DETAILED ACTION
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 recite the limitation " a determination component, a notification component, a search component, a stock component, and a reading component ". Specification does not disclose any components. Specification discloses a determination unit, a notification unit, a search processing unit, a stock processing unit, and a read and write unit respectively. It’s not clear if those components are referring to the units disclosed in the specification. Examiner is interpreting a determination component, a notification component, a search component, a stock component, and a reading component to be a determination unit, a notification unit, a search processing unit, a stock processing unit, and a read and write unit respectively for examining purpose. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “a determination component, a notification component, a search component, a stock component, a reading component” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “component” coupled with functional language “configured to determine, configured to notify, configured to search for, configured to determine, configured to radiate the radio wave for reading” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a determination component, a notification component, a search component, a stock component, and a reading component are not disclosed in Applicant’s specification; However, Specification discloses the foreign object detection unit 207 is an example of a determination unit and a notification unit; and the foreign object detection unit 207 is part of the mobile terminal; the mobile terminal 20 includes a CPU 21, a ROM 22, a RAM 23, a storage unit 24, and the like (Fig. 6, Para. 26 & 58). Specification also discloses a search processing unit 208, and a stock processing unit 209 Which are also part of the mobile terminal (Fig. 6, Para. 36). Specification discloses the read and write unit 15 includes an antenna 151, a transmitter 152, and a receiver 153 (Fig. 3, Para. 22).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stern (US 20120161967 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Stern teaches a foreign object detection device (Stern, Fig. 1an RFID-based inventory monitoring system 100), comprising: a determination component configured to determine, based on a reading result of a wireless tag obtained by radiating a radio wave for reading the wireless tag for a container housing an article (Stern, Para. 20, Inventory monitoring controller 102 is configured to maintain inventory information regarding quantities of a plurality of articles that are present within a "controlled area" at which the system 100 is installed (e.g., a retail store, a warehouse, and so on); Para. 22, Each RFID tag reader 106 is configured to detect the presence of any RFID tags 110 that are located within a detection range of the RFID tag reader 106 (e.g., ranges 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, 108-N, collectively ranges 108, FIG. 1), and to transmit RFID tag identifying information for each detected RFID tag 110 to inventory monitoring controller 102) and a data file in which a tag identifier held by a wireless tag attached to a foreign object different from the article is registered (Stern, Para. 69, the inventory monitoring controller maintains information relating to each article (including each potentially missing article and each previously-declared missing article) in a "shadow" list or table of articles (referred to below as a "shadow inventory table"), which may be separate from the current inventory database), whether the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is read (Stern, Para. 94, the system may maintain knowledge of the intended locations and the actual locations of the various articles within its inventory (e.g., the shadow inventory table 600, FIG. 6, and/or the database of current inventory may include fields for each article that indicate not only an article identifier, but also an intended location for each article and an actual location for each article). According to an embodiment, the location information may be continually refined and updated as new polling information is obtained on a regular basis following the same algorithms described above. The system may use the above-described techniques to determine and indicate the actual locations of each of the articles of inventory, and may compare the actual locations with the intended locations. When the system determines that a specific article is not in its intended location (i.e., the article is "misplaced")); and a notification component configured to notify that the foreign object is detected if it is determined that the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is read (Stern, Para. 94, the system may cause information indicating the actual location and the intended location of an article to be displayed on a planogram that depicts the layout of the controlled area. For example, a misplaced article can be displayed in a manner that draws the attention of the user to the article (e.g., the misplaced article may be displayed in a different color from articles that are in their intended locations)).
In regard to claim 2, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, further comprising: a search component configured to search for, based on a reception state of the radio wave related to the reading of the wireless tag, a position in which a foreign object is present if it is determined that the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is read (Stern, Para. 88, the system may determine the location of the RFID tag(s) based on an evaluation of one or more received signal strength indication (RSSI) for signals emitted by the RFID tag(s), as reported by one or more RFID tag readers in the context of a normal polling operation (or a polling operation that may be initiated in response to the inquiry), and cause a display component to display the searched position (Para. 94, the system may cause information indicating the actual location and the intended location of an article to be displayed on a planogram that depicts the layout of the controlled area. For example, a misplaced article can be displayed in a manner that draws the attention of the user to the article (e.g., the misplaced article may be displayed in a different color from articles that are in their intended locations)).
In regard to claim 3, Stern teach the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, further comprising: a stock component configured to determine, based on the reading result of the wireless tag and the data file, presence or absence of each foreign object registered in the data file (Stern, Fig. 6, All of the information in table 600 may be considered to be "historical information," which may be used in the process of making various decisions, as described in more detail herein. Table 600 includes a first column 602 corresponding to an article identifier, a second column 603 corresponding to an indication of whether or not an article has been declared to be potentially missing, a third column 604 corresponding to a missing article detection threshold for an article, a fourth column 606 corresponding to a number of consecutive missed polls for an article, a fifth column 608 corresponding to an indication of whether or not an article has been declared to be missing (and thus removed from inventory), a sixth column 610 corresponding to an error variable, and a seventh column 612 corresponding to a number of consecutive polls that have been conducted during which the RFID tag for a previously potentially missing article has been detected), and cause a display component to display a determination result (Stern, Para. 18, inventory information may be displayed to the user as a planogram, which provides information about the location of various RFID tags 110 within the controlled area, including the locations of desired or misplaced items. For items that are misplaced, the user interface 104 additionally may display the correct locations for those items, which enables store personnel to efficiently organize inventory in a desired way).
In regard to claim 5, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, further comprising: a reading component configured to radiate the radio wave for reading the wireless tag and read the tag identifier from the wireless tag responding to the radio wave (Stern, Para. 20, Inventory monitoring controller 102 is configured to maintain inventory information regarding quantities of a plurality of articles that are present within a "controlled area" at which the system 100 is installed (e.g., a retail store, a warehouse, and so on); Para. 22, Each RFID tag reader 106 is configured to detect the presence of any RFID tags 110 that are located within a detection range of the RFID tag reader 106 (e.g., ranges 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, 108-N, collectively ranges 108, FIG. 1), and to transmit RFID tag identifying information for each detected RFID tag 110 to inventory monitoring controller 102), wherein the determination component is configured to determine, based on the reading result of the reading component and the data file (Stern, Para. 69, the inventory monitoring controller maintains information relating to each article (including each potentially missing article and each previously-declared missing article) in a "shadow" list or table of articles (referred to below as a "shadow inventory table"), which may be separate from the current inventory database), whether the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is read (Stern, Para. 94, the system may maintain knowledge of the intended locations and the actual locations of the various articles within its inventory (e.g., the shadow inventory table 600, FIG. 6, and/or the database of current inventory may include fields for each article that indicate not only an article identifier, but also an intended location for each article and an actual location for each article). According to an embodiment, the location information may be continually refined and updated as new polling information is obtained on a regular basis following the same algorithms described above. The system may use the above-described techniques to determine and indicate the actual locations of each of the articles of inventory, and may compare the actual locations with the intended locations. When the system determines that a specific article is not in its intended location (i.e., the article is "misplaced")).
In regard to claim 6, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the foreign object detection device is smartphone or a tablet terminal (Stern, Fig. 1, user interface and inventory monitoring controller; Para. 19, ser interface 104 may include a computer, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a printer, and various other hardware components to provide a man/machine interface. In an embodiment, user interface 104 and inventory monitoring controller 102 may include distinct hardware components. In such an embodiment, user interface 104 may be co-located or remotely-located from inventory monitoring controller 102, and accordingly user interface 104 may be operably connected with inventory monitoring controller 102 via wired, wireless, direct, or networked connections).
In regard to claim 7, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, further comprising an information processing device configured to generate and manage a data file for foreign object detection (Stern, Para. 69, the inventory monitoring controller maintains information relating to each article (including each potentially missing article and each previously-declared missing article) in a "shadow" list or table of articles (referred to below as a "shadow inventory table"), which may be separate from the current inventory database).
In regard to claim 8, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 5, wherein the reading component is further configured to read tag data from the wireless tag in a communication region of an antenna on an instruction from a mobile terminal (Stern, Para. 86, information defining the inquiry may be provided by a user via a user interface of the system (e.g., user interface 104, FIG. 1). For example, the user may indicate that the user desires the system to locate a particular RFID tag).
In regard to claim 9, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 8, further comprising a communication controller configured to transmit tag data read by the reading component to the mobile terminal (Stern, Para. 20, Inventory monitoring controller 102 may be located within wireless communication range of RFID tag readers 106 and/or user interface 104, or may be remotely located, and configured to communicate with RFID tag readers 106 and/or user interface 104 via wired and/or wireless network connections).
In regard to claim 10, Stern teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 9, wherein the communication controller is further configured to receive various types of information transmitted from the mobile terminal (Stern, Fig. 9; Para. 103, processing system 902 also may create, access, and/or maintain various tables (e.g., triggering temporal events table 400, FIG. 4 and/or shadow inventory table 600, FIG. 6), which may be stored in data storage system 906, for example. In addition, processing system 902 may alter its operation based on user-provided inputs via a user interface (e.g., user interface 104, FIG. 1)).
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3 as stated above.
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6 as stated above.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8 as stated above.
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 9 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 10 as stated above.
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, 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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern (US 20120161967 A1) in view of Chevalier et al. (US 20160117899 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Stern does not specifically teach the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the notification component is configured to notify that a foreign object is not present when the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is not read at a time point when a reading operation on the wireless tag is ended.
However, Chevalier teaches the foreign object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the notification component is configured to notify that a foreign object is not present when the wireless tag attached to the foreign object is not read at a time point when a reading operation on the wireless tag is ended (Chevalier, Para. 50, If the verification cycle reveals that the same RFID-tagged tools 16 are in the tool bay 6 as are on the reference list, the electrical circuit 20 illuminates the LEDs 38 green for a few seconds to reassure the user that no RFID-tagged tools 16 are absent; Para. 51, If the verification cycle reveals that one or more ‘unknown’ RFID-tagged tools 16 are in the tool bay 6 that are not on the reference list, the electrical circuit 20 flashes the LEDs 38 red for a few seconds to warn the user).
Stern and Chevalier are analogous art because they both pertain to detecting misplaced article and notifying the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to notify the user that there is no discrepancy in the number of RFID tagged articles (as taught by Chevalier) resulting in predictable result of reassuring the user of all articles.
In regard to claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Davetta W 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.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689