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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant’s specification does not disclose the term selectively when disclosing the reception of the received signal to detect a first characteristic and/or a second characteristic for determining movement. While, applicant’s specification provides disclosure for having further evaluation of the received signal for second characteristics (e.g., signal strength (RSSI) or phase of the received signal), in ¶35. The disclosure only provides alternative analysis of second characteristic either RSSI or phase of the received signal (emphasis added) evaluation to determine motion, hence the specification does not disclose being able to determine whether to use RSSI versus phase of the received signal in a selective manner for determining motion of a responding tag. Therefore, the applicant’s specification does not adequately provide support for selectively determine whether the electronic tag is in motion based on a comparison of the second characteristic with a second stored characteristic of the previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag, in response to the first characteristic matching the first stored characteristic. Claims 2-7 & 21-22 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, claims 8 and 15 have similar issues as claim 1.Subsequently, their respective dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 have the same issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Argument(s): Applicant argues that although the term selectively is not disclosed in the specification, that the specification provides support for how the term is used “selectively determine whether the electronic tag is in motion based on a comparison of the second characteristic with a second stored characteristic of the previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag, in response to the first characteristic matching the first stored characteristic. However, while applicant’s specification provides disclosure for having further evaluation of the received signal for second characteristics (e.g., signal strength (RSSI) or phase of the received signal), in ¶35. The disclosure only provides alternative analysis of the received signal second characteristic either RSSI or phase of the received signal (emphasis added) to determine motion, hence the specification does not disclose being able to determine whether to use RSSI versus phase of the received signal in a selective manner for determining motion of a responding tag, but rather provides alternative solution for determining motion via analysis of RSSI of the received signal or determining motion via the analysis of phase of the received signal. Therefore, the applicant’s specification does not adequately provide support for selectively determine whether the electronic tag is in motion based on a comparison of the second characteristic with a second stored characteristic of the previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag, in response to the first characteristic matching the first stored characteristic
Applicant’s argument 07/01/2026, with respect to the newly added limitation specifically “forgo determining whether the electronic tag is in motion when the first characteristic does not match the first stored characteristic” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, in view of the written description rejection above the claims are not in condition for allowance. The examiner notes that the applicant indicated, in the remarks, that the term selectively was removed from the claims, however it appears that the applicant inadvertently left the term in the claims. In an effort to obtain authorization for an Examiner’s Amendment, the examiner made attempts to contact the applicant’s representative, but was not able to within the examiner’s planned docket management schedule.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights