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 .
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, 15 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 3-4, 15 and 28, the limitation “blocking activation of the stored value product” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the claimed invention blocking activation of a stored value product when that stored value product hasn’t been activated and/or requested to be activated. For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as “the stored value product is remained deactivated if it has not been purchased”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 16-23, 26 and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0350218 A1) in view of Davidson (US 2015/0194030 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Jeon discloses a control system (e.g. Fig. 1) operable for monitoring a product having a tag associated therewith (e.g. Abstract), the control system comprising: a control system processor; a non-transient memory device operatively coupled with the control system processor (e.g. [0064]), a computer-implemented method for monitoring a product having a tag associated therewith (e.g. Abstract), comprising:
receiving tag data associated with the tag indicating the product is located outside a defined coverage range (e.g. [0021, 0022]: outside a predefined area);
determining, based on the received tag data, a period of time the product exceeding a defined time limit has been located outside the defined coverage range (e.g. [0030]: tag corresponding to gaming system moved in to towel area, i.e. outside a predefined area, and stopped at towel area for a threshold period of time);
wherein the defined time limit corresponds to time limit the product is permitted to be located outside the defined coverage range (e.g. [0025, 0030]: time threshold is preset and is adjustable);
in response to the determined period of time exceeding a defined time limit, accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased; and determining, based on the data identifying products that have been purchased, whether the product has been purchased (e.g. [0044]: “detect an RFID tag has moved passed a threshold boundary corresponding to an area…without having been purchased in that area” implies accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased to identify whether the product having that corresponding RFID tag has been purchased or not).
Jeon fails to explicitly disclose accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased to determine whether the product has been purchased.
Davidson teaches accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased; and determining, based on the data identifying products that have been purchased, whether the product has been purchased (e.g. [0070]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Davidson to confirm tagged item has been purchased or not by comparing the item tag ID with a list of sold or deactivated item so as to prevent false alarm.
Regarding claim 23, Jeon discloses a computer-implemented method for monitoring a product having a tag associated therewith (e.g. Abstract), comprising:
performing product check in when the tag associated therewith moves inside a defined coverage range (e.g. [0025]: tags are detected while being stocked);
performing product check out when the tag associated therewith moves outside the defined coverage range (e.g. [0021, 0022]: outside a predefined area);
determining, based on tag data associated with the tag indicating the product is located outside the defined coverage range, a period of time the product has been located outside the defined coverage range (e.g. [0030]: tag corresponding to gaming system moved in to towel area, i.e. outside a predefined area, and stopped at towel area for a threshold period of time);
in response to the determined period of time exceeding a defined time limit, accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased; determining, based on the data identifying products that have been purchased, whether the product has been purchased (e.g. [0044]: “detect an RFID tag has moved passed a threshold boundary corresponding to an area…without having been purchased in that area” implies accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased to identify whether the product having that corresponding RFID tag has been purchased or not).
Jeon fails to explicitly disclose accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased to determine whether the product has been purchased.
Davidson teaches accessing a database storing data identifying products that have been purchased; and determining, based on the data identifying products that have been purchased, whether the product has been purchased (e.g. [0070]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Davidson to confirm tagged item has been purchased or not by comparing the item tag ID with a list of sold or deactivated item so as to prevent false alarm.
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 29, Jeon discloses the tag data associated with the tag is provided by a monitoring device with defined coverage range that extends radially outward a fixed distance from the monitoring device and defines a perimeter around the monitoring device, wherein the perimeter is disposed at an outer periphery of the defined coverage range the fixed distance from the monitoring device (e.g. [0022]: radius).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon discloses the perimeter represents a communication boundary of the monitoring device for communicating with tags (e.g. [0022]: radius).
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 30, Jeon discloses the monitoring device comprises an antenna (e.g. [0018]).
Regarding claims 8, 19 and 31, Jeon discloses the determined period of time (e.g. [0030]) consists of a continuous period of time the product has been located outside the defined coverage range without reentering the defined coverage range or being purchased (e.g. [0026]: the suspicious activity associated with the tag can be confirmed by whether product associated with tag has been returned to its original location and/or purchased).
Regarding claims 9, 20 and 32, Davidson teaches the data identifying products that have been purchased is point of sale data provided to the database by a point of sale device (e.g. [0070-0071]: EAS manager compare tag identifications against a list of sold or deactivated items, and the data from the tag is compared to point-of-sale information to create an alarm).
Regarding claims 10, 21 and 33, Jeon discloses notifying an asset protection system (e.g. facility evaluation system, central evaluation system 120, 126) that the product has not been purchased and is a subject of fraud or theft (e.g. [0016, 0044-0047, 0051]).
Regarding claims 11, 22 and 26, Jeon discloses reporting, to a data aggregator/processor, the product that has not been purchased is a subject of fraud or theft (e.g. [0016, 0047, 0051, 0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon discloses the fixed distance represents a maximum distance from the antenna (e.g. [0018]: distance is determined by capability and/or signal strength of the antenna of the tag).
Although Jeon does not explicitly disclose the maximum distance is no more than twenty feet, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select any suitable antenna to achieve any desirable monitoring range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0350218 A1) in view of Davidson (US 2015/0194030 A1) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 23 above, and further in view of Graves et al. (US 2005/0051619 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Jeon and Davidson in combination discloses wherein: in response to the determined period of time exceeding the defined time limit, accessing the database storing data identifying stored value products that have been activated via purchase; and determining, based on the data identifying stored value products that have been activated via purchase, whether the stored value product has been activated via purchase (see rejection of claim 1).
Jeon and Davidson in combination fails to explicitly disclose the product is a stored value product (Jeon discloses retail product of a shopping facility, and it would be obvious that the retail product includes stored value product).
However, Graves teaches it is known that a retail product includes stored-value cards (e.g. [0004, 0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Graves to include stored value card as one of the monitored retail products since it is one of the retail products that can be easily stolen by thief.
Regarding claims 3 and 28, Graves teaches blocking activation of the stored value product that has not been purchased (e.g. [0005, 0060]: card is activated upon purchase implies the card is deactivated when it has been purchased).
Regarding claim 4, Graves teaches the stored value product is a stored value card (e.g. [0004, 0005]).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0350218 A1) in view of Davidson (US 2015/0194030 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Graves et al. (US 2005/0051619 A1) and Mizuno et al. (US 8,957,968 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Jeon and Davidson in combination fails to teach, but:
Graves teaches it is known that a retail product includes stored-value cards (e.g. [0004, 0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Graves to include stored value card as one of the monitored retail products since it is one of the retail products that can be easily stolen by thief.
In addition, Mizuno teaches a link between a card number of the stored value card and a tag identifier associated with the tag (e.g. claim 7 & col 3 lines 39-46: tag ID is linked with card membership number).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeon, Davidson and Graves with the teachings of Mizuno to link tag ID with member number so as to easily retrieve information of the card being monitored by a tag and/or associated with the tag.
Regarding claim 14, Jeon and Davidson in combination discloses wherein: in response to the determined period of time exceeding the defined time limit, accessing the database storing data identifying stored value products that have been activated via purchase; and determining, based on the data identifying stored value products that have been activated via purchase, whether the stored value product has been activated via purchase (see rejection of claim 12).
Jeon and Davidson in combination fails to explicitly disclose the product is a stored value product (Jeon discloses retail product of a shopping facility, and it would be obvious that the retail product includes stored value product).
However, Graves teaches it is known that a retail product includes stored-value cards (e.g. [0004, 0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Graves to include stored value card as one of the monitored retail products since it is one of the retail products that can be easily stolen by thief.
Regarding claim 15, Graves teaches blocking activation of the stored value product that has not been purchased (e.g. [0005, 0060]: card is activated upon purchase implies the card is deactivated when it has been purchased).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0350218 A1) in view of Davidson (US 2015/0194030 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sundholm (US 2018/0308041 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Jeon and Davidson in combination fails to disclose, but Sundholm teaches performing product check in further comprises: establishing, by a control system, a unique electronic identity associated with the product; and recording, by the control system, the unique electronic identity associated with the product when the product is placed on a display structure for retail thereby forming an electronic tether between the product and the display structure that links the product to the display structure (e.g. [0047-0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Sundholm to link each RFID-tag of products stocked on a hanging rack with tag/label of the rack so as accurately and precisely record and locate the tagged product (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Jeon and Sundholm in combination discloses the claimed invention. Jeon discloses the display structure is located inside the defined coverage range (e.g. [0025]: hanging rack) and Sundholm further teaches it is known to link the product to display structure (i.e. hanging rack) that serves as a home base for the product placed thereon for retail (e.g. Abstract & [0047-0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of Sundholm to link each RFID-tag of products stocked on a hanging rack with tag/label of the rack so as accurately and precisely record and locate the tagged product (e.g. Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688