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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 3/17/2026 to the
Application filed on 11/21/2024.
2. This application claims benefit of Priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 (e) from Provisional U.S.
Patent Application No. 63/502184, filed on 5/15/2023 and Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63507487, filed on 6/12/2023.
3. Claims 1-6 are pending in the case. Claims 7-12 have been canceled. Claims 1 is an independent claim.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the separate receiver broadcasts" in claim 1, there is reference to a stationary transmitter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there is no earlier recitation of “a separate receiver”.
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 3 is 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “the separate receiver broadcasts ” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “the separate receiver broadcasts ,” while the accepted meaning is “transmitter broadcasts”, since typically broadcasting is done by a transmitter rather than a receiver. As such, it is unclear how a receiver broadcasts as it is not explained in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle, US Patent Publication No. 20160371518, filed on 5/12/2015 (hereinafter Tuttle) in view of Allen, US Patent Publication No. 20030220711, filed on 11/27/2003 (hereinafter Allen).
As for Independent Claim 1, Tuttle discloses A system for remote communication,
the system comprising a first device (RFID device) comprising a radio frequency circuit (radio frequency device) capable of communication at a first radio frequency (frequency ranges for communication) and a receiver circuit capable (radio frequency device) of communication at a second radio frequency (frequency ranges for communication);
(Tuttle paragraph [0007] discloses “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a radio frequency identification (RFID) device using a single antenna for multiple resonant frequency ranges.”
Tuttle paragraph [0006]-[0007] discloses “the present disclosure includes a radio frequency device utilizing an antenna having a single antenna structure resonant on multiple resonant frequency ranges. The antenna can be configured to operate within multiple frequency ranges for communication according to respective protocols associated with the respective frequency ranges.”)
a second device (RFID interrogator) in communication with the first device (RFID device) over the first radio frequency (frequency ranges);
(Tuttle paragraph [0008] discloses “For example, an embodiment of the invention features an RFID system that includes an RFID interrogator having an interrogator antenna configured to operate within multiple frequency ranges. The system also includes an RFID device having an RFID circuit, and a device antenna coupled to the RFID circuit. The RFID device antenna can be configured to operate within multiple frequency ranges that match at least those of the interrogator antenna(s) for communicating with the RFID interrogator according to respective protocols associated with each respective frequency range.”)
and RFID interrogator) in communication with the first device (RFID device) over the second radio frequency (first frequency range),
(Tuttle paragraph [0038] discloses “In another embodiment, the first frequency range may be used to provide power from the RFID interrogator 4 to the RFID device 11, and the second frequency range may be used for communication according to a particular protocol. Powering the passive device 11 on the first frequency range, while simultaneously communicating over the second frequency range, has the advantage of enabling the device 11 to stay energized longer, to receive or transmit more data per session and to extend processing time. The device 11 can also be configured to receive power from the RFID interrogators 4, 25 at multiple frequency ranges.”)
Tuttle does not appear to explicitly disclose a system comprises a stationary transmitter and the first device is operational only when in proximity to the stationary transmitter. However, Allen discloses a stationary transmitter (Fixed choke-point interrogators) and the first device (RFID tag) is operational (tag circuits are turned on) only when in proximity (read zone) to the stationary transmitter (Fixed choke-point interrogators).
(Allen [specification page 19, line 21-24] discloses “A wake up signal may also be employed, for example radio frequency, magnetic pulse or the like, and for example embedded in a floor or otherwise SO as to broadcast over a broad area so that as an RFID tag passes into the wake-up signal area, the tag circuits are turned on
SO as to remove a latency period when the tags enter into an interrogator read zone.”
Allen [specification page 11, line 11-14] discloses “Fixed choke-point interrogators 20 are transceivers mounted to gateways or portals controlling entrance to, and exit from, distributors warehouses, loading docks, transports and the like. Each has a very limited range within which it may interact with an RFID tag.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Allen with Tuttle for the benefit of having a stationary transmitter monitoring such that the first device is operational only when in proximity to the stationary transmitter. Further benefit to only enable the RFID tag when passing through the read-zone is to prolong the life of a battery in the RFID tag. Also, a stationary transmitter will allow tracking the location of the RFID tag as it is passing the read-zone.
As for Claim 4, limitations of parent Claim 1 have been discussed above. Tuttle discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the first device (RFID device) comprises a battery power supply.
(Tuttle paragraph [0026] discloses “the exemplary RFID device includes device antenna and RFID circuit. The RFID circuit can include a transceiver, a processor, memory, and depending on whether or not RFID device is active, semi-active or passive, a battery.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Allen with Tuttle for the benefit of having a stationary interrogator to enable the RFID tag at an interrogator read zone. Further benefit to prolong the battery life when the device is passive outside of the read-zone.
As for claim 5, limitations of parent Claim 1 have been discussed above. Tuttle discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the first frequency and second frequencies are non-overlapping.
(Tuttle paragraph [0040] discloses “In designing and implementing the antennas and system, frequency ranges are selected that are non-harmonic, non-integer multiple or non-integer-fraction frequencies relative to the other selected frequency ranges. “
Tuttle discloses the first frequency range is dedicated to power up the RFID device and the second frequency range is dedicated for communication between the RFID reader and RFID device.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Allen with Tuttle for the benefit of having non-overlapping frequency ranges to reduce interference while extending the interrogator range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Allen in view of Forster, US Patent Publication No. 20060250245 , published on 5/9/2005 (hereinafter Forster).
As for Claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Tuttle discloses the system of claim 1, RFID device
wherein
(Tuttle paragraph [0039] discloses “the powering of the RFID device, as opposed to commands or data sent to and from the RFID device, is typically a range-limiting factor in the communications link between RFID interrogators and RFID device.”)
Tuttle does not appear to explicitly disclose the receiver circuit is an AM receiver. However, Forster discloses system wherein the receiver circuit (integrated circuit RF detector) is an AM receiver (microcontroller having an AM modulated).
(Forster paragraph [0037] discloses “RF detector, for example, may be implemented as any type of conventional RF detector (e.g., a diode-based detector or an integrated circuit RF detector), as would be understood by one skilled in the art. In general, RF detector provides a baseband voltage, which represents the amplitude of the RF signal rectified and integrated over time to remove voltage changes at the RF frequency and recover voltage changes due to the baseband signal modulation.”
Forster paragraph [0060] discloses “a microcontroller having an AM modulated 850 MHz to 930 MHz”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Forster with Tuttle with Allen for the benefit of having a receiver circuit is an AM receiver to excite the RFID tag. Further benefit is to improve the range of the read-zone between an interrogator and a RFID device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Allen in view of Schmidt et al., US Patent Publication No. 20170220830, published on 8/3/2017 (hereinafter Schmidt)
As for Claim 3, limitations of parent Claim 1 have been discussed above. Tuttle discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the separate receiver (the device)
(Tuttle paragraph [0039] discloses “when selecting a frequency range to power the device, it can be advantageous to utilize the lowest available frequency range to minimize the effects of free-space path loss and to extend the range of the device. Data can be sent at a higher frequency, which tends to balance the communication link.”)
Tuttle does not appear to explicitly disclose the system broadcasts in a range from about 10 feet to about 100 feet. However, Schmidt discloses system wherein an RFID system (RF scanner) broadcast in a range (proximity) from about 10 feet to about 100 feet (5 meters or 16.40 feet).
(Schmidt paragraph [0032] discloses “As illustrated in FIG. 5, a detectable RFID card 520 is within the proximity 532, and can therefore be detected and/or monitor by the RFID scanner 530 and/or RFID card monitor 110. However, an undetectable RFID card 550 is located outside the proximity 532, and therefore cannot be detected and/or monitored by the example RFID scanner 530 and/or RFID card monitor 110. If the undetectable RFID card 550 were physically located within the proximity 532, the card may become detectable and after a particular period of time (e.g., the period of time set for registering an RFID card with the RFID card monitor) within the proximity 532, then the previously undetectable RFID card 550 may become registered with the RFID card monitor 110. The proximity 532 may be any distance (e.g., 1 foot, 1 yard, 1 meter, 5 meters, etc.) from the RFID scanner 530 that may be wirelessly scanned by the RFID scanner 530. In some examples the size of the proximity 532 may be adjusted (e.g., via the interface 330 of FIG. 3)” A conversion generates 5 meters to about 16.40 feet.)
PNG
media_image1.png
685
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schmidt with Tuttle and Allen for the benefit of having a transmitter to broadcasts in a range from about 10 feet to about 100 feet. Further benefit having a system that can increase the broadcast range of an interrogator to increase the proximity of the RFID tag.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Allen in view of Bieber et al., US Patent Application No. 20120050016, published on 3/1/2012 (hereinafter Bieber) in view of Kobayashi, US Patent Publication No. 20190080215, published on 3/14/2019 (hereinafter Kobayashi).
As for Claim 6, limitations of parent Claim 1 have been discussed above. Tuttle discloses the system of claim 1, selecting a frequency range
wherein
(Tuttle paragraph [0039] discloses “when selecting a frequency range to power the device, it can be advantageous to utilize the lowest available frequency range to minimize the effects of free-space path loss and to extend the range of the device. Data can be sent at a higher frequency, which tends to balance the communication link.”)
Tuttle does not appear to explicitly disclose the first frequency is about 915 MHz and the second frequency is about 868 MHz. However, Bieber discloses system wherein the second frequency (power-supply carrier RFID) is about 868 MHz
(Bieber paragraph [0033] discloses “Reading device 10 makes a power-supply carrier signal S.sub.rfid available, for example, at an RFID operating frequency of f.sub.rfid=868 MHz and modulates, where applicable, interrogation data M.sub.A onto the carrier signal S.sub.rfid to interrogate an identification number of transponder 20 and to read out the contents of memory 23 of transponder 20. Interrogation data M.sub.A is modulated onto the power-supply carrier signal S.sub.rfid only in phases, i.e., in a temporally not uninterrupted manner, meaning the power-supply carrier signal S.sub.rfid will in part be emitted also in non-modulated fashion.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bieber with Kobayashi with Allen with Tuttle for the benefit of having the system with the first frequency is about 915MHz and the second frequency is about 868 MHz. Further benefit of having a non-overlapping frequency to prevent interference and provide longer communication distance between an interrogator and RFID tag.
Tuttle does not appear to explicitly disclose the first frequency is about 915 MHz However, Kobayashi discloses system wherein the first frequency (communication distance) is about 915 MHz;
(Kobayashi paragraph [0074] discloses “Therefore, the number of turns of the conductor pattern is limited up to 1.75. The graph of FIG. 5A shows that, while the size of the magnetic field of the RFID tag of the present invention 1 at 915 MHz that is the operating frequency is a value over 100 (A.U.), the size of the magnetic field of the RFID tag of model 1 at 915 MHz that is the operating frequency is less than 10 (A.U.), resulting that the communication distance of the RFID tag of the present invention 1 can be increased as compared with that of the RFID tag of model 1.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobayashi with Allen, Tuttle, and Bieber for the benefit of having the system with the first frequency is about 915MHz and the second frequency is about 868 MHz. Further benefit of having a non-overlapping frequency to prevent interference and provide longer communication distance between an interrogator and RFID tag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)467-6390. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 5712703647. 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.
/JOSEPH KHANH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights