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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (US 8447510 B2) and Sadr (US 9014635 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses a system for radio-frequency identification (RFID)-based retail management (fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of antennas that transmits an activation signal and receives a response to the activation signal from an RFID tag (figs. 1, 2A, 4A-4B: element(s) 110; [0015] “The system can include at least one RFID reader configured to generate RFID interrogation signals and receive RFID response signals. The system can include a plurality of antennas positioned in an overhead support structure and coupled to the at least one RFID reader. Each of the plurality of antennas can be configured to receive from the at least one RFID reader an RFID interrogation signal, transmit a radio-frequency interrogation signal in response to the received RFID interrogation signal, receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal, and send to the at least one RFID reader an RFID response signal in response to the received radio-frequency response signal.”);
an RFID transceiver electrically coupled to the plurality of antennas that transforms the response from the RFID tag into RFID response data (fig. 1; [0015] “Each of the plurality of antennas can be configured to receive from the at least one RFID reader an RFID interrogation signal, transmit a radio-frequency interrogation signal in response to the received RFID interrogation signal, receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal, and send to the at least one RFID reader an RFID response signal in response to the received radio-frequency response signal.”; [0041] “An RFID reader 105 can include an RF transmitter-receiver and can be coupled to one or more antennas 110.”); and
a system manager (fig. 1 elements 115, 120, 125, 130), comprising a microprocessor ([0109] “processors”), that controls the RFID transceiver and transforms RFID response data from the RFID transceiver into RFID tag location data ([0015] “The system can include a location module coupled to the at least one RFID reader, the location module configured to determine, based at least partly on the RFID response signal, a location of each inventory item associated with an RFID tag that generated a radio-frequency response signal that was received by at least one of the plurality of antennas.”), wherein the system manager is configured to determine indicating a likely position of the RFID tag ([0063] “Using trilateration, the system can then determine the position of the tag, within some uncertainty, to the position where the three spheres intersect. The intersection of three spheres can produce two points, but in this scenario one of those points would be above an elevated real or imaginary plane, such as above or within the ceiling. This point can be dismissed because the tag is known to be beneath this elevated plane, such as the ceiling, and the position can be uniquely determined relative to the three antennas.”).
However, Davidson does not expressly disclose “based on an analysis of historical data related to a location of the RFID tag as a function of a time of day and the plurality of antennas is configured to transmit the activation signal to the likely position.”
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Fitzpatrick teaches analyzing historical time-tagged location data to predict a likely location (Fitzpatrick col 3 ln 17–24), wherein the historical data includes time of day and location (Fitzpatrick col 5 ln 28–33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fitzpatrick’s known prediction technique to Davidson’s RFID retail locating system to prioritize interrogation toward a tag’s likely position at a given time of day, thereby improving efficiency by focusing activations where a tag is predicted to be.
Davidson in view of Fitzpatrick does not expressly disclose “the plurality of antennas is configured to transmit the activation signal to the likely position.”
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Sadr teaches RFID beamforming techniques for transmission and steering of a beam to a target region (e.g., specific sensor tag or group of tags) (abstract, claim 27, and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RFID beamforming/steering techniques taught by Sadr in the RFID locating system taught by Davidson (as modified by Fitzpatrick). The motivation for doing so would have reduce interference from non-target regions and to improve interrogation efficiency and read reliability. Such a combination merely applies a known solution (directional beam steering to improve accuracy) to a known problem (inefficient reads in multi-antenna RFID systems), yielding a predictable improvement.
Regarding claim 2, Davidson in view of Fitzpatrick and Sadr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas comprises patch antennas (Davidson [0011], [0013]).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Davidson in view of Fitzpatrick and Sadr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas is configured to steer the activation signal (Davidson [0013]; Sadr abstract and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Davidson in view of Fitzpatrick and Sadr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas is mounted on a ceiling (Davidson figs. 2A and 4A-4B; abstract).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Davidson in view of Fitzpatrick and Sadr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the RFID transceiver modulates a power level and/or a phase of the activation signal (Sadr abstract and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Claims 6-10 are being rejected similarly to the rejection of claims 1-5 above for being directed to a method having steps corresponding to the operations/functions of claims 1-5 above whereby the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Sadr (US 9014635 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson discloses a method of locating a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, the method comprising:
transmitting, from a plurality of antennas, activation signals toward the RFID tag (figs. 1, 2A, 4A-4B: element(s) 110; [0015] “The system can include at least one RFID reader configured to generate RFID interrogation signals and receive RFID response signals. The system can include a plurality of antennas positioned in an overhead support structure and coupled to the at least one RFID reader. Each of the plurality of antennas can be configured to receive from the at least one RFID reader an RFID interrogation signal, transmit a radio-frequency interrogation signal in response to the received RFID interrogation signal, receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal, and send to the at least one RFID reader an RFID response signal in response to the received radio-frequency response signal.”);
receiving, by the plurality of antennas, responses to the activation signals from the RFID tag (figs. 1, 2A, 4A-4B: element(s) 110; [0015] “receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal, and send to the at least one RFID reader an RFID response signal in response to the received radio-frequency response signal.”);
determining, by a processor (fig. 1 elements 115, 120, 125, 130; [0109] “processors”) operably coupled to the plurality of antennas (fig. 1), possible solutions for a location of the RFID tag based on the responses to the activation signals ([0015] “The system can include a location module coupled to the at least one RFID reader, the location module configured to determine, based at least partly on the RFID response signal, a location of each inventory item associated with an RFID tag that generated a radio-frequency response signal that was received by at least one of the plurality of antennas.”; [0063] “Using trilateration, the system can then determine the position of the tag, within some uncertainty, to the position where the three spheres intersect. The intersection of three spheres can produce two points, but in this scenario one of those points would be above an elevated real or imaginary plane, such as above or within the ceiling. This point can be dismissed because the tag is known to be beneath this elevated plane, such as the ceiling, and the position can be uniquely determined relative to the three antennas.”);
determining, by the processor, that one of the possible solutions for the location of the RFID tag is a valid solution based on an assumption about a location of the RFID tag ([0063] “Using trilateration, the system can then determine the position of the tag, within some uncertainty, to the position where the three spheres intersect. The intersection of three spheres can produce two points, but in this scenario one of those points would be above an elevated real or imaginary plane, such as above or within the ceiling. This point can be dismissed because the tag is known to be beneath this elevated plane, such as the ceiling, and the position can be uniquely determined relative to the three antennas.”).
However, Davidson does not expressly disclose “mapping the valid solution for the location of the RFID tag to transmission settings for the activation signals; and transmitting, from the plurality of antennas, a subsequent activation signal at the transmission settings for the valid solution for the location of the RFID.”
In an analogous art, Sadr teaches that, when a transmit array antenna is used, beamforming may be used to focus the transmitted beam to a desired location in space, and that such beam steering reduces collisions and interference between signals received from responding tags (Sadr col 6 ln 38–44). Sadr further teaches, in the context of an RFID tag query, that a particular tag may be queried by providing a modulated waveform to the transmit beam former, which then excites the antenna elements accordingly (Sadr col 8 ln 28–35). Critically, Sadr expressly teaches the beamforming network applies appropriate complex weights, which may include amplitude and phase components, to each signal associated with an array element path—i.e., the transmit “settings” used to form/steer the transmit beam (Sadr col 11 ln 33–38). Sadr also reinforces this concept in the claims, stating the transmit/receive beam former applies complex weights including amplitude and phase components to each transmitted signal (Sadr claims 23 and 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davidson’s RFID tag location method to incorporate Sadr’s taught transmit beamforming/beam steering such that, once Davidson determines a valid solution for the tag’s location, the system selects (i.e., “maps”) that valid location solution to beamforming transmission settings (e.g., the amplitude/phase complex weights applied to each array element) and then transmits a subsequent activation signal using those transmission settings to interrogate the tag at the determined location. This modification is supported by Sadr’s express teaching that (i) transmit beamforming focuses a transmitted interrogation beam to a desired location in space (Sadr col 6 ln 38–44), (ii) a particular tag may be queried via the transmit beam former (Sadr col 8 ln 28–35), and (iii) the beamforming network applies complex weights including amplitude and phase to transmitted signals (Sadr col 11 ln 33–38; claims 23 and 48), which correspond to the claimed “transmission settings.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Sadr’s transmit beamforming technique to Davidson’s location determination because Sadr explains that focusing/steering the transmitted beam to a desired location reduces collisions/interference and improves interrogation reliability in RFID environments (Sadr col 6 ln 38–44). The combination therefore yields the predictable result that, after a valid location solution is identified (Davidson), the subsequent interrogation can be performed more efficiently and reliably by using beamforming settings targeted to that location (Sadr).
Regarding claim 12, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of antennas comprises patch antennas (Davidson [0011], [0013]).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of antennas is mounted from a ceiling (Davidson figs. 2A and 4A-4B; abstract).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, wherein transmitting the activation signals from the plurality of antennas comprises transmitting the activation signals at different power levels and/or phases (Sadr abstract and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, wherein transmitting the activation signals from the plurality of antennas comprises steering the activation signals (Davidson [0013]; Sadr abstract and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, wherein determining that one of the possible solutions for the location of the RFID tag is a valid solution comprises eliminating a possible solution that places the location of the RFID tag above a ceiling (Davidson [0063]).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: using the mapping of the valid solution for the location of the RFID tag to transmission settings for the activation signals to determine a location of another RFID tag (Davidson [0015], [0063]; Sadr abstract and col 1 ln 46 – col 2 ln 14).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 11.
Response to Arguments
In regards to claims 1 and 6, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new combination of references including new prior art being used in the current rejection.
In regards to claim 11, applicant argues that Sadr does not cure Davidson’s alleged deficiency because “Sadr does not say anything about mapping or associating transmission parameters of an interrogation/activation signal to the location of an RFID tag,” and further argues that the amended step of “transmitting, from the plurality of antennas, a subsequent activation signal at the transmission settings for the valid solution for the location of the RFID” is not taught or suggested by the applied art.
The rejection does not rely on Sadr expressly using the term “mapping.” Rather, Sadr expressly teaches steering/focusing a transmitted interrogation beam to a desired location in space (Sadr col 6 ln 38–44) and querying a particular tag via a transmit beam former (Sadr col 8 ln 28–35). Sadr further teaches that the beamforming network applies complex weights including amplitude and phase components to the transmitted signals (Sadr col 11 ln 33–38; claims 23 and 48). These complex weights constitute transmission parameters, i.e., “transmission settings.”
Davidson determines a valid location solution for the RFID tag. Sadr teaches selecting complex transmission weights to steer a transmitted beam toward a desired spatial location and transmitting using those selected weights. The selection of complex weights corresponding to a desired location in space corresponds to mapping the determined valid location to transmission settings. Sadr further teaches transmitting a query to a particular tag using the transmit beam former (Sadr col 8 ln 28–35), which corresponds to transmitting a subsequent activation signal using the selected transmission settings.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sadr’s known beamforming transmission technique to Davidson’s determined valid location so that subsequent interrogation signals are directed toward that location. Sadr explains that steering the transmitted beam to a desired spatial region reduces collisions/interference and improves interrogation reliability (Sadr col 6 ln 38–44). Applying Sadr’s beamforming to Davidson’s resolved location represents the predictable use of known techniques to improve system performance.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685