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 .
Status of Claims
The rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relihan et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0326849] in view of Mickle et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0205873], and in further view of Puleston et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0134257]
With regard to claim 1, Relihan et al. meets the limitations of:
a method comprising: transmitting, by an anchor wireless device over a first radio frequency (RF) band, a first wireless signal to a client wireless device [an RFID access in communication an RFID tag device (paragraph 0024 and figure 1)]
wherein the client wireless device is an ambient power (AMP) device that harvests environmental energy [RFID tags being passive devices using passive communications protocols thereby conveying the use of passive RFID devices (paragraphs 0030 and 0036)]
wherein the first wireless signal includes a data packet requesting information from the client wireless device [a price management application (PMA), found in a server that is connected to an RFID reader, reading data stored on an RFID tag (paragraph 0034 as well as figure 2, items 12, 18, and 21)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of receiving, by the anchor wireless device over a second RF band, a second wireless signal from the client wireless device and wherein the second wireless signal includes a data packet responding with the requested information. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
receiving, by the anchor wireless device over a second RF band, a second wireless signal from the client wireless device [a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
wherein the second wireless signal includes a data packet responding with the requested information [RF interrogation response signals transmitted one at a time in a sequential manner, such as according to an order determined by the unique identifier of each RFID tag (paragraph 0053)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al. and Mickle et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond. However, the combination Relihan et al. and Mickle et al. fails to disclose of the anchor wireless device is a wireless local area network device and the ambient power device storing the environmental energy in energy cells. In the field of RFID communications, Puleston et al. teaches:
the anchor wireless device is a wireless local area network device and the ambient power device storing the environmental energy in energy cells [an RFID reader device (paragraph 0068 and figure 17, item 140) where the RFID reader communicates with RFID tags using a WAN network (paragraph 0185) where the RFID tags harvest and store in a battery storage facility (paragraph 0089)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple passive RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 2, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the second RF band operates at a lower frequency range than that of the first RF band; the second RF band operates at a higher frequency range than that of the first RF band; or the first RF band is the same as the second RF band. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the second RF band operates at a lower frequency range than that of the first RF band; the second RF band operates at a higher frequency range than that of the first RF band; or the first RF band is the same as the second RF band [RF interrogation response signals transmitted one at a time in a sequential manner, such as according to an order determined by the unique identifier of each RFID tag (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 3, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the first wireless signal and the second wireless signal with technology comprising one of Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, Bluetooth® Low Energy, Ultra-Wideband, Z-wave™, Zigbee®, LoRa™, or Wi-SUN® [the use of WiFi communications to enable communications between the RFID reader and RFID devices (paragraph 0031)]
With regard to claim 4, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the anchor wireless device comprises one of an access point, a router, or a mobile hotspot device, and wherein the client wireless device is a wireless identification tag [an RFID access in communication an RFID tag device (paragraph 0024 and figure 1)]
With regard to claim 5, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the requested information is one of an identification of the client wireless device, a location of the client wireless device, temperature data, humidity data, pressure data, level data, or data associated with an environment of the client wireless device [an identification of an EPL, in the form of an RFID device, being sent from the EPL in response to the request from a reader (paragraph 0033)]
With regard to claim 6, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the first wireless signal is also an energizing RF signal from which the client wireless device harvests energy. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the first wireless signal is also an energizing RF signal from which the client wireless [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 7, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of transmitting, by the anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
transmitting, by the anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 8, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
a second anchor wireless device [two reader access points used for reading RFID devices (figure 1, item 18 and paragraphs 0023 and 0024)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of a second anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
a second anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 9, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
a second anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device, wherein the RF signal is transmitted as a continuous wave (CW) or using technology comprising one of Bluetooth®, Bluetooth® Low Energy, Wi-Fi®, or Zigbee® [two reader access points used for reading RFID devices (figure 1, item 18 and paragraphs 0023 and 0024) where WiFi communications are used to enable communications between the RFID reader and RFID devices (paragraph 0031)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of from which the client wireless device harvests energy where it is an energizing RF signal. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the client wireless device harvests energy where it is an energizing RF signal [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 10, Relihan et al. meets the limitations of:
a wireless network comprising an anchor wireless device to transmit, over a first radio frequency (RF) band, a first wireless signal to a client wireless device [an RFID access in communication an RFID tag device (paragraph 0024 and figure 1)]
a first wireless signal comprising a data packet requesting information [a price management application (PMA), found in s server that is connected to an RFID reader, reading data stored on an RFID tag (paragraph 0034 as well as figure 2, items 12, 18, and 21)]
a client wireless device to harvest energy from an environment of the client wireless device [RFID tags being passive devices using passive communications protocols thereby conveying the use of passive RFID devices (paragraphs 0030 and 0036)]
receive the first wireless signal and parse the data packet [a price management application (PMA), found in a server that is connected to an RFID reader, reading data stored on an RFID tag (paragraph 0034 as well as figure 2, items 12, 18, and 21)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of transmitting, over a second RF band, a second wireless signal to the anchor wireless device, wherein the second wireless signal includes a data packet responding with the requested information. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
transmitting, over a second RF band, a second wireless signal to the anchor wireless device, wherein the second wireless signal includes a data packet responding with the requested information [a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013) and [RF interrogation response signals transmitted one at a time in a sequential manner, such as according to an order determined by the unique identifier of each RFID tag (paragraph 0053)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al. and Mickle et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond. However, the combination Relihan et al. and Mickle et al. fails to disclose of the anchor wireless device is a wireless local area network device and the ambient power device storing the environmental energy in energy cells. In the field of RFID communications, Puleston et al. teaches:
the anchor wireless device is a wireless local area network device and the ambient power device storing the environmental energy in energy cells [an RFID reader device (paragraph 0068 and figure 17, item 140) where the RFID reader communicates with RFID tags using a WAN network (paragraph 0185) where the RFID tags harvest and store in a battery storage facility (paragraph 0089)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple passive RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 11, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the second RF band operates at a lower frequency range than that of the first RF band; the second RF band operates at a higher frequency range than that of the first RF band; or the first RF band is the same as the second RF band. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the second RF band operates at a lower frequency range than that of the first RF band; the second RF band operates at a higher frequency range than that of the first RF band; or the first RF band is the same as the second RF band [RF interrogation response signals transmitted one at a time in a sequential manner, such as according to an order determined by the unique identifier of each RFID tag (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 12, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the anchor wireless device is further to generate the first wireless signal with technology comprising one of Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, Bluetooth® Low Energy, Ultra-Wideband, Zigbee®, LoRa™, or Wi-SUN® [the use of WiFi communications to enable communications between the RFID reader and RFID devices (paragraph 0031)]
the client wireless device is further to generate the second wireless signal with technology comprising one of Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, Bluetooth® Low Energy, Ultra-Wideband, Z-wave!™, Zigbee®, LoRa™, or Wi-SUN® [the use of WiFi communications to enable communications between the RFID reader and RFID devices (paragraph 0031)]
With regard to claim 13, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the anchor wireless device comprises one of an access point, a router, or a mobile hotspot device, and wherein the client wireless device is a wireless identification tag [an RFID access in communication an RFID tag device (paragraph 0024 and figure 1)]
With regard to claim 14, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the requested information is one of an identification of the client wireless device, a location of the client wireless device, temperature data, humidity data, pressure data, level data, or environmental-related data associated with the environment of the client wireless device [an identification of an EPL, in the form of an RFID device, being sent from the EPL in response to the request from a reader (paragraph 0033)]
With regard to claim 15, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the first wireless signal is also an energizing RF signal, and wherein the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the first wireless signal. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the first wireless signal is also an energizing RF signal, and wherein the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the first wireless signal [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 16, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the anchor wireless device is further to transmit, towards the client wireless device, an energizing RF signal, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band and the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the anchor wireless device is further to transmit, towards the client wireless device, an energizing RF signal, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band and the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 17, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
a second anchor wireless device [two reader access points used for reading RFID devices (figure 1, item 18 and paragraphs 0023 and 0024)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of a second anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band wherein the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
a second anchor wireless device, an energizing RF signal towards the client wireless device from which the client wireless device harvests energy, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted over one of the first RF band, the second RF band, or a third RF band wherein the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 18, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
a second anchor wireless device to transmit, towards the client wireless device, an energizing RF signal, wherein the energizing RF signal is transmitted as a continuous wave (CW) or using technology comprising one of Bluetooth®, Bluetooth® Low Energy, Wi-Fi®, or Zigbee® [two reader access points used for reading RFID devices (figure 1, item 18 and paragraphs 0023 and 0024) where WiFi communications are used to enable communications between the RFID reader and RFID devices (paragraph 0031)]
However, Relihan et al. fails to disclose of the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal. In the field of RFID communications, Mickle et al. teaches:
the client wireless device is to harvest energy from the energizing RF signal [an RFID device harvests energy from an interrogation signal sent from an RFID reader where the harvested energy provides energy for an RFID tag to operate (paragraph 0005) where a second wireless signal sent to an RFID tag device for interrogation purposes (paragraph 0053) where the RF signals have different frequencies (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Relihan et al., Mickle et al., and Puleston et al. to create a wireless communications system for RFID devices where the interrogator is able to communicate with multiple RFID devices using different frequencies in order to reduce the likelihood of communication interference when RFID devices respond wherein the motivation to combine is to create a system for managing RFID assets (Mickle et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 19, Relihan et al. meets the limitation of:
the client wireless device is to harvest energy from one of RF-related power sources or non-RF-related power sources [an onboard battery used for powering an RFID device in the form of an electronic price label (paragraphs 0036)]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Puleston et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0134257]
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 PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights