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 21-22 have been added. 1-22 are currently pending.
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.
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 discloses the reception of the received signal to detect a first characteristic and/or a first characteristic for determining movement. 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, and therefore are indefinite.Subsequently, their respective dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 have the same issues.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer (US 20100156651 A1, IDS) in view of Enomoto et al. (“Enomoto”, JP 2020126382 A, on the record). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Broer discloses a security system (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a transceiver (Fig. 4: transceiver 20); a memory storing instructions (¶13); and one or more processors coupled with the transceiver and the memory (¶13) and configured to: receive tag data from an electronic tag (¶¶13-16), the tag data including a tag identifier corresponding to the electronic tag (¶¶25-27), a first characteristic of a received signal corresponding to the electronic tag (¶¶14-15 with regard to the return signal strength indicator (RSSI)), and a second characteristic of the received signal (¶¶14-15 with regard to the return signal phase angle for each of the backscattered signals); determine whether the first characteristic matches a first stored characteristic of a previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag (¶¶16, 55 with regard to the comparing RSSI value of each backscatter signal). As pe the limitation 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. As addressed above, Broer discloses using phase angle changes as characteristic data, which was interpreted to address the claimed second characteristic of a received signal. Enomoto discloses, in abstract; page 4, the concept of comparing stored characteristics of RSSI and phase angle of received tag signals to stored characteristics to enable tag movement detection. Take notice that the movement determination is determined based on a maximum received RSSI of a monitored tag group being stored in the storage unit and then matched for responding tags to ensure only the tags of interest within the determined maximum received RSSI range group are evaluated for movement of a tag of the group, hence the previous stored RSSI characteristic is matched to the current response RSSI corresponding to the maximum RSSI measurement which reads on the limitation. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of comparing stored characteristics of RSSI and phase angle of received tag signals to stored characteristics to enable tag movement detection, with the motivation to enhance the tag movement detection features of the system. As per the limitation monitor movements of the electronic tag, in response to the electronic tag being in motion (Broer: ¶28-33). 2) Regarding claims 2 and 9, wherein the first characteristic is one or more of a frequency corresponding to the second characteristic (Broer: ¶¶27-31, 45 with regard to the interrogation signal being absorbed based on frequency), a polarization corresponding to the second characteristic, or an antenna corresponding to the second characteristic.
3) Regarding claim 3 and 10, wherein the second characteristic is one of a signal strength indicator of the received signal or a phase difference corresponding to the received signal (Enomoto: abstract; page 4). 4) Regarding claims 4 and 11, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: store the tag data in a database according to the tag identifier and the first characteristic, in response to the tag data being received (Enomoto: page 6). 5) Regarding claims 5 and 12, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: maintain the database to include a plurality of first stored characteristics of a plurality of previously received signals corresponding to the electronic tag and a plurality of second stored characteristics of the plurality of previously received signals, wherein the plurality of first stored characteristics includes the first stored characteristic, and the plurality of second stored characteristics includes the second stored characteristic (Enomoto: abstract; pages 6-7). 6) Regarding claims 6 and 13, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: determine a direction of the electronic tag, in response to the electronic tag being in motion (Broer: ¶¶28, 34; Figs 3 & 5). 7)Regarding claims 7 and 14, , wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: determine whether the electronic tag passed through an exit gate, in response to the electronic tag being in motion (Broer: ¶34; Fig. 3). 8) Regarding claim 15, Broer and Enomoto with the same motivation as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 8, teach a computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions (Broer: ¶13) for controlling a security system, comprising instructions to: receive tag data from an electronic tag, the tag data including a tag identifier corresponding to the electronic tag, a first characteristic of a received signal corresponding to the electronic tag, and a second characteristic of the received signal (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); determine whether the first characteristic matches a first stored characteristic of a previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); 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 (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); and monitor movements of the electronic tag, in response to the electronic tag being in motion (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8). 9) Regarding claim 16, see analysis of the rejection of claim 2. 10) Regarding claim 17, see analysis of the rejection of claim 3. 11) Regarding claim 18, see analysis of the rejection of claim 4. 12) Regarding claim 19, see analysis of the rejection of claim 5. 12) Regarding claim 20, see analysis of the rejection of claim 6. 13) Regarding claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a difference between the second characteristic and the second stored characteristic of the previously received signal corresponding to the electronic tag; and detect motion based on a comparison of the difference to a threshold. (Enomoto: abstract; page 4).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer in view of Enomoto, and in further view of Heinze et al. (“Heinze”, US 8373562 B1), Duron et al. (“Duron”, US 20150278563 A1) and Israeli et al. (“Israeli”, CN 1236528 A). 1) Regarding claim 21, wherein the memory further stores a database of first and second characteristics of previously received signals corresponding to a plurality of electronic tags (Enomoto discloses, on page 6: ¶1-5, that a management device receives the grouped tag information and updates a database of the storage unit). As per the limitation for each of a plurality of signal receiving antennas. Heinze discloses, in Col. 4, lines 46-65 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of storing information about a plurality of tag communication devices (tag unit 18) to enable a location and tracking system to be able accurately know the location of the communication devices, respectively. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of storing information about a plurality of tag communication devices to enable a location and tracking system to be able accurately know the location of the communication devices, respectively, with the motivation to enhance to the location tracking features of the system. for each signal polarization.
Duron discloses, in claim 20, the concept of storing polarization data to assist tag communication techniques. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of storing polarization data to assist tag communication techniques, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation for each frequency of transmission of the previously received signals. Israeli discloses, on page 8: ¶4, the concept of storing a list of control frequency to assist in measuring RSSI measurements. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of storing a list of control frequency to assist in measuring RSSI measurements, with the motivation to enhance the signal strength measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Argument(s): 1) Applicant argues, on first page of Remarks, that the applied prior art of record does not teach or suggest the new amendment of “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”. In response to the argument, the examiner directs attention to the above new matter rejection, as the applicant’s specification is void of the term selectively. Furthermore, the claim limitation does not provide any specific details to what equates to the first characteristic, the second characteristic or the comparison of second characteristic steps. The examiner provided evidence within the disclosure of Broer to limit the interpretation of the first characteristic to RSSI, see Broer ¶¶14-15, the examiner further provided evidence within the disclosure of Broer to limit the interpretation of the second characteristic to phase angle changes, see ¶¶14-15. Broer did not provide disclosure for evaluating phase change and RSSI to stored data therefore the examiner introduced the teachings by Enomoto, see abstract; page 4, which clearly discloses storing received signals sequentially corresponding to measured phase and RSSI and then subsequentially calculating a difference of the current phase to the previous phase to determine movement (corresponding to a comparison technique). Take notice that the movement determination is determined based on a maximum received RSSI of a monitored tag group being stored in the storage unit and then matched for responding tags to ensure only the tags of interest within the determined maximum received RSSI range group are evaluated for movement of a tag of the group, hence the previous stored RSSI characteristic is matched to the current response RSSI corresponding to the maximum RSSI measurement which reads on the limitation. Therefore, the argument is not deemed persuasive and the Non-Final is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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