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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2023 and 01/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.7:
Applicant's representative explained that Korn is silent in regard to the claimed feature of determining a location of the person and a vital sign of the person. Korn is instead concerned with "reliably discriminat[ing] between moving tags and stationary tags." Although Korn can "determine a direction of the moving RFID tags," as described in page 8, lines 9 and 10, a direction of a moving RFID tag is not the same as a location of the person or a vital sign of the person. Furthermore, Korn is silent in regard to the claimed feature of determining the location and vital sign of the person based on two backscatter signals.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Korn teaches finding the location of a person because the person may be carrying the tag as disclosed in page 2: “Another example is a person that walks past the reader while carrying an item with attached RFID tag”; p.2 “RFID is a technology that enables identification, location and tracking”. Furthermore, Korn teaches using multiple backscatter signals with regards to determining location p.6 ‘According to further embodiments, the transmitted and the receiver preform the reading out multiple times for the one RFID tag. Here, the transmitter performs the providing of the frequency signal multiple times for the RFID tag and the receiver receives the response signal multiple times from the one RFID tag’.
With regards to the vital sign based on two backscatter signals, Vora teaches “[0032] The RFID reader read the tag for a period of three minutes at each heart rate” which corresponds to multiple backscatter signals. Furthermore, Vora teaches using multiple tags for measurements corresponding to using two backscatter signals “[0023] using one or more passive RFID tags”.
Applicant alleges on p.8:
Vora's RFID tag component is not the same as a reader. Furthermore, Vora uses an ECG signal generated using electrodes to monitors health information, which differs from determining a vital sign of the person based on two backscatter signals that are received by the reader.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vital signs refer to clinical measurements of a body such as heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure. Vora teaches measuring heart rate using an RFID tag system and thus Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korn et al. (WO 2020038568 hereinafter Korn) in view of Vora (US 20160338798).
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art teaches A method performed by a reader, the method comprising (Abstract “RFID reader”):
transmitting a radio-frequency signal using an antenna of the reader (Abstract “An embodiment provides an RFID reader which comprises a transmitter, a receiver and a processor.”),
the radio- frequency signal interacting with two backscatter tags to form two backscatter signals (p.6 “According to further embodiments, the transmitted and the receiver preform the reading out multiple times for the one RFID tag.”), the two backscatter signals reflected off of a person (p.2 “Another example is a person that walks past the reader while carrying an item with attached RFID tag.”);
receiving the two backscatter signals reflected off of the person using the antenna (p.8 “the RFID reader comprises active and passive antennas. The active antenna is typically coupled to the transmitter and the receiver, while a passive antenna is typically just coupled to the receiver. Here, the passive antenna may preferably be used for determining the Doppler shift.”); and
determining, by processing the two backscatter signals, a location of the person (p.5 “The motion determiner is configured to detect a Doppler shift within the response signal and to determine a motion parameter, like a velocity (or a position at a certain point of time, a direction of the motion or the point of time of a passing) of the at least one tag or the object based on a characteristic of the detected Doppler shift”).
Korn does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Vora teaches using backscatters to determine a vital sign of the person (0058 “In another embodiment in which the RFID tag component may be used to monitor a subject's respiration, motion artifacts in the RFID tag component may be detected when it is worn by a subject, for example, as the subject's chest rises and falls with each breath.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vora with the teachings of Korn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve data recognition (Vora 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vora merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RSSI features. Since both Korn and Vora disclose similar RSSI systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the two backscatter signals are reflected off of another person; and the determining comprises determining, by processing the two backscatter signals, a location of the other person and a vital sign of the other person (Korn p.10 “receiving a response signal resulting from a reflection of the frequency signal on the one or more objects”; p.5 “The motion determiner is configured to detect a Doppler shift within the response signal and to determine a motion parameter, like a velocity (or a position at a certain point of time, a direction of the motion or the point of time of a passing) of the at least one tag or the object based on a characteristic of the detected Doppler shift”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein, the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio- frequency signal in a direction towards the two backscatter tags; and the receiving of the two backscatter signals comprises receiving the two backscatter signals from a direction associated with an area of interest in which the person is located (Korn p.6 “According to another embodiment, the transmitted is configured to provide the frequency signal multiple times for multiple RFID tags in a first series, wherein the receiver is configured to receive the response signals from the multiple RFID tags in the first series so as to read out multiple RFID tags. This reading out of the multiple RFID tags is repeated in a second series with a pause of adaptable length in between so as to increase the entire time frame for reading out the RFID tags.”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the area of interest comprises: a room in a building; a bed; a desk; or a vehicle (Korn p.10 “Since according to one embodiment, the RFID reader uses an external velocity sensor, another embodiment refers to a system comprising the RFID reader and a vehicle or convoy carrying the object, wherein the vehicle or convoy comprises the external velocity sensor to provide the predetermined velocity.”).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the vital sign comprises at least one of a breathing rate or a heart rate (Vora 0058 “In another embodiment in which the RFID tag component may be used to monitor a subject's respiration, motion artifacts in the RFID tag component may be detected when it is worn by a subject, for example, as the subject's chest rises and falls with each breath.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vora with the teachings of Korn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve data recognition (Vora 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vora merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RSSI features. Since both Korn and Vora disclose similar RSSI systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The reader of claim 10, wherein the at least one antenna comprises: a transmit antenna; and a receive antenna (Korn fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13, wherein the at least two backscatter tags comprise at least four backscatter tags (Korn p.18 “can also be applied for the case of distinguishing tags of a moving tag population from tags of a stationary population. It is also possible to distinguish tags from tag populations with different speed. Further, it is also possible to distinguish between more than two tag populations if there are more than two tag populations with different speeds.”).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13, The system of wherein: the reader comprises a radio-frequency identification reader (Korn Abstract “an RFID reader”); and the at least two backscatter tags comprise at least two radio-frequency identification tags (Korn Abstract “The receiver configured to receive a response signal resulting from a reflection of the frequency signal on at least one of the RFID tags or on an object carrying the at least of the RFID tags.”).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 19, wherein the radio-frequency identification tags and the radio-frequency identification reader are configured according to an ultra-high frequency band or an extremely-high frequency band (Vora 0030 “The RFID tag 24 may advantageously contain a UHF RFID chip with a direct current input (DCI) that suppresses RF communication from the tag when RFID tag 24 input is set to high”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vora with the teachings of Korn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve data recognition (Vora 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vora merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RSSI features. Since both Korn and Vora disclose similar RSSI systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korn et al. (WO 2020038568 hereinafter Korn) in view of Vora (US 20160338798) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gevargiz (US PAT 7667652).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio- frequency signal with a first polarization that is co-polarized with antennas of the backscatter tags (Gevargiz 16:65-67 “The antenna element 10-10 may transmit either right hand circular polarization (RHCP)”); and the receiving of the radio-frequency signal comprises receiving the radio- frequency signal with a second polarization that is cross-polarized with the antennas of the backscatter tags (Gevargiz 16:65-67 “The antenna element 10-10 may transmit either right hand circular polarization (RHCP) or left hand circular polarization (LHCP) depending on which port (12-6 or 12-7 is used for transmission”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, wherein: the first polarization comprises a first circular polarization; and the second polarization comprises a second circular polarization that is orthogonal to the first circular polarization (Gevargiz 15:63-67, 16:1-5 “Referring now also to FIG. 11, aperture coupling techniques are preferably employed to excite the antenna element 10-10. Since a relatively thick dielectric 10-2 may be used in the first layer, the antenna 10-10 may have symmetric excitation. Four slots, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 and 11-5, may be placed on ground plane 10-3 one the upper side as shown of PCB 10-12. Each pair of slots may excite one resonance mode of the antenna 10-10. The resultant pair of resonant modes may be orthogonal and may be used to generate circular polarization.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 6, wherein: the first circular polarization comprises a left-hand circular polarization; and the second circular polarization comprises a right-hand circular polarization (Gevargiz 16:65-67 “The antenna element 10-10 may transmit either right hand circular polarization (RHCP) or left hand circular polarization (LHCP) depending on which port (12-6 or 12-7 is used for transmission”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio- frequency signal using a frequency-hopping spread-spectrum technique (10:58-63 “The multiplexing system may for example use frequency hopping, and/or its spatial equivalent, as well as time multiplexing to maximize the backscatter response available and keep within the limits of a limited power or transmission time regime.”); and the determining comprises calibrating input responses associated with the two backscatter signals to reduce variations caused by the frequency-hopping spread- spectrum technique (7:13-15 “Through periodical calibrations, the beam former may also compensate for mismatches and imperfections of RF microwave devices in the front end”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular transmission features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The reader of claim 10,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches wherein the at least one antenna is configured to transmit and receive radio-frequency signals with orthogonal circular polarizations (Gevargiz 15:63-67, 16:1-5 “Referring now also to FIG. 11, aperture coupling techniques are preferably employed to excite the antenna element 10-10. Since a relatively thick dielectric 10-2 may be used in the first layer, the antenna 10-10 may have symmetric excitation. Four slots, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 and 11-5, may be placed on ground plane 10-3 one the upper side as shown of PCB 10-12. Each pair of slots may excite one resonance mode of the antenna 10-10. The resultant pair of resonant modes may be orthogonal and may be used to generate circular polarization.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 14,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches wherein an arrangement of the at least four backscatter tags forms a linear array (“For illustration simplicity, first assuming the received power per each element is the same, this is depicted as a 4-element linear array although it would be obvious to the practitioner of the field that it is equally applicable to arbitrary array configurations and unequal received power per element.”; fig 18).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 14, wherein:
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches the at least four backscatter tags comprise: a first set of backscatter tags; and a second set of backscatter tags; an arrangement of the first set of backscatter tags forms a first linear array along a first axis; and an arrangement of the second set of backscatter tags forms a second linear array along a second axis that is approximately perpendicular to the first axis (fig 11 [shows])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korn et al. (WO 2020038568 hereinafter Korn) in view of Vora (US 20160338798) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20080018428 hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches The system of wherein a spacing between the at least two backscatter tags is greater than half a wavelength (0021 “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram for explaining a relation between a thickness of a spacer and a maximum communication distance between an RFID tag and a reader/writer, according to the second embodiment”; Specifically, if the thickness of the spacer 33 is multiple of quarter wavelength or multiple of three-quarters wavelength of the radiowave, the maximum communication distance is approximately doubled or increased by 1.5 times compared to a case where the RFID tag 31 is singularly performs the communication, as shown in FIG. 5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Nakamura with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously optimize communication distance RFID system (Nakamura 0060). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Nakamura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Nakamura disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 17, wherein the spacing between the at least two backscatter tags is approximately equal to three-quarters of a wavelength (Nakamura 0021 “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram for explaining a relation between a thickness of a spacer and a maximum communication distance between an RFID tag and a reader/writer, according to the second embodiment”; Specifically, if the thickness of the spacer 33 is multiple of quarter wavelength or multiple of three-quarters wavelength of the radiowave, the maximum communication distance is approximately doubled or increased by 1.5 times compared to a case where the RFID tag 31 is singularly performs the communication, as shown in FIG. 5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Nakamura with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously optimize communication distance RFID system (Nakamura 0060). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Nakamura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Nakamura disclose similar RFID antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
He et al. (RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization [NPL, 2020]) discloses “Various arrangements for remote sensing using cross-circular polarization are presented. In some embodiments, an RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) emitter is present that emits circular-polarized RF (Radio Frequency) waves having a first polarization. A circular-polarized passive RFID tag may be present that is configured to receive, modulate, and output circular-polarized RF waves that have a second polarization opposite from the first polarization (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648