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
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 05/26/2026.
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.
Claims 11-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites "possible solutions for a location of the RFID tag based on the responses to the activation signals," then "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," and finally "associating the person with the item based on the location of the RFID tag." The phrase "a location of the RFID tag" is introduced twice, and it is unclear whether "the location of the RFID tag" in the associating step refers to the location for which possible solutions were determined, the location that is the subject of the assumption, or the valid solution identified in the immediately preceding step. Because the associating step is performed on the basis of that location, the ambiguity affects the scope of the claim. Claims 12-17 are rejected the same because they depend upon claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses a system for radio-frequency identification (RFID)-based retail management (Davidson discloses system 100 for inventorying/locating items in a store (fig. 1; Davidson [0040]), "store" encompassing retailer facilities [0039], with inventory reconciliation [0098]-[0100], EAS [0101], zone monitoring [0102].) comprising:
a plurality of antennas that transmits an activation signal and receives a response to the activation signal from an RFID tag (Davidson discloses a plurality of antennas 110 positioned in an overhead support structure, each configured to "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" [0015]; see also [0041]; figs. 1, 2A. The interrogation signal is an activation signal because Davidson's passive tags derive their operating energy from it: the tag "collect the transmitted power from the antenna to assist in transmitting a response to the reader's interrogation" [0051]; see also [0004].);
an RFID transceiver electrically coupled to the plurality of antennas that transforms the response from the RFID tag into RFID response data (Davidson discloses RFID reader 105, which "can include an RF transmitter-receiver and can be coupled to one or more antennas 110" [0041], by cables 210a, 210b [0047] and optionally through multiplexor 215 [0049]. The reader transforms the received response into response data: the readers "interpret the signals received by the antennas 110 from the electronic tags to resolve the tag identification" [0041] and "send to the at least one RFID reader an RFID response signal in response to the received radio-frequency response signal" [0015]. Collected data includes tag ID, antenna number, transmission power, frequency, RSSI, date/time of detection, phase angle, and number of reads [0059].); and
a system manager, comprising a microprocessor, that controls the RFID transceiver and transforms the RFID response data from the RFID transceiver into RFID tag location data (Davidson discloses inventory/localizing manager 115, comprising controller(s) 120, inventorying/localizing module 125, and data storage 130 [0042], implemented on a computing system having a central processing unit [0108] and executing code modules by "one or more computers, computer processors, or machines" [0109]. The manager controls the reader: the localization system "can request that the overhead system 100 perform a single scan or a series of scans" [0057], and "the act of specifying the tag 220 can cause the overhead system 100 to transmit signals in an attempt to read the specified tag 220" [0054]. It transforms response data into location data via location module determination [0015], range calculation [0060], [0065], [0068]-[0071], and trilateration to a unique position [0063].), wherein the system manager is configured to determine a likely position of the RFID tag based on an analysis of historical data related to a location of the RFID tag relative to other RFID tags (Davidson discloses each component of this limitation. As to historical data related to a location of the RFID tag, data storage 130 stores "previous inventory records (e.g., inventory lists from past days), expected location of inventory items, previously recorded locations for items, and other related inventory and/or location data" [0042]; the tracking module provides item location "as a function of time" [0016]; and the system "can track the movement of articles by determining their location at various times," which information "can be stored, processed, and/or reported" [0103]. As to a location expressed relative to other RFID tags, Davidson affixes specialty location tags — themselves passive RFID tags responding with unique identifiers [0066] — to store landmarks, and from readings of these tags the system "can create a map of the store and calculate positions of tags relative to this generated map," such that a tag's position "can be reported as a relative position from a landmark within the store" [0066]; Davidson further determines a tag's range by direct comparison against other tags, in that "the localization system compares the signal strength of a first, unknown electronic tag with a second tag with a known location to determine the range...The localization system can use additional known tags to refine the estimate" [0069]. As to determining a likely position based on an analysis of that data, Davidson generates "expected location information or 'golden tag placement' for the items in the store by recording the location of items during an inventorying operation...and using that expected location information as a baseline for reconciling inventory location during future inventorying operations," whereby the system "can determine if items have moved...by comparing a current scan with the golden tag placement" [0100], and likewise uses received expected location information "to identify items that are not in the expected location" [0098]. The recorded prior placement is the position at which the tag is expected — i.e., likely — to be found, and the comparison of current reads against that stored baseline is the recited analysis.).
To the extent the above features are described in separate portions of Davidson's disclosure, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine them within Davidson's single system, because Davidson expressly contemplates that "The various features and processes described above may be used independently of one another, or may be combined in various ways," and that "All possible combinations and sub-combinations are intended to fall within the scope of this disclosure" [0110]. A person of ordinary skill storing previously recorded tag locations [0042] in a system that reports tag positions relative to landmark tags [0066] would necessarily store those historical positions in that relative frame, and would have been motivated to use the resulting baseline to determine where a tag is expected to be, as Davidson teaches at [0098] and [0100], in order to locate misplaced items and detect movement or possible theft [0014].
Regarding claim 2, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas comprises patch antennas (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110 can be patch antennas" [0050]; see also [0011], [0013], and fig. 7 (patch antenna 700 mounted to ceiling tile 710) [0082]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 above [0015], [0041].).
Regarding claim 3, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas is configured to steer the activation signal (Davidson discloses that "the antennas 110 can be...steerable antennas" [0050]; see also [0013]. The steering is applied to the transmitted signal: "if the antennas 110 in the overhead system 100 comprise a steerable antenna array, then the transmission angle of the antenna that detected the tag 220 can be included in the tag information" [0065]; see also [0014]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 above, and the signal so steered is the interrogation signal identified there as the claimed activation signal [0015], [0041].).
Regarding claim 4, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennas is mounted on a ceiling (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110a and 110b can be mounted in the ceiling 205 of a store" [0052]; see also [0020], fig. 2A (antennas 110a, 110b mounted in ceiling 205) [0047], and fig. 6 (layout of overhead antennas in a ceiling) [0075]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 above [0015], [0041].).
Regarding claim 5, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the RFID transceiver modulates a power level and/or a phase of the activation signal (Davidson discloses "incrementally varying the power from the reader to an antenna and determining the range based on where the readings from the tag 220 drop out or diminish below a specified signal strength. For example, if half power from the reader corresponds to a detection range of 20 feet, while full power corresponds to a range of 30 feet, the tag signal dropping out at half-power indicates the tag is between 20-30 feet from the reader" [0070]; see also [0059] (tag information includes transmission power). The reader 105 that so varies the power is the RFID transceiver relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 above [0041], and the signal whose power is varied is the interrogation signal identified there as the claimed activation signal [0015], [0051]. The claim is recited in the alternative and is met by modulation of the power level.).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Sadr (US 9,014,635 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Davidson discloses a method of locating a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag (Davidson discloses a method 300 for determining the location of an electronic tag, performed by the overhead antenna inventory/locating system 100 (fig. 3) [0053].), the method comprising:
determining a likely location of the RFID tag based on an analysis of historical data related to a location of the RFID tag relative to other RFID tags (Davidson discloses this step for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, namely storage of previously recorded item locations and previous inventory records [0042], [0016], [0103]; expression of tag position relative to landmark specialty RFID tags and by comparison against other tags of known location [0066], [0069]; and determination of expected location from recorded prior placement as a baseline for subsequent operations [0098], [0100].);
receiving, by the antenna, a response to the activation signal from an RFID tag (Davidson discloses that the antennas "receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal" [0015]; see also [0041], [0057] (compiling the antennas that have read the specified tag 220).); and
determining a location of the RFID tag based on the response to the activation signal from the RFID tag (Davidson discloses that the location module determines "a location of each inventory item associated with an RFID tag that generated a radio-frequency response signal" [0015], by calculating range from the retrieved tag information [0060] and determining position from the calculated ranges by trilateration [0063].).
However, Davidson does not expressly disclose transmitting, by an antenna, an activation signal to the likely location.
Sadr, in an analogous art, teaches that "beam forming may be used to focus the transmitted beam to a desired location in space" and that "This beam steering reduces the collisions and interference between the signals received from the responding tags" (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44). Sadr further teaches that a particular tag may be queried by driving the transmitter to modulate an RF waveform which is then applied by the transmit beam former to excite the antenna elements (Sadr col 8 ln 28-35), and that the beam forming network applies complex weights, including amplitude and phase components, to each signal associated with an array element path (Sadr col 11 ln 33-40; see also Sadr claims 23 and 48). Sadr additionally teaches storing a steering vector for each of a plurality of look directions and retrieving the steering vector when a specific look direction is selected by the controller (Sadr col 13 ln 30-36, col 15 ln 18-38; figs. 7 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davidson's method of locating an RFID tag to incorporate Sadr's transmit beam steering, such that the interrogation signal is directed toward the expected location Davidson has determined from its stored baseline [0098], [0100] rather than transmitted without spatial preference. Davidson already contemplates directing interrogation to less than the whole facility, disclosing initiation of "an inventory operation for the entire store, or for some specified geographical region within the store" [0046], and already contemplates steerable antennas having a controllable transmission angle [0050], [0065]. The motivation for the modification is supplied by Sadr, which teaches that focusing the transmitted beam to a desired location reduces collisions and interference among responding tags (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44), and is consistent with Davidson's own objective of obtaining accurate location information efficiently and in near real time [0011], [0014]. The combination applies a known technique (transmit beam steering to a selected spatial location) to a known method ready for improvement (Davidson's interrogation of a tag whose expected location is already stored) to yield the predictable result of a more efficient and reliable read.
Regarding claim 7, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the antenna is a patch antenna (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110 can be patch antennas" [0050]; see also [0011], [0013], and fig. 7 (patch antenna 700 mounted to ceiling tile 710) [0082]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 6 above [0015], [0041].).
Regarding claim 8, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the antenna is mounted on a ceiling (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110a and 110b can be mounted in the ceiling 205 of a store" [0052]; see also [0020], fig. 2A (antennas 110a, 110b mounted in ceiling 205) [0047], and fig. 6 (layout of overhead antennas in a ceiling) [0075]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 6 above [0015], [0041].).
Regarding claim 9, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: steering the activation signal (Davidson discloses that "the antennas 110 can be... steerable antennas" (Davidson [0050]); see also Davidson [0013]. The steering is applied to the transmitted signal: "if the antennas 110 in the overhead system 100 comprise a steerable antenna array, then the transmission angle of the antenna that detected the tag 220 can be included in the tag information" (Davidson [0065]); see also Davidson [0014]. Sadr further teaches that "beam forming may be used to focus the transmitted beam to a desired location in space" (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44). The signal so steered is the interrogation signal identified as the claimed activation signal in the rejection of claim 6 above (Davidson [0015], [0041], [0051]).).
Regarding claim 10, Davidson in view of Sadr discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: modulating a power level and/or a phase of the activation signal (Davidson discloses "incrementally varying the power from the reader to an antenna and determining the range based on where the readings from the tag 220 drop out or diminish below a specified signal strength. For example, if half power from the reader corresponds to a detection range of 20 feet, while full power corresponds to a range of 30 feet, the tag signal dropping out at half-power indicates the tag is between 20-30 feet from the reader" (Davidson [0070]); see also Davidson [0059] (tag information includes transmission power). The signal whose power is so varied is the interrogation signal identified as the claimed activation signal in the rejection of claim 6 above (Davidson [0015], [0041], [0051]). The claim is recited in the alternative and is met by modulation of the power level.).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Roeding et al. (US 2011/0029359 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson discloses a method of locating a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag attached to an item (Davidson discloses a method 300 for determining the location of an electronic tag (fig. 3; Davidson [0053]), wherein "The RFID tag may be attached to an object for the purpose of identifying and tracking the object to which the RFID tag is attached" (Davidson [0004]), and wherein each inventory item is associated with an RFID tag (Davidson [0015]).), the method comprising:
transmitting, from a plurality of antennas, activation signals toward the RFID tag (Davidson discloses a plurality of antennas 110 each configured to "transmit a radio-frequency interrogation signal in response to the received RFID interrogation signal" (Davidson [0015]; see also [0041]), and that specifying a tag "can cause the overhead system 100 to transmit signals in an attempt to read the specified tag 220" (Davidson [0054]).);
receiving, by the plurality of antennas, responses to the activation signals from the RFID tag (Davidson discloses that the antennas "receive from one or more RFID tags a radio-frequency response signal" (Davidson [0015]), and that the system compiles a list of the antennas that have read the specified tag (Davidson [0057]).);
determining, by a processor operably coupled to the plurality of antennas, possible solutions for a location of the RFID tag based on the responses to the activation signals (Davidson discloses inventory/localizing manager 115 comprising controller 120 and module 125 (Davidson [0042]), implemented on a computing system having a central processing unit (Davidson [0108]-[0109]) and coupled to the antennas through readers 105 (Davidson [0041], [0047]). The manager creates spheres centered on the respective antennas with radii equal to the calculated ranges, and "The intersection of three spheres can produce two points" (Davidson [0063]); the intersection of two spheres likewise yields "a locus of possible locations for the tag 220" (Davidson [0064]).);
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 (Davidson discloses that of the two points produced by trilateration, "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" (Davidson [0063]).).
However, Davidson does not expressly disclose detecting a presence of a person by characteristic radiation given off by a cell phone; and associating the person with the item based on the location of the RFID tag.
Roeding, in an analogous art, teaches detecting a person's presence in a retail store from radio-frequency emissions of that person's cell phone: the phone "will commonly send out a periodic PROBE request frame," which "may be detected by a Wifi device 606 affiliated with a store," where that device "may be a dedicated presence detection device" transmitting the encountered MAC addresses to a server, and where the detector may be limited to "devices whose MAC addresses match a pattern, such as one or more prefixes, corresponding to one or more classes of mobile phones" (Roeding [0050]); see also Roeding [0030], claims 1, 2, and 10. Roeding further teaches associating the person so detected with merchandise on the basis of location, in that WiFi devices detecting MAC addresses "may be employed to triangulate the location of a mobile phone within a store," and "Such in-store locational data may be correlated with information regarding classes of merchandise within a store...and such data regarding what products a user is inferred to have spent time looking at may be used in targeting" (Roeding [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davidson's method to detect a person's presence by the characteristic radiation of that person's cell phone as taught by Roeding, and to associate that person with the RFID-tagged item whose location Davidson has determined. The motivation is supplied by Roeding, which teaches that conventional store sensors "may only know that 'a' customer walked into the store, but may not be able to identify 'who' came in" (Roeding [0058]); Davidson tracks shoppers only by tags on carts, bags, or baskets (Davidson [0056]) and checks departing articles against a purchase database without identifying the person carrying them (Davidson [0101]), so identifying the individual present furthers Davidson's stated theft-detection and zone-monitoring purposes (Davidson [0014], [0101]-[0102]). A person of ordinary skill would use Davidson's tag derived item locations in place of Roeding's static merchandise class rectangles, because Davidson supplies real-time three-dimensional location for every tagged item (Davidson [0044], [0097]) and teaches that items are frequently not in their expected locations (Davidson [0098], [0100]) — the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way, yielding a more accurate association between the detected person and the item near that person. Roeding itself contemplates RFID for this purpose (Roeding [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Davidson in view of Roeding discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of antennas comprises patch antennas (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110 can be patch antennas" (Davidson [0050]); see also Davidson [0011], [0013], and fig. 7 (patch antenna 700 mounted to ceiling tile 710) (Davidson [0082]). Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 11 above (Davidson [0015], [0041]).).
Regarding claim 13, Davidson in view of Roeding discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of antennas is mounted from a ceiling (Davidson discloses that "The antennas 110a and 110b can be mounted in the ceiling 205 of a store" (Davidson [0052]), and that the antennas may be "mounted at an elevated location outside of, above, and/or below a ceiling" (Davidson [0047]); see also Davidson [0020], fig. 2A, and fig. 6 (Davidson [0075]). Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 11 above (Davidson [0015], [0041]).).
Regarding claim 14, Davidson in view of Roeding 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 (Davidson discloses "incrementally varying the power from the reader to an antenna and determining the range based on where the readings from the tag 220 drop out or diminish below a specified signal strength. For example, if half power from the reader corresponds to a detection range of 20 feet, while full power corresponds to a range of 30 feet, the tag signal dropping out at half-power indicates the tag is between 20-30 feet from the reader" (Davidson [0070]); see also Davidson [0059] (tag information includes transmission power). The signals so transmitted are the activation signals identified in the rejection of claim 11 above (Davidson [0015], [0041], [0051]). The claim is recited in the alternative and is met by transmitting at different power levels.).
Regarding claim 15, Davidson in view of Roeding discloses the method of claim 11, wherein transmitting the activation signals from the plurality of antennas comprises steering the activation signals (Davidson discloses that "the antennas 110 can be...steerable antennas" (Davidson [0050]); see also Davidson [0013]. The steering is applied to the transmitted signal: "if the antennas 110 in the overhead system 100 comprise a steerable antenna array, then the transmission angle of the antenna that detected the tag 220 can be included in the tag information" (Davidson [0065]); see also Davidson [0014]. Antennas 110 are the same plurality of antennas relied upon in the rejection of claim 11 above, and the signals so steered are the activation signals identified there (Davidson [0015], [0041], [0051]).).
Regarding claim 16, Davidson in view of Roeding 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 discloses that "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" (Davidson [0063]). The determination so described is the same valid solution determination relied upon in the rejection of claim 11 above.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Roeding et al. (US 2011/0029359 A1) and further in view of Sadr (US 9,014,635 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Davidson in view of Roeding discloses the method of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose it further comprising: mapping the valid solution for the location of the RFID tag to transmission settings for the activation signals; and 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.
Sadr, in an analogous art, teaches mapping a spatial location to transmission settings and reusing that mapping to interrogate other tags. Sadr teaches that "beam forming may be used to focus the transmitted beam to a desired location in space," and that "[t]his beam steering reduces the collisions and interference between the signals received from the responding tags" (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44). The transmission settings so selected are the complex weights applied by the beam forming network, "which may include amplitude and phase components" (Sadr col 11 ln 33-40; see also Sadr claims 23 and 48), and a particular tag is queried by applying those settings through the transmit beam former to excite the antenna elements (Sadr col 8 ln 28-35). Sadr further teaches storing that correspondence and retrieving it for later interrogations: steering vectors are measured for each direction of a three-dimensional grid and stored for all directions (Sadr fig. 9; col 15 ln 18-38), such that "When a specific look direction is selected by the controller 7-4, the steering vector 7-6 is retrieved from storage" (Sadr fig. 7; col 13 ln 30-36). The stored steering vectors are not specific to any one tag and are applied to whichever tags occupy the selected direction (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Davidson in view of Roeding to map the valid location solution Davidson has determined (Davidson [0063]) to Sadr's beamforming transmission settings for that location, and to reuse that stored mapping when interrogating another RFID tag. The motivation is supplied by Sadr, which teaches that focusing the transmitted beam to a desired location reduces collisions and interference among responding tags (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44). Davidson is receptive to the modification, disclosing steerable antennas having a controllable transmission angle (Davidson [0050], [0065]), interrogation directed to "some specified geographical region within the store" (Davidson [0046]), and a stored calibration matrix relating each antenna to each tag position for reuse across subsequent operations (Davidson [0079]-[0081]). The combination applies a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of more efficient and reliable interrogation of tags whose locations have already been resolved.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (US 8,447,510 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the system manager is further configured to determine the likely position of the RFID tag based on the analysis of historical data as a function of a time of day.
Fitzpatrick, in an analogous art, teaches analyzing accumulated historical location data as a function of time of day to predict a tracked entity's likely position. Fitzpatrick teaches recording space-time trajectories over successive days and using them to anticipate position: a user's trajectories on four of the last five days are determined from the times and locations recorded along each route, "Based on such a record, a prediction of a user's likely location may be made," and an ad provider zone "is within two miles (320) of the user's space-time trajectory at 7:50 AM in four of the last five days," such that "on the sixth day, the server supplies the user with an advertisement for the coffee shop at 7:45 AM" (Fitzpatrick col 3 ln 17-24; col 7 ln 17-45; fig. 3). Fitzpatrick further teaches reducing that history to a time-of-day distribution, disclosing a histogram of zone breaches in twenty-minute intervals over a two-month period in which "the significant provider zone breaches... are clustered around two times: one approximately centered at 9 AM (1005) and the other at 6 PM," from which "average peak times...of the breach clusters that exceed this threshold are computed" and a time prior to those averages is chosen for action (Fitzpatrick col 14 ln 45-col 15 ln 5; fig. 10). Fitzpatrick claims 6 and 8 recite applying a rule to an updated scan history comprising, for each captured code, a time of capture and a location, to determine a trajectory and predict a location therefrom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fitzpatrick's time of day analysis of accumulated historical location data to Davidson's system manager, which already records item location as a function of time (Davidson [0016], [0059], [0103]) and already determines expected item locations from previously recorded placements (Davidson [0098], [0100]). The motivation is to focus interrogation where a tag is predicted to be at a given time of day, thereby improving efficiency and reducing the search required to locate a specified tag, consistent with Davidson's objective of providing near real-time inventory and location information at low cost (Davidson [0011], [0014]). The combination applies a known prediction technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of a more accurate expected position.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (WO 2013126391 A1) in view of Sadr (US 9,014,635 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Davidson discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of antennas is configured to transmit the activation signal to the likely position. Davidson discloses that specifying a tag "can cause the overhead system 100 to transmit signals in an attempt to read the specified tag 220" (Davidson [0054]), that an inventory operation may be initiated "for the entire store, or for some specified geographical region within the store" (Davidson [0046]), and that the antennas may be steerable antennas having a controllable transmission angle (Davidson [0050], [0065]).
Sadr, in an analogous art, teaches directing a transmitted interrogation signal to a selected location in space. Sadr teaches that "beam forming may be used to focus the transmitted beam to a desired location in space," and that "This beam steering reduces the collisions and interference between the signals received from the responding tags" (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44). Sadr teaches that a particular tag is queried by applying the resulting settings through the transmit beam former to excite the antenna elements (Sadr col 8 ln 28-35), where the beam forming network "applies appropriate complex weights, which may include amplitude and phase components, to each signal associated with an array element path" (Sadr col 11 ln 33-40; see also Sadr claims 23 and 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antennas of Davidson's system to transmit the activation signal to the likely position Davidson's system manager has determined, applying Sadr's transmit beam steering. The motivation is supplied by Sadr, which teaches that focusing the transmitted beam to a desired location reduces collisions and interference among responding tags and thereby improves interrogation reliability (Sadr col 6 ln 38-44), and by Davidson's own objective of obtaining accurate location information efficiently and in near real time (Davidson [0011], [0014]). Directing interrogation to a position the system has already determined the tag is likely to occupy, rather than transmitting without spatial preference, is the application of a known technique to a known system ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of a more efficient and reliable read.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 6, 11, and 17, and the addition of new claims 18 and 19, necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action. Applicant's arguments are addressed below to the extent they remain applicable to the claims as amended.
Claims 1 and 6
Applicant argues that Davidson "does not say anything about how an RFID tag's position varies with the time of day or about predicting an RFID tag's likely position," and, in view of the amendment, that "The asserted combination of Davidson, Fitzpatrick, and Sadr does not provide a system manager that performs such an analysis."
These arguments are not persuasive.
As set forth in the rejection above, claim 1 as amended is rejected over Davidson alone, and neither Fitzpatrick nor Sadr is relied upon. Arguments directed to the combination of Davidson, Fitzpatrick, and Sadr are therefore moot as to claim 1.
Applicant's assertion that Davidson does not disclose predicting an RFID tag's likely position is not supported by the reference. Davidson generates "expected location information or 'golden tag placement' for the items in the store by recording the location of items during an inventorying operation...and using that expected location information as a baseline for reconciling inventory location during future inventorying operations," whereby the system "can determine if items have moved...by comparing a current scan with the golden tag placement" (Davidson [0100]); the system likewise uses expected location information "to identify items that are not in the expected location" (Davidson [0098]). Davidson further stores "previous inventory records (e.g., inventory lists from past days), expected location of inventory items, previously recorded locations for items" (Davidson [0042]) and provides item location "as a function of time" (Davidson [0016]).
As to the amended limitation, Davidson discloses location expressed relative to other RFID tags. Davidson affixes specialty location tags — passive RFID tags responding with unique identifiers — to store landmarks, from which the system "can create a map of the store and calculate positions of tags relative to this generated map," reporting a tag's position "as a relative position from a landmark within the store" (Davidson [0066]). Davidson also determines a tag's range by direct comparison against other tags of known location, using "additional known tags to refine the estimate" (Davidson [0069]).
The rejection of claim 6 additionally relies on Sadr for the step of transmitting the activation signal to the likely location, for the reasons given above.
Claim 18
Applicant's arguments directed to the Fitzpatrick teaching and to whether Fitzpatrick is analogous art, are not moot as to claim 18, because new claim 18 recites the time-of-day limitation deleted from claim 1. Those arguments are addressed below.
Applicant repeatedly restates the limitation as determining a likely position "based on a time of day," omitting "based on an analysis of historical data related to a location of the RFID tag." Fitzpatrick was not cited for a bare time of day trigger; it was cited for analyzing historical time tagged location data to predict a likely location. Arguments directed to the limitation as rewritten do not address the rejection as made.
Applicant argues that Fitzpatrick "does not say anything about how an RFID tag's position varies with the time of day or about predicting an RFID tag's likely position." This is not persuasive. Fitzpatrick expressly states that "a prediction of a user's likely location may be made" from a recorded history of scans including the time and location of each (Fitzpatrick col 7 ln 17-25), and reduces that history to time-of-day clusters with computed average peak times (Fitzpatrick col 14 ln 55 - col 15 ln 5; fig. 10). Prediction of position from time-tagged history is the express subject of Fitzpatrick claims 6 and 8.
Applicant argues that Fitzpatrick "concern a code triggered information system (CTIS) that tracks users, not RFID tags." This is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Davidson supplies the RFID tags and the retail locating architecture; Fitzpatrick supplies the prediction technique applied to historical position records. Fitzpatrick need not itself disclose RFID tags for the combination to be proper. In any event, Fitzpatrick expressly identifies RFID tags among the codes its system operates on and describes them as located in objects such as clothing (Fitzpatrick col 8 ln 12-22).
Applicant argues that Fitzpatrick is not analogous art, being neither from the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Fitzpatrick is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fitzpatrick is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. The problem the specification identifies is reducing the number of interrogation iterations by predicting where a tag is likely to be from historical records, including behavioral data that varies with time of day — the specification's own example being a tag "likely to be in the middle of the area during the afternoon, but near the left edge during the evening" (Spec. [0056]). Fitzpatrick addresses that same problem: it accumulates timestamped position records for entities moving through a commercial environment, analyzes them by time of day, and predicts where a given entity will be. That the tracked entity is a person carrying a phone rather than a tagged article does not remove the reference from the inventor's logical field of search, because the pertinence inquiry turns on the problem addressed rather than on the sensing technology employed.
Applicant's own characterization reinforces the point. Applicant states that Fitzpatrick addresses "determining and announcing proximity between trajectories" of different users. Analyzing one tracked entity's historical position relative to other tracked entities is the subject matter applicant added to claim 1 by amendment, and Fitzpatrick's environment is retail: its provider zones are "assumed to be stores/restaurants" (Fitzpatrick col 13 ln 60 - col 14 ln 5) and its worked examples are a coffee shop, a fast food restaurant, and a brokerage branch.
Claims 11-17
Applicant argues that "The asserted combination of Davidson and Sadr is silent on detecting a presence of a person by characteristic radiation given off by a cell phone."
This argument is persuasive as to the references previously applied, and the rejection of claim 11 over Davidson in view of Sadr has been withdrawn. Claim 11 is now rejected over Davidson in view of Roeding, as set forth above, and applicant's argument does not address that combination.
Applicant otherwise traverses "for at least the reasons given in Applicant's last response." Those arguments were directed to the step of mapping the valid solution to transmission settings and to transmitting a subsequent activation signal at those settings. The latter step has been deleted from the claims. The mapping step has been relocated to claim 17 and is addressed in the rejection of that claim above. Applicant has not separately argued claim 17.
Claims 18 and 19
New claims 18 and 19 recite the limitations deleted from claim 1 and are rejected over the references previously applied to those limitations — Fitzpatrick as to claim 18 and Sadr as to claim 19 — for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner's Note
Examiner notes the following, which are not grounds of rejection:
Claim 11 recites "a location of the RFID tag" twice before reciting "the location of the RFID tag" in the associating step. For purposes of examination, that phrase has been interpreted as the valid solution determined in the immediately preceding step, and the prior art has been applied accordingly.
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 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
Prosecution Insights