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 .
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 10-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 10-20, the limitations “RFID tags” (recited in claims 10 and 19), “a RFID tag” (recited in claims 10 and 19) and “the RFID tag” (recited in claims 10-20) render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether “a RFID tag” is one of the “RFID tags”, and it is unclear whether “the RFID tag” refers to one of the “RFID tags” or “a RFID tag”. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purpose, it is broadly interpreting “a RFID tag” is one of the “RFID tags”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Recine (US 2021/0056795 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Recine discloses a smartphone (e.g. Fig. 1: 110 & Fig. 2: 240 & [0075]: POS terminal is a mobile phone) comprising: an antenna; a transceiver coupled to the antenna; and a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal coupled to the transceiver, wherein the RFID terminal of the smartphone is configured to, by itself, read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions (e.g. [0023]: since POS is capable of receiving payments from RFID chip, i.e. tag, Recine inherently discloses the POS is configured with antenna, transceiver and RFID terminal).
Regarding claim 2, Recine discloses the RFID tags are associated with at least one of credit cards or a debit cards.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Recine discloses a method and a system within a smartphone (e.g. Fig. 1: 110 & Fig. 2: 240 & [0075]: POS is a smartphone), the system comprising: one or more processors (e.g. [0078]); and one or more non-transitory storage media comprising instructions stored thereon (e.g. [0048, 0078]), the instructions being executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform one or more operations comprising:
reading, by a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal of the smartphone that is configured to, by itself, read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions, a RFID tag (e.g. [0023]: since POS is capable of receiving payments from RFID chip, i.e. tag, Recine inherently discloses the POS is configured with antenna, transceiver and RFID terminal);
transmitting, by a transceiver of the smartphone and to an entity related to the RFID tag, signals from the RFID terminal based on reading the RFID tag; and receiving, by the transceiver of the smartphone, information related to the RFID tag (e.g. [0023]: since POS is capable of receiving payments from RFID chip, i.e. tag, Recine inherently discloses the POS is configured to receive credit card information from the chip/tag and sending the information to the bank of the credit card to verify the payment information).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Recine discloses the RFID tag is related to one of a credit card or a debit card; and the information is related to a financial transaction of a user of the smartphone (e.g. [0023]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Recine discloses the RFID tags include inductive RFID tags (e.g. [0023]: near field communication).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helbert et al. (US 2018/0083776 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Helbert discloses a smartphone (e.g. [0065, 0066, 0092]: communication comprising a tag reader that could be a mobile phone; mobile phone capable of communicating through Skype communication sessions and reading tag is broadly considered as smartphone) comprising: an antenna (inherently disclosed with a transceiver); a transceiver coupled to the antenna (e.g. [0088]); and a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal coupled to the transceiver (e.g. [0088]: RFID transceiver), wherein the RFID terminal of the smartphone is configured to, by itself, read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions (e.g. [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Helbert discloses a method (e.g. [0206-0210]) comprising: reading, by a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal of a smarthpone (e.g. [0065, 0066, 0088, 0091, 0092]: mobile phone capable of communicating through Skype communication sessions and reading tag is broadly considered as smartphone) that is configured to, by itself, read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions, a RFID tag (e.g. [0091]);
transmitting, by a transceiver of the smartphone and to an entity related to the RFID tag, signals from the RFID terminal based on reading the RFID tag; and receiving, by the transceiver of the smartphone, information related to the RFID tag (e.g. [0206-0210]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Helbert discloses the RFID tags are located at an attraction in order to serve as a tour guide of the attraction by providing information related to the attraction to a user of the smartphone (e.g. [0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Helbert discloses the attraction is one of a museum, a park, or a zoo (e.g. [0026]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Helbert discloses the RFID tags are located on one of a piece of equipment, an instrument, or a tool at a hospital; and the information is related to tracking of the one of the piece of equipment, the instrument, or the tool at the hospital (e.g. [0139]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Helbert discloses the RFID tags are located one of on or within an animal; and the information is related to identity of one of the animal or a herd including the animal (e.g. [0028, 0139]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Helbert discloses the RFID tags include inductive RFID tags (e.g. [0030]: near field communication tag).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recine (US 2021/0056795 A1) in view of Herron et al. (US 2015/0083803 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Recine fails to disclose, but Herron teaches a POS system and method (e.g. [0019]), and the RFID tags are located on a participant of a sporting event; and the information is related to participation of the participant in the sporting event (e.g. Abstract & [0004, 0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Recine with the teachings of Herron to utilize POS system in a sporting event so as to easily identify ticket holder information and purchases behavior.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2023/0065441 A1) in view of Spencer (US 2022/0300596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a mobile communication device (e.g. Figs: 1, 4 & 6: 104 and [0003, 0022]) comprising: an antenna (inherently disclosed within wireless network interface shown in Fig. 6: 612); a transceiver coupled to the antenna (e.g. Fig. 6: 612 & [0033]); and a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal (e.g. Fig. 1: 116 & [0033]) coupled to the transceiver , wherein the RFID terminal is configured to read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions (e.g. [0033-0034]).
Scott discloses the mobile communication device is a tablet, but fails to disclose the mobile communication device is a smartphone.
However, Spencer teaches tablet and smartphone are known alternative in the art to perform transaction to check-out books from library and/or sale purchase in a restaurant (e.g. [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a smartphone instead of a tablet to check-out books from library since it is merely simple substitutions of one known device with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses a method comprising: reading, by a radio frequency identification (RFID) terminal of a mobile communication device (e.g. Figs: 1, 4 & 6: 104 and [0003, 0022]), wherein the RFID terminal is configured to read RFID tags to conduct mobile contactless transactions (e.g. [0033-0034]), a RFID tag;
transmitting, by a transceiver of the mobile communication device to an entity related to the RFID tag, signals from the RFID terminal based on reading the RFID tag; and receiving, by the transceiver of the mobile communication device, information related to the RFID tag (e.g. [0002, 0034]: self-checkout and tracking inventory implies comparing tag information with inventory information from database or server).
Scott discloses the mobile communication device is a tablet, but fails to disclose the mobile communication device is a smartphone.
However, Spencer teaches tablet and smartphone are known alternative in the art to perform transaction to check-out books from library and/or sale purchase in a restaurant (e.g. [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify teachings of Scott to utilize a smartphone instead of a tablet to check-out books from library as taught by Spencer since it is merely simple substitutions of one known device with another according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Scott discloses the RFID tags are located on books at a library to check out the books from the library by a user of the mobile communication device (e.g. [0002, 0034]: self-checkout kiosks for tracking library items), and Spencer teaches a smartphone is a known alternative mobile communication device (e.g. [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, Scott discloses the RFID tag is located on a book at a library; and the information is related to checking out the book by a user of the mobile communication device (e.g. [0002, 0034]: self-checkout kiosks for tracking library items), and Spencer teaches a smartphone is a known alternative mobile communication device (e.g. [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument(s) with respect to U.S.C. 112 rejections, the examiner disagrees with the arguments. Limitation(s) recites in the claims have to be clearly define the scope of the claimed invention without causing any confusion or indefinite meaning. The use of same terminology (e.g. RFID tags, a RFID tag, the RFID tag, etc.) without clearly define the relationship between them cause confusion and indefinite issue to the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument(s) with respect to claim 1, Recine at least in [0075] clearly state the POS terminal could be a smart phone; thus, Recine discloses limitation(s) recited in claim 1.
In addition, similar arguments with respect to claims 2, 6, 9-11, 15 and 18-20 regarding Recine are presented. For the same reason with respect to response regarding to claim 1, claims 2, 9-11 and 18-20 are unpatentable.
In response to applicant’s argument(s) with respect to claims 1, Helbert at least in [0064-0067, 0092] discloses communication device (e.g. mobile phone) comprising a tag reader, and mobile phone capable of communicating through Skype communication sessions and reading tag is broadly considered as smartphone. Thus, Helbert discloses the claimed invention.
In addition, similar arguments with respect to claims 3-4, 7-10, 12-13 and 16-18 regarding Helbert are presented. For the same reason with respect to response regarding to claim 1, claims 3-4, 7-10, 12-13 and 16-18 are unpatentable.
In response to applicant’s argument(s) with respect to claims 1, 5, 10 and 14 regarding Scott. Argument(s) is moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights