, line 4, “a third device” is presumed to recite “the third device”.
Claim 21, lines 1-2, “wherein and at least one of:” is presumed to recite “wherein at least one of:”.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-33 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) recites “the first indication information comprises a reason why the at least one second device can access the first device” and further recites “when the third device has the reason why it needs to access the first device”. The claim does not clearly define what constitutes the “reason” (a permission flag? an access credential? a justification value?), how the reason is determined or possessed by the third device, or how it is ascertained that the third device “has” the reason (do the second device somehow relays authorization to the third device?). As a result, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 6 (and similarly claim 16) recites “sending, by a third device, a first message…receiving, by a third device, first indication information from a first device…”. The claim fails to specify the relationship between the first message and the received indication, as the claim does not state whether the indication is sent in response to or based on the first message. Claim 6 further recites “the first indication information comprises a reason why the at least one second device can access the first device”. The claim does not explain what the “reason” is or how it permits or affects access. In addition, the claim recites “accessing, by the third device, the first device when the third device needs to perform access” but the claim does not explain what determines when the third device “needs” to perform access. As a result, it is unclear when the claimed accessing occurs and the scope of the claim is not clear.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20-33 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependency on claims 1, 6, 11, and 16.
Additionally:
Claim 11 recites “the first device” in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (the first device is presumed to be the communication apparatus).
Claim 16 recites “the third device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (the third device is presumed to be the communication apparatus).
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
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 of this title, 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, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0158302; hereinafter “Hosseini”) in view of Greco et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0108024; hereinafter “Greco”), and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,626,503; hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Hosseini discloses a communication method (Figs. 1, 3A), comprising:
determining, by a first device (interrogator 144 of Fig. 1), first indication information, wherein the first indication information indicates at least one second device (control tag 132 of Figs. 1-2) that can access the first device when access needs to be performed (see e.g., para. [0036]: “the interrogator 144 is configured to communicate SRC signals or messages to and from the control tags 132. The SRC signals/messages can include, but are not limited to, first command signals/messages instructing the control tags to perform regular reporting operations, second command signal/messages instructing the control tags to perform special reporting operations, and/or request signals/messages requesting that the control tag provide certain information to the interrogator 144. The first command signals/messages are employed during certain first applications, such as purchase transaction applications. In contrast, the second command signals/messages are employed during certain second applications, such as control tag motion and inventory tracking applications.”), the at least one second device comprising a third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag); and
sending, by the first device, the first indication information (para. [0062]: “In a next step 308, the control tag receives a reporting command signal/message from an external device (e.g., interrogator 144 of FIG. 1). The reporting command of this signal/message instructs the control tag to perform regular reporting operations or special reporting operations.”), wherein the first indication information comprises a reason why the at least one second device can access the first device (para. [0062]: the tag determines whether the message is a regular or special reporting command (step 310); this distinction acts as an explicit indication of the type of reporting, which maps to the “reason” required by the claim); and
receiving, by the first device, the report message from the third device, when the third device has the reason why it needs to access the first device (see e.g., para. [0062]: “Upon receiving the reporting command signal/message, the control tag processes the signal/message to determine whether it is a regular reporting command signal/message or a special reporting command signal/message, as shown by decision step 310”).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the first device, a first message from a third device, wherein the first message indicates that the third device requests to send a report message; and determining, by the first device, first indication information based on the first message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Greco discloses: receiving, by a first device (e.g., para. [0069]: a reader/device 104 with application 107), a first message from a third device (e.g., para. [0068]: the circuit 206 of the tag 103), wherein the first message indicates that the third device requests to send a report message (see e.g., para. [0068]: “the circuit 206 of the tag 103 on an item 102 wirelessly broadcasts the unique identifier stored on the tag 103 over the air at the step 602. In some embodiments, the circuit 206 is able to enable a user to selectively turn off and on the broadcast features such that the user is able to control when the unique identifier is and is not broadcast”; therefore, the broadcast message comprises the unique identifier which may be considered as a request to send a report message since it indicates the reason for reporting the digital signature, namely proving the proximity of the tag with said unique identifier); and
determining, by the first device (104), first indication information based on the first message (see e.g., para. [0071]: “The application 107 requests access to […] the services […] related to the unique identifier (and/or the item 102 coupled to the tag 103). The network accessible location (e.g. cloud server, website server, server 108) generates and transmits a proximity challenge message to the application 107 on the device 104 in response to the access request at the step 610”; therefore, the device 104 determines the proximity challenge by transmitting the received unique identifier and receiving said proximity challenge as a response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini by incorporating the teachings of Greco to provide a first message from a third device indicating that the third device requests to send a report message, and determining, by the first device, first indication information based on the first message. Doing so allows the control tag that needs to performs access to request a report message by including a first message/unique identifier proving the proximity of the tag.
Hosseini in view of Greco does not explicitly disclose wherein the first indication information is carried in select signaling, the select signaling selects a group of devices by using a mask.
However, in the same field of a tag identification method in RFID systems, Choi discloses: wherein the first indication information is carried in select signaling, the select signaling selects a group of devices by using a mask (see e.g., abstract, claim 1, and Figs. 1, 2A, 5A: describes an inquiry process where (n-1) bits are transmitted, and only tags whose first (n-1) bits match the inquiry continue in the identification process; this effectively functions as a selection mechanism, where the transmitted bits act as a mask, filtering tags that match the pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini in view of Greco by incorporating the select signaling method of Choi to efficiently select and communicate with a subset of devices, thereby improving access control and system efficiency. The motivation for such a combination stem from the known advantages of RFID-based selection mechanism, such as reducing tag collision and improving data retrieval efficiency, as taught by Choi.
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Hosseini discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first device (interrogator 144), a second message from a third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag) (para. [0065]: If the condition is met (e.g., motion), the tag sends a response message back to the reader (step 324); that response includes tag ID, and potentially other information derived from the tag’s sensors).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose wherein the second message indicates a reason why the third device needs to perform access.
However, Greco discloses: receiving, by the first device (para. [0069]: a reader/device 104 with application 107), a second message from a third device (para. [0068]: the circuit 206 of the tag 103), wherein the second message indicates a reason why the third device needs to perform access (para. [0068]: the tag detects tampering (a condition/event) and transmits a warning signal to the device 104. The reason for access or denial of access is embedded in the signal (normal operation vs. tampering warning). The warning signal informs the reader/device 104 that access should be denied—i.e., the “reason” is that tampering has occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini by incorporating the second message indicating a reason why the third device needs to perform access, as taught by Greco. Doing so allows the response signal/message sent by the control tag to include an indication of the reason for the communication, such as event code or status flag indicating movement, environment change, or other condition that triggered the communication.
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 is incorporated and Hosseini further discloses: wherein at least one of: the first indication information comprises a first access cause, and the first access cause indicates that the third device has the first access cause to perform access, or the first indication information comprises a first feature, and the first feature indicates the third device has the first feature to perform access, or the first indication information comprises a first access category, and the first access category indicates the third device is in the first access category (para. [0062]: “In a next step 308, the control tag receives a reporting command signal/message from an external device (e.g., interrogator 144 of FIG. 1). The reporting command of this signal/message instructs the control tag to perform regular reporting operations or special reporting operations. Upon receiving the reporting command signal/message, the control tag processes the signal/message to determine whether it is a regular reporting command signal/message or a special reporting command signal/message, as shown by decision step 310”).
Regarding claim 22, claim 1 is incorporated and Hosseini discloses: wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the first device (interrogator 144), second indication information, wherein the second indication information requests the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag) to report (para. [0062]-[0065]: If the condition is met (e.g., motion), the tag sends a response message back to the reader (step 324); that response includes tag ID, and potentially other information derived from the tag’s sensors).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second indication information requests a third device to report the cause why access needs to be performed.
However, Greco discloses: wherein the second indication information requests the third device (para. [0068]: the circuit 206 of the tag 103) to report the cause why access needs to be performed (para. [0068]: the tag detects tampering (a condition/event) and transmits a warning signal to the device 104. The reason for access or denial of access is embedded in the signal (normal operation vs. tampering warning). The warning signal informs the reader/device 104 that access should be denied—i.e., the “reason” is that tampering has occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini by incorporating the second indication information requesting to report the cause why access needs to be performed, as taught by Greco. Doing so allows the response signal/message sent by the control tag to include an indication of the reason for the communication, such as event code or status flag indicating movement, environment change, or other condition that triggered the communication.
Regarding claim 23, claim 5 is incorporated and Hosseini further discloses: wherein the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag) has an active reporting capability (see e.g., para. [0036]-[0037], [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 33, claim 1 is incorporated and Hosseini further discloses: wherein the reason comprises at least one of event-triggered reporting (movement or vibration), alarming (triggering an alarm on detecting unauthorized movement/removal of article), exception reporting (parameters indicate a deviation from normal (e.g., movement when it shouldn’t occur)), periodic reporting (implied via “periodically or continuously detect”), sensor data reporting (sensing temperature, light, electric/magnetic field, moisture, pressure), and information updating (data like tag ID and environmental information is included in response) (see e.g., para. [0027], [0037], [0052], [0059]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Hosseini discloses a communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the control tag 132 of Figs. 1-2), first indication information from a first device (interrogator 144 of Fig. 1) (see para. [0062]: “In a next step 308, the control tag receives a reporting command signal/message from an external device (e.g., interrogator 144 of FIG. 1). The reporting command of this signal/message instructs the control tag to perform regular reporting operations or special reporting operations.”), wherein the first indication information indicates at least one second device (control tag 132) that can access the first device when access needs to be performed (see e.g., para. [0036]: “the interrogator 144 is configured to communicate SRC signals or messages to and from the control tags 132. The SRC signals/messages can include, but are not limited to, first command signals/messages instructing the control tags to perform regular reporting operations, second command signal/messages instructing the control tags to perform special reporting operations, and/or request signals/messages requesting that the control tag provide certain information to the interrogator 144. The first command signals/messages are employed during certain first applications, such as purchase transaction applications. In contrast, the second command signals/messages are employed during certain second applications, such as control tag motion and inventory tracking applications.”), and the first indication information comprises a reason why the at least one second device can access the first device (para. [0062]: the tag determines whether the message is a regular or special reporting command (step 310); this distinction acts as an explicit indication of the type of reporting, which maps to the “reason” required by the claim), and the at least one second device comprising the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the control tag 132 of Figs. 1-2); and
accessing, by the third device, the first device when the third device needs to perform access (para. [0065]: If the condition is met (e.g., motion), the tag sends a response message back to the reader (step 324); that response includes tag ID, and potentially other information derived from the tag’s sensors).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose sending, by a third device, a first message, wherein the first message indicates that the third device requests to send a report message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Greco discloses: sending, by a third device (e.g., para. [0068]: the circuit 206 of the tag 103), a first message, wherein the first message indicates that the third device requests to send a report message (see e.g., para. [0068]: “the circuit 206 of the tag 103 on an item 102 wirelessly broadcasts the unique identifier stored on the tag 103 over the air at the step 602. In some embodiments, the circuit 206 is able to enable a user to selectively turn off and on the broadcast features such that the user is able to control when the unique identifier is and is not broadcast”; therefore, the broadcast message comprises the unique identifier which may be considered as a request to send a report message since it indicates the reason for reporting the digital signature, namely proving the proximity of the tag with said unique identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini by incorporating the teachings of Greco to provide sending, by a third device, a first message indicating that the third device requests to send a report message. Doing so allows the control tag that needs to performs access to request a report message by including a first message/unique identifier proving the proximity of the tag.
Hosseini in view of Greco does not explicitly disclose the first indication information is carried in select signaling, the select signaling selects a group of devices by using a mask.
However, in the same field of a tag identification method in RFID systems, Choi discloses: the first indication information is carried in select signaling, the select signaling selects a group of devices by using a mask (see e.g., abstract, claim 1, and Figs. 1, 2A, 5A: describes an inquiry process where (n-1) bits are transmitted, and only tags whose first (n-1) bits match the inquiry continue in the identification process; this effectively functions as a selection mechanism, where the transmitted bits act as a mask, filtering tags that match the pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini in view of Greco by incorporating the select signaling method of Choi to efficiently select and communicate with a subset of devices, thereby improving access control and system efficiency. The motivation for such a combination stem from the known advantages of RFID-based selection mechanism, such as reducing tag collision and improving data retrieval efficiency, as taught by Choi.
Regarding claim 10, claim 6 is incorporated and Hosseini discloses: wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the control tag 132 of Figs. 1-2), fifth indication information to a fourth device (article 102), wherein the fifth indication information indicates an occasion on which the third device sends the first message, and the fourth device is a device other than the third device in the at least one second device (para. [0027]: "If the control tag 132 is carried into the surveillance zone, then an alarm is triggered to indicate a possible unauthorized removal of the article 102 from the retail store facility 150").
Regarding claim 24, claim 6 is incorporated and Hosseini further discloses: wherein at least one of: the first indication information comprises a first access cause, and the first access cause indicates that the third device has the first access cause to perform access, or the first indication information comprises a first feature, and the first feature indicates the third device has the first feature to perform access, or the first indication information comprises a first access category, and the first access category indicates the third device is in the first access category (e.g., para. [0062]: “In a next step 308, the control tag receives a reporting command signal/message from an external device (e.g., interrogator 144 of FIG. 1). The reporting command of this signal/message instructs the control tag to perform regular reporting operations or special reporting operations. Upon receiving the reporting command signal/message, the control tag processes the signal/message to determine whether it is a regular reporting command signal/message or a special reporting command signal/message, as shown by decision step 310”).
Regarding claim 25, claim 6 is incorporated and Hosseini discloses: wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag), second indication information, wherein the second indication information requests the third device to report (para. [0062]-[0065]: If the condition is met (e.g., motion), the tag sends a response message back to the reader (step 324); that response includes tag ID, and potentially other information derived from the tag’s sensors).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second indication information requests the third device to report the cause why access needs to be performed.
However, Greco discloses: wherein the second indication information requests the third device (para. [0068]: the circuit 206 of the tag 103) to report the cause why access needs to be performed (para. [0068]: the tag detects tampering (a condition/event) and transmits a warning signal to the device 104. The reason for access or denial of access is embedded in the signal (normal operation vs. tampering warning). The warning signal informs the reader/device 104 that access should be denied—i.e., the “reason” is that tampering has occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication method of Hosseini by incorporating the second indication information requesting to report the cause why access needs to be performed, as taught by Greco. Doing so allows the response signal/message sent by the control tag to include an indication of the reason for the communication, such as event code or status flag indicating movement, environment change, or other condition that triggered the communication.
Regarding claim 26, claim 6 is incorporated and Hosseini further discloses: wherein the third device (control tag 132 or a component inside the tag) has an active reporting capability (see e.g., para. [0036]-[0037] & [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding claims 11, 15, and 27-29, apparatus claims 11 and 27-29 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1, 5, and 21-23. Therefore, apparatus claims 11 and 27-29 correspond to method claims 1 and 21-23, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 16, 20, and 30-32, apparatus claims 16, 20, and 30-32 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 6, 10, and 24-26. Therefore, apparatus claims 16, 20, and 30-32 correspond to method claims 6, 10, and 24-26, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment. Hosseini in view of Greco and Choi is demonstrated to meet the amended claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights