FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 2/16/2026:
The amendments to claims 1-6, 9 and 10 are acknowledged and accepted.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites multiple elements/limitations. While these are in separate lines, it is difficult to follow due to lack of indentation for each limitation. As such, claim 1 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.75 which recites “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps”. See also MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “said edge capture system defining a virtual convex polyhedron space associated with an RFID scanner emplaced at a fixed location within a facility and/or a movable RFID scanner affixed to a vehicle or held by a human operator”. The “and/or” implies there can be an embodiment where the RFID scanner can be placed at a fixed location and can also be movable by being fixed to a vehicle or held by human operator. The specification recites “The Capture Zone defines a virtual convex polyhedron that sensors or tags that are affixed to or associated with things must move through. Alternatively, the Capture Zone may be defined as a virtual convex polyhedron that is established by a scanner that is either held in the hand of a person moving through a facility, or mounted on a vehicle that is moving through a facility” (pg. 10). As such, the specification describes these two embodiments in the alternative. Therefore, the specification does not appear to describe an embodiment where the RFID scanner is both affixed and movable. Therefore, this limitation is considered new matter.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 1, the limitation “said edge capture system defining a virtual convex polyhedron space associated with an RFID scanner emplaced at a fixed location within a facility and/or a movable RFID scanner affixed to a vehicle or held by a human operator” and the latter limitations regarding the plurality of devices and things moving through the capture zone implies that the both the capture zone can be movable in addition to the tagged devices and things being moved within the movable capture zone. However, the specification recite “Despite their superior performance and convenience, phased-array RFID scanners suffer from the same over-scanning problem as fixed RFID scanners. Kalmbach has solved the over-scanning problem leveraging the unique capabilities of phased-array RFID scanners to position tags, and creating a new software invention termed the Capture Zone. The Capture Zone defines a virtual convex polyhedron that sensors or tags that are affixed to or associated with things must move through. Alternatively, the Capture Zone may be defined as a virtual convex polyhedron that is established by a scanner that is either held in the hand of a person moving through a facility, or mounted on a vehicle that is moving through a facility, where the Capture Zone is active to acquire and store all encoded strings from each sensor or tag from which a signal is acquired. The movement of the phased-array RFID scanner provides a moveable Capture Zone as the phased-array RFID scanner changes position throughout a facility.” (pg. 10) implies that the devices and things are movable (former embodiment) or the either the capture zone is movable (“alternative” embodiment). The examples provided within the specification describe a stationary capture zone where the devices and things move through the capture zone (ingress and egress). The specification does not appear to describe an embodiment where both the capture zone is movable via movable RFID scanners and the devices and things are also movable through the capture zone. Since the claim language further recites “signals detected prior to the plurality of devices and things moving through said capture zone and that continue to be present after the plurality of devices and things have left the capture zone”, the specification does not describe how this can be determined when both the device and things move into and out of the capture zone when the capture zone also moves. As such, this is considered new matter.
Claims not addressed fail to comply with the written description requirement due to their dependency.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite “said data capture device having a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanner element”. The claim further recites “an RFID scanner” and “a movable RFID scanner”. It is not clear if these RFID scanners are the same as, or different than, the RFID scanner element recited previously. Please clarify. If the same, then proper antecedent basis. If they are different, then the claim language needs to better differentiate the three RFID scanners. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as “the RFID scanner element”.
Claim 1 recites “where each of said captured encoded strings is associated with at least one of said plurality of devices and things from which a signal is detected and acquired during movement through or within said capture zone”. This implies that the plurality of device or things do not have to be moved through the capture zone. However the claim language in prior lines recite “said data capture device acquiring, capturing, and storing information of sensors or tags of a plurality of devices and things that move through a capture zone, the information including input encoded strings containing identification (ID) and location information from said plurality of devices and things having sensors or tags as the plurality of devices and things move through the capture zone”, thus positively reciting that the plurality of devices and things is moving through a capture zone. Therefore, the latter limitation (having the “or” limitation) can contradict the former. It is not clear if the applicant intended the claim language to be “where each of said captured encoded strings is associated with at least one of said plurality of devices and things from which a signal is detected and acquired during movement through said capture zone”. Please clarify.
Claim 1 recites “said data capture device having a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanner element; said edge capture system defining a virtual convex polyhedron space associated with an RFID scanner emplaced at a fixed location within a facility and/or a movable RFID scanner affixed to a vehicle or held by a human operator; said data capture device acquiring, capturing, and storing information of sensors or tags of a plurality of devices and things that move through a capture zone”. It is not clear how the capture zone relates to the RFID scanner element/RFID scanner/movable RFID scanner, if at all. The claim language fails to provide any relation between capture zone and the RFID scanner element/RFID scanner/movable RFID scanner/virtual convex polyhedron space. Please clarify. Does the applicant intend the virtual convex polyhedron space associated with an RFID scanner/movable RFID scanner to be the capture zone? Please clarify.
Claim 1 recites “decoding said ID information and timestamp information for each sensor or tag signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (e.g. “said ID information and timestamp information” implies there was previous recitation of “timestamp information” for each sensor or tag signal). It is unclear if the timestamp information is part of the encoded strings since the claim recites “the information including input encoded strings containing identification (ID) and location information”. Please clarify. It is noted that to decode timestamp information, it appears that it would need to previously be encoded. As such, it is suggested that the recitation regarding encoded strings further include that the encoded strings contain timestamp information, e.g. “the information including input encoded strings containing identification (ID) information, timestamp information and location information from said plurality of devices and things having sensors or tags...” to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites “said capture zone is further defined as a virtual convex polyhedron space”. It is not clear if the virtual convex polyhedron space is the same as, or different than that in claim 1. Please clarify. If the same, then proper antecedent basis is needed. If different, then the claim language needs to differentiate the two virtual convex polyhedron spaces. Please clarify.
Claim 2 recites “sensor or tag data during data collection”. Claim 5 recites “sensor or tag data collected”. Claim 1 recites “said data processor collecting all input encoded strings from each of said sensors or tags “ and “said data processor collecting all sensor or tag signals”. It is not clear if “sensor or tag data” is the same as, or different than, the “input encoded strings from each of the said sensors or tags” or “sensor or tag signals”. Please clarify. If the same, proper antecedent basis is needed. If different, the claim language needs to differentiate better the data versus the encoded strings versus the signals.
Claim 6 recites “one or more tasks that gather data captured from said sensors and tags and format and transmit said gathered sensor and tag data to the edge capture system for storage and tracking of said devices associated with said sensors and tags”. It is noted that claim 1 recites “data capture device acquiring, capturing, and storing information of sensors or tags”. It is not clear if “data captured from said sensors and tags” is the same as, or different than, the information of sensors or tags that is recited in claim 1. Please clarify. If the same, then proper antecedent basis is needed, e.g. “one or more tasks that gather said information captured from said sensors and tags and format and transmit said gathered sensor and tag information”. If different, then the claim language needs to better differentiate the data and the information.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claim 1 (e.g. “said edge capture system defining a virtual convex polyhedron space associated with an RFID scanner emplaced at a fixed location within a facility and/or a movable RFID scanner affixed to a vehicle or held by a human operator”).
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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights