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 .
Response to Amendment
This application is responsive to applicant’s amendments/remarks received 10/21/2025. Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, 20, 22 and 27 have been amended. Claims 1-27 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 14-17, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A).
In re claim 1, Shao teaches A method of classifying doors states (Abstract: “…the opening/closing state of a structure comprising a fixed assembly and a moving assembly, and thus, the obtained opening/closing state of a structure such as a door and a window is more accurate.”), comprising:
receiving, data packets from a network element (Description, Summary of the Invention, para [0003]: “…a wireless communication method is provided, comprising: applying the method to a controller, the method comprising: the controller sends a continuous wave; the controller receives two data sent by a sensor in a backscattering manner…”), wherein the received data packets include operation characteristics related to the least a first Internet-of-Things (loT) tag and a second loT tag (Description, Detailed Description, para [0030]: “Step S510: The controller acquires the received signal strength indication (Received Signal Strength Indication, RSSI) and phase information of the respective backscattered signals of the two tags.”), and wherein the operation characteristics are respectively derived from signals transmitted by the first loT tag and the second loT tag (Description, Detailed Description, para [0031]: “Step S520: The controller determines the opening and closing states of the structure according to the RSSI and phase information of the respective backscattered signals of the two tags.”);
comparing the operation characteristics of the first loT tag and the second loT tag with respect to the network element (Description, Detailed Description, para [0033]: “After the controller receives the backscattered signal, the controller can obtain RSSI and phase information of the backscattered signal, wherein both the RSSI and phase information of the backscattered signal are related to the distance between the tag and the controller. Specifically, the RSSI of any backscattered signal can be obtained by the following formula (1).”); and
classifying a state of the door based on the comparison (Description, Detailed Description, para [0041]: “Optional way 1: The controller determines the first value according to the RSSI of the backscattered signal at the first time and the RSSI of the backscattered signal at the second time, respectively, of the two tags. The controller determines the second value according to the phase information of the backscattered signals at the first time and the phase information of the backscattered signals at the second time, respectively, of the two tags. The controller determines the third value based on the first value and the second value. The controller determines the opening and closing state of the structure according to the relationship between the third value and the preset threshold.”).
Shao fails to teach wherein each of the first and second loT tags is placed on a different location on a moveable door.
However, Yuan teaches wherein each of the first and second loT tags is placed on a different location on a moveable door (Description, para [0012]: “Optionally, at least three radio frequency identification tag is the mounting position of the door center, door close to one side of the rotating shaft close to the side door along one side, a door upper edge and at least three positions of the lower door edge.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shao to include the teachings of Yuan to provide wherein each of the first and second loT tags is placed on a different location on a moveable door with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao. Doing so enables avoiding the possibility that the electromagnetic induction device is replaced by other magnetic devices, making the combination lock mistakenly believe that the door is in a real closed state, as recognized by Yuan (Abstract).
Device claim 14 and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 27 are rejected for the same reasons as method claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 2, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Shao further teaches further comprising:
providing a notification on the state of the door, wherein the state is either open or closed (Description, Detailed Description, para [0077]: “Optionally, the above method further includes: after the controller determines the opening and closing state of the above structure according to the respective backscattered signals of the two tags, the controller may also send the opening and closing state of the above structure to the terminal device for the user to use. Check the opening and closing status of the above structure. For example, in the communication system shown in FIG. 1 , the controller can directly send the opening and closing status of the above structure to the terminal device. In the communication system shown in FIG. 2 , the controller can directly send the opening and closing states of the above structures to the cloud server, and the terminal device can obtain the opening and closing states of the above structures from the cloud server.”).
Device claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 3, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Shao further teaches wherein the first loT tag is located at an open position of the door and the second loT tag is located at a close position of the door (SEE FIG 4 and Description, Summary of the Invention, para [0003]: “…the two labels are respectively arranged on the fixed component and the moving component...”).
Device claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 2 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 4, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 3 stated above where Shao further teaches wherein the network element is located in proximity to any of the first loT tag and the second loT tag (Description, Detailed Description, para [0008]: “In this application, the controller undertakes the role of a bridge between the sensor and the terminal device, so the controller can also be called a bridge. Optionally, in this application, the controller may be an integrated smart speaker, or a smart customer terminal equipment (Customer Premise Equipment, CPE).”).
Device claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 8, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Shao further teaches wherein the signals transmitted by the first and second loT tags do not explicitly indicate the state of the door (Description, Detailed Description, para [0078]: “In this application, it is not necessary to rely on the positioning function of the sensor to determine the opening and closing state of the structure, but the sensor sends the respective backscattered signals of the two tags to the controller through the backscattering method, and the controller according to the respective backscattering signals of the two tags The backscattered signal determines the open and closed states of the structure including the stationary and moving components.”).
Device claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 8 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A) and further in view of ELBOIM (US Patent No. 20200251228) and YEHEZKELY (US Patent No. 20230031981).
In re claim 7, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach a harvesting rate; a charging time; and a charging rate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Elboim teaches a harvesting rate (Para [0043]: “For example, if the predetermined value is 1 second, a pass indication will be assigned to a tag if the BLE response signal is sent back within 1 second of the transmitted signal, thus indicating that the capacitor is configured to sufficiently charge within that timeframe to allow for transmission of a BLE signal. If it takes longer to harvest the energy and transform sufficient power to transmit a response signal, the tag is deemed to have failed the test. In a further embodiment, a range of an acceptable timeframe, e.g., 0.75-1.5 seconds, qualifies a tag for a pass assignment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao and Yuan to further include the teachings of Elboim to provide a harvesting rate with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan. Doing so enables a check to determine if a capacitor can sufficiently charge within the timeframe to allow for transmission of a BLE signal, as recognized by Elboim (Para [0043]).
The combination fails to teach a charging time; and a charging rate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YEHEZKELY teaches a charging time (Para [0017: “FIG. 2 is a graph of a charge time of an energy storage and an input voltage as a function of a frequency measured according to an embodiment.”); and a charging rate (Abstract: “The wireless IoT includes at least one antenna configured to harvest an ambient energy; an energy harvester coupled to the at least one antenna; an energy storage coupled to the energy harvester and configured to store harvested energy; and an energy detector configured to the energy storage, wherein the energy detector is configured to measure an energy-charging rate of the energy harvester.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao, Yuan and Elboim to further include the teachings of YEHEZKELY to provide a charging time; and a charging rate with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan and Elboim. Doing so enables effectively maintaining and increasing performance of an IoT device, and close monitoring of and implementing means to increase energy harvester efficiency, as reocngnized by YEHEZKELY (para [0010]).
Device claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A), and further in view of Zelman (US Patent No. 20240070410 A1) and YEHEZKELY (US Patent No. 20230031981).
In re claim 9, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Shao further teaches wherein a signal transmitted by the first and second loT tags includes any one of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (Description, Detailed Description, para [0030]: “Step S510: The controller acquires the received signal strength indication (Received Signal Strength Indication, RSSI) and phase information of the respective backscattered signals of the two tags.”).
The combination fails to teach a digitally controlled oscillator (DCO) signal and frequency calibration word.
However, Zelman teaches a digitally controlled oscillator (DCO) signal (Para [0028]: “The sensing signal may include… a digitally controlled oscillator (DCO) signal…” and para [0031]: “That is, the IoT tag 110 senses whether the transmission frequency is corrected and, if not, the DCO is adjusted to the main frequency of the transmission.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao and Yuan to further include the teachings of Zelman to provide a digitally controlled oscillator (DCO) signal with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan. Doing so enables sensing whether the transmission frequency is corrected and, if not, the DCO is adjusted to the main frequency of the transmission, as recognized by Zelman (Para [0031]).
The combination fails to teach and frequency calibration word.
However, YEHEZKELY teaches and frequency calibration word (Para [0058]: “The best-known tuning state S0 provides the highest charging rate currently available to the IoT tag. In an embodiment, S0 and its charge time, to, may be provided by a controller (e.g., controller 523, FIG. 5). A tuning state may be a voltage level, a digital word, an analog signal, or any means for changing the varactor, the switch, and/or other means that causes changing the impedance of the antenna interface.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao, Yuan and Zelman to further include the teachings of YEHEZKELY to provide and frequency calibration word with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan and Zelman. Doing so enables the best-known tuning state S0 that provides the highest charging rate currently available to the IoT tag, as recognized by YEHEZKELY (Para [0058]).
Device claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 9 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A) and further in view of Radhakrishnan (US Patent No. 20210119859).
In re claim 10, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein the network element is part of a subnet of loT tags.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Radhakrishnan teaches wherein the network element is part of a subnet (Para [0036]: “In some embodiments, all subnets hosted in a fabric site can be provisioned across every fabric edge node 126 in that fabric site. For example, if the subnet 10.10.10.0/24 is provisioned in a given fabric site, this subnet may be defined across all of the fabric edge nodes 126 in that fabric site, and endpoints located in that subnet can be placed on any fabric edge node 126 in that fabric. This can simplify IP address management and allow deployment of fewer but larger subnets.”) of loT tags (Para [0038]: “The endpoints 130 can also include Internet of Things (IoT) devices or equipment, such as … Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, etc…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao and Yuan to further include the teachings of Radhakrishnan to provide wherein the network element is part of a subnet of loT tags with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan. Doing so enables simplifying IP address management and allows deployment of fewer but larger subnets, as recognized by Radhakrishnan (Para [0036]).
Device claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 10 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A) and further in view of Austin (US Patent No. 11822996 B2).
In re claim 12, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein a type of the door is any one of: up/down sliding door, a rolling door, and a swinging door.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Austin teaches wherein a type of the door is any one of: up/down sliding door, a rolling door, and a swinging door (Col 1, lines 19-24: “Accordingly, to accurately determine a location and/or a direction of movement of an RFID tag within an environment, there is a need for an RFID system to determine and/or verify that the readings of a read window accurately indicate the location and/or the movement of the RFID tag.” and col 5, lines 13-18: “The door may be any suitable type of door that is capable of being opened or closed. Although certain examples may be illustrated with a two-panel sliding door, any other type of door, such as a hinged door, a folding door, an overhead door, and/or a rolling door may similarly be monitored as described herein.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao and Yuan to further include the teachings of Austin to provide wherein a type of the door is any one of: up/down sliding door, a rolling door, and a swinging door with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan. Doing so enables determining and/or verifying that the readings of a read window accurately indicate the location and/or the movement of the RFID tag, as recognized by Austin (Col 1, lines 19-24).
Device claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 12 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAO (WO Patent No. 2022000477A1), in view of YUAN (CN Patent No. 107491799A) and further in view of YAMASHITA (JP Patent No. 2007141025A).
In re claim 13, Shao and Yuan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach further comprising:
generating a log listing state of all doors;
retaining the log in a database; and
outputting the log to a user's interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YAMASHITA teaches further comprising:
generating a log listing state of all doors (Description, Embodiment 1, para [0001]: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an operation log management system for a platform door according to Embodiment 1 of the present invention. In the figure, a plurality of external devices 1 constituting a platform door system are connected to a network 2 which is an information transmission path. The external device 1 includes, for example… door opening / closing for detecting the open / closed state of the individual door body A detector (not shown) and the like are included. The door system controller controls the opening / closing operation of the individual door body based on the opening / closing command from the train control device.” and para [0002]: “The external device 1 transmits operation information to the external information input device 3 via the network 2 every time the operation state changes. The external information input device 3 inputs operation information to the log management server device 4 that is a log management unit in the order of reception. The log management server device 4 stores the input operation information as an operation log.”);
retaining the log in a database; and
outputting the log to a user's interface (Description, Embodiment 1, para [0003]: “The log management server device 4 includes an operation information input unit 7 that receives operation information from the external information input device 3, an operation information database 8 in which an operation log is registered, and an operation log designation unit 9 that receives an operation of the operation device 5. The operation log reading means 10 for reading the operation log and the operation log display control unit 11 for displaying the operation log on the display device 6 are provided.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shao and Yuan to further include the teachings of YAMASHITA to provide further comprising: generating a log listing state of all doors; retaining the log in a database; and outputting the log to a user's interface with the WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM of Shao as modified by Yuan. Doing so enables providing a log management system and a log management method capable of improving the reliability of operation logs, as recognized by YAMASHITA (Description, Tech-Problem, para [0002]).
Device claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 13 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11, 18-19 and 24 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:
The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole:
Regarding claim 5: wherein comparing the operation characteristics of the first loT tag and the second loT tag, further comprises:
checking if the operation characteristics of the first loT tag represent higher values than operation characteristics of the second loT tag; and
determining when the door to be at the position of the first loT tag when operation characteristics of the first loT tag represent higher values than operation characteristics of the second loT tag; and
determining when the door to be at the position of the second loT tag when operation characteristics of the second loT tag represent higher values than operation characteristics of the first loT tag.
Regarding claim 6: wherein checking if the operation characteristics of the first loT tag represent higher values than the operation characteristics of the second loT tag is performed with a reference to the network element.
Regarding claim 11: wherein classifying the state of the door is performed at the network element for at least one subnet, based on the relationship of operation characteristics of the first loT tag and the second loT tag within the subnet.
Device claims 18-19 and 24 are allowed for the same reasons as method claims 5-6 and 11 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Moreover, modifying the prior art to achieve the claim limitation can only be achieved by hindsight, as no other reference includes these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/21/2025 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2025067666 A1 teaches Method for determining a status opened or closed of an open/close mechanism (12-20) belonging to two objects movable relative to each other, comprising -providing one (1) of the objects with a contactless reader (RD) and providing the other object (2) with a contactless transponder (TG), -determining said status using a reader check whether reading the tag is possible or not.
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 JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 12/17/2025
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688