Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Objections
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in line 19 “exposing the selection of the wireless label”. The word “label” must be plural. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim(s) 2 and 4-9, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/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.
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in line 12 “wherein unwinding the wireless reels through”. The claim previously defines a reel of wireless labels, but it does not define that there are a plurality of reels and that the reels are wireless. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation of line 12. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “wherein unwinding the reel of wireless labels through”.
Also, the claim recites in line 24 “when the wireless labels are”. The claim previously defines a real of wireless labels and a selection of wireless labels. It is unclear if the limitation of line 24 is referring to the labels in the real or to the labels in the selection of labels. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “when the selection of the wireless labels is”.
Furthermore, the claim recites in lines 26-27 “in the first selection of wireless labels”. The claim defines a selection of the wireless labels. However, the word “first” means that there are more than one selections. The claim does not define a plurality of selections. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitations of lines 26-27. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “in the the wireless labels”.
The clam further recites in line 27 “based on the received temperature readings from each wireless label”. The claim defines receiving temperature readings from the submerged wireless labels. However, the claim does not define receiving temperature readings from all the labels. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitations of line 27. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “based on the received temperature readings from each of the submerged wireless labels”.
Also, the claim recites in lines 31-33 “determining a relationship between an ambient temperature of each wireless label in the selection of the wireless labels, the supply voltage of the ultrathin battery and an output of the integrated temperature sensor by”. The claim previously defines that each label has an ultrathin battery. Therefore, it is unclear to which label belong the battery recited in lines 31-33. Also, the claim defines that each label comprises a microprocessor comprising an integrated temperature sensor. Therefore, it is also unclear to which label belongs the sensor recited in lines 31-33. For the reasons presented above, the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, the claim recites in lines 34-35 “from the ultrathin battery”. The claim previously defines that each label has an ultrathin battery. Therefore, it is unclear to which label belong the battery recited in lines 34-35. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
The claim also recites in lines 40-43 “wherein the calibration parameters at least in part comprises the calibration coefficients; and storing the calibration parameters”. The claim previously defines calibration parameters for each label of the selection of labels and calibration coefficients for each label. Therefore, it is unclear each time the limitations of “the calibration parameters” and “the calibration coefficients” are recited to which label belongs the parameters and the coefficients. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
The examiner has interpreted lines 31-43 of the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
wherein generating calibration parameters for each label of the selection of the wireless labels further comprises:
determining a relationship between an ambient temperature of the label, the supply voltage of the ultrathin battery of the label and an output of the integrated temperature sensor of the label by obtaining bath temperatures for both low supply voltage and high supply voltage from the ultrathin battery of the label, across a temperature range;
estimating a unique linear relationship between the low supply voltage from the ultrathin battery of the label, the high supply voltage from the ultrathin battery of the label and the ambient temperature for the label and
extracting calibration coefficients from the unique linear relationship for the label, wherein the calibration parameters of the label at least in part comprises the calibration coefficients of the label; and
storing the calibration parameters of each label of the selection of the wireless labels.
In regards to claim(s) 2 and 4-9, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claim 5, the claim recites in lines 6-7 “wherein storing the calibration parameters comprises storing the calibration parameters in a server” and in line 11 “and the stored calibration parameters”. Claim 1 previously defines calibration parameters for each label of the selection of labels. Therefore, it is unclear each time the limitations of “the calibration parameters” are recited to which label belongs the parameters. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim 6, lines 7-8 have the same issues described in the rejection of claim 5 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim 7, lines 7-8 have the same issues described in the rejection of claim 5 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim 8, line 1 has the same issues described in the rejection of claim 5 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim 9, the claim recites in line 1 “wherein each wireless label comprises”. Claim 1 defines a reel of wireless labels and a selection of the wireless labels. It is unclear if the limitation of line 1 is referring to all the labels in the reel or just the labels of the selection. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “wherein each wireless label of the reel of wireless labels comprises”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 1, Su et al. (CN-110907069A) teaches a method to calibrate labels of a reel of labels [fig. 2, pg. 6 L. 19-28].
Gill (US-2020/0090016) teaches a reel of labels which labels can enter in an hibernation state while the labels are in the reel [fig. 1, par. 0005, par. 0007, par. 0027 L. 2-7, par. 0029 L. 1-8].
However, the cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: wherein generating calibration parameters for each label of the selection of the wireless labels further comprises: determining a relationship between an ambient temperature of the label, the supply voltage of the ultrathin battery of the label and an output of the integrated temperature sensor of the label by obtaining bath temperatures for both low supply voltage and high supply voltage from the ultrathin battery of the label, across a temperature range; from the ultrathin battery of the label, the high supply voltage from the ultrathin battery of the label and the ambient temperature for the label and extracting calibration coefficients from the unique linear relationship for the label, wherein the calibration parameters of the label at least in part comprises the calibration coefficients of the label; and storing the calibration parameters of each label of the selection of the wireless labels.
In regards to claims 2 and 4-9, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights