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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 09/04/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, and 16-17 are currently amended.
Claims 5, 8, and 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 15 and 18-20 have been presented in original form.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 11-20 are currently pending in the application
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-9, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Crisp (US 2020/0259520).
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 13 and 16-17 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 13 recites the limitation "the RFID unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the RFID unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected to since it is dependent upon a rejected claim, and inherit the problems of that claim.
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) 7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crisp et al. (US 2020/0259520) (hereinafter referred to as Crisp), cited by the applicant.
Re claims 7, 9 and 11, Crisp discloses a RFID reader system, comprising:
a plurality of RFID radio units (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e, 123) comprising a plurality of respective radio frequency (RF) front-ends (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e, 119), wherein each RF front-end is configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one RFID tag (figs 1 and 4; and paras. 0006, 0049-0050, 0054-0055); and
an RFID processing unit (central controller 100 or 124) configured to communicate with the plurality of RFID radio units (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e, 123), wherein the RFID processing unit (100, 124) is physically isolated from the plurality of RFID radio units (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e) (figs. 1 and 4; paras. 0008-0010, 0049-0050, 0054-0055), and wherein the RFID processing unit comprises a baseband processing backend (i) configured to process RFID tag data from each RF front-end in the plurality of RFID radio units and (ii) implemented in a central processing server configured to communicate with each RF front-end via a network (103(a,b,c,d,e) or 121) (figs. 1 and 4; and paras. 0006, 0009-0010, 0049-0050, 0054-0055);
wherein the central processing server (100, 124) is remote to the plurality of RFID radio units (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e, 123) (figs. 1 and 4);
wherein the network comprises a local area network (LAN) (paras. 0049, 0053-0055).
Re claim 12, Crisp discloses a RFID reader, comprising:
a RFID radio unit (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e, 123) comprising a radio frequency (RF) front-end (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e, 119) configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one RFID tag (figs 1 and 4; and paras. 0006, 0049-0050, 0054-0055); and
an RFID processing unit (central controller 100 or 124) comprising a digital processing backend (i) configured to communicate with the RF front-end (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e, 119) and (ii) implemented in a central processing server configured to communicate with the RF front-end via a network (103(a,b,c,d,e) or 121), wherein the RFID processing unit (100, 124) is physically isolated from the RFID radio unit (101a, 1101b, 101c, 101d, 101e) (figs. 1 and 4; paras. 0008-0010, 0049-0050, 0054-0055).
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crisp.
Re claims 19-20, Crisp discloses passive tags (paras. 0002, 0082), but fails to specifically teach wherein the RF front-end is configured to transmit a power RF signal to the at least one RFID tag in a frequency band between 2.95 GHz and 3.0 GHz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit a power RF signal to the at least one RFID tag in a frequency band between 2.95 GHz and 3.0 GHz, since it has been held that where the 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 13 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, in conjunction with other claim limitations, a plurality of distributed RFID readers, wherein each distributed RFID reader is defined by an RFID radio unit and an RFID processing unit that is (i) physically isolated from each RFID radio unit and (ii) implemented in a central processing server configured to communicate with each RFID radio unit via a network; and a controller operatively connected to the plurality of distributed RFID readers, wherein the controller is configured to update each distributed RFID reader without updating each RFID radio unit of each distributed RFID reader.
With respect to claims 13-18, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, in conjunction with other claim limitations, the specific features recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pinkham (US 2014/0049379)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 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 S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876