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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 03/13/2026. Claims 1-25 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-4, 6-7, 13-16, 18-19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoarinejad et al. (U.S. 2013/0076568 A1) in view of Christopher (U.S. 2008/0042836 A1).
Claim 1, Shoarinejad teaches:
A system (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A) for tracking an object (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A: 101A), comprising:
at least one processor (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A: 130, Paragraph [0112]);
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A: 131, Paragraph [0112]), perform steps of:
receiving, from a plurality of tag readers, a stream of signals of an object, the stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream.);
wherein each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first measured position parameter, a second measured position parameter (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0110], The measured position parameters are considered raw measurements (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0117]).);
determining a first motion status of the object using the first measured position parameter (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], Using the measured tag position parameters, the server 130 is able to determine if the tag is moving as well as the rate of movement and direction of movement of the tag.);
assigning the object to a first process or a second process based on the first motion status (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The first and second process are interpreted as the type of processing to be performed based on the motion of the tag.);
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first location using the first measured position parameter of the stream of signals in the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the first location as a true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The updated locations of the tag are presented to a user via a display.);
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second location using the second measured position parameter of the stream of signals in the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving. It is also noted that a second process may additionally or alternatively be interpreted as the process of calculating the rate of movement and the direction of movement of the tag, based on the determination that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the second location as a true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display.); and
associating the true location to the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The server or the readers may store in memory the current and previous positions of the interrogated tags.).
Shoarinejad does not specifically teach:
The stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals in chronological order;
wherein each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp.
As per the limitation of the stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals in chronological order, each reader, e.g. readers 102A, 102B, 102C, repeats their RF signal transmissions at frequent time intervals, thereby providing measured tag position parameters at different time instances (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the readers to transmit the tag position parameters to the server 130, in the respective signals, in chronological order, such that the locations of the tags may be determined. Such a modification would ensure that the invention operates for its intended function, e.g. tracking the location of the tag as it moves in real-time, and would therefore yield predictable results.
Christopher teaches:
RFID tag data including a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006], The interrogator relay unit “IRU” receives data from an RFID tag in response to an RF interrogation signal, which includes location data, and timestamp data, which is then reported to the remote server using the IRU. The location data includes a combination of floor number and location within the floor, latitude, longitude, elevation, and/or other location information (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]). The plurality of different types of location information are equivalent to first and second raw location data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad by integrating the teaching of location data, as taught by Christopher.
The motivation would be to improve the accuracy of an entity, e.g. an object, by improving the accuracy of the location of the RFID tags (see Christopher, Paragraph [0058]).
Claim 2, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 1, the steps further comprising:
receiving a new signal of the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream. Each subsequent signal received from the tag(s) by the reader(s) and transmitted to the server 130 is interpreted as a “new signal”.), the new signal comprises a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006], The interrogator relay unit “IRU” receives data from an RFID tag in response to an RF interrogation signal, which includes location data, and timestamp data, which is then reported to the remote server using the IRU. The location data includes a combination of floor number and location within the floor, latitude, longitude, elevation, and/or other location information (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]). The plurality of different types of location information are equivalent to first and second raw location data.);
adding the new signal to the stream of signals (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream.);
determining, using the first raw location of the new signal and the true location, a second motion status of the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], Using the measured tag position parameters and corresponding mapped positions, the server 130 is able to determine if the tag is moving as well as the rate of movement and direction of movement of the tag.);
assigning the object to the first process or the second process based on the second motion status (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The first and second process are interpreted as the type of processing to be performed based on the motion of the tag.);
in response to the assignment to the first process:
updating the first location using the first raw location of the new signal in the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the updated first location as the updated true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The updated locations of the tag are presented to a user via a display.);
in response to the assignment to the second process:
updating the second location using the second raw location of the new signal in the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving. It is also noted that a second process may additionally or alternatively be interpreted as the process of calculating the rate of movement and the direction of movement of the tag, based on the determination that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the updated second location as the updated true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display.); and
associating the updated true location to the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The server or the readers may store in memory the current and previous positions of the interrogated tags.).
Claim 3, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of tag readers provides one signal of the stream of signals and covers a conical area, each reader being at a vertex of the conical area (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0108], Each of the plurality of readers is limited based on the reader’s range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the shape of the range of interest to a conical shape, and a location of the reader to be at the vertex of the center of the range, as a matter of engineering choice. Such a modification would not render the invention for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 4, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 3, the steps further comprising:
predicting an updated first location based on determining that the first raw location of the new signal is outside of all the conical areas of the plurality of tag readers (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0111], The location data is used to generate mapped position information, such as actual locations in rooms, warehouses, hallways, shelves, aisles, streets. In an example of a warehouse, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that location data indicative of the tag being outside of the warehouse indicates that the tag is located outside of its intended location, i.e. the warehouse, wherein the intended location is represented by the areas specifically covered by the RFID readers, e.g. the conically shaped areas within the warehouse. Thus, a lost or stolen item (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]), may have location data indicative of the item leaving the warehouse or being outside of the warehouse, for example, wherein the predicted location could be based on the direction of movement of the item.).
Claim 6, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first motion status is moving or stationary (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]), and wherein determining the first motion status comprises:
in response to the object having the moving motion status, assigning the object to the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
in response to the object having the stationary motion status, assigning the object to the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving.).
Claim 7, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein:
calculating the first location uses the first raw locations of the stream of signals in a first computing window;
calculating the second location uses the second raw locations of the stream of signals in a second computing window; and
the first computing window is shorter than the second computing window (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The locations of the tags may be determined at time intervals. The time intervals may be based on a synchronized clock or as instructed by a server 130 (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the time intervals to be the same or different, depending upon whether the time intervals are synced or controlled specifically by a server 130. Thus, it is within the scope of the teachings of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher for the time intervals for determining the locations of tags to be different, i.e. for a first time interval to be longer or shorter than a second time interval. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system of frequently repeating RF signal transmissions and reception, and would therefore yield predictable results.).
Claim 13, Shoarinejad teaches:
A method (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A) for tracking an object (Shoarinejad, Fig. 1A: 101A), comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of tag readers, a stream of signals of an object, the stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream.);
wherein each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first measured position parameter, a second measured position parameter (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0110], The measured position parameters are considered raw measurements (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0117]).);
determining a first motion status of the object using the first measured position parameter (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], Using the measured tag position parameters, the server 130 is able to determine if the tag is moving as well as the rate of movement and direction of movement of the tag.);
assigning the object to a first process or a second process based on the first motion status (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The first and second process are interpreted as the type of processing to be performed based on the motion of the tag.);
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first location using the first measured position parameters of the stream of signals in the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the first location as a true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The updated locations of the tag are presented to a user via a display.);
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second location using the second measured position parameters of the stream of signals in the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving. It is also noted that a second process may additionally or alternatively be interpreted as the process of calculating the rate of movement and the direction of movement of the tag, based on the determination that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the second location as a true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display.); and
associating the true location to the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The server or the readers may store in memory the current and previous positions of the interrogated tags.).
Shoarinejad does not specifically teach:
The stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals in chronological order;
wherein each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp.
As per the limitation of the stream of signals comprises a plurality of signals in chronological order, each reader, e.g. readers 102A, 102B, 102C, repeats their RF signal transmissions at frequent time intervals, thereby providing measured tag position parameters at different time instances (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the readers to transmit the tag position parameters to the server 130, in the respective signals, in chronological order, such that the locations of the tags may be determined. Such a modification would ensure that the invention operates for its intended function, e.g. tracking the location of the tag as it moves in real-time, and would therefore yield predictable results.
Christopher teaches:
RFID tag data including a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006], The interrogator relay unit “IRU” receives data from an RFID tag in response to an RF interrogation signal, which includes location data, and timestamp data, which is then reported to the remote server using the IRU. The location data includes a combination of floor number and location within the floor, latitude, longitude, elevation, and/or other location information (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]). The plurality of different types of location information are equivalent to first and second raw location data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad by integrating the teaching of location data, as taught by Christopher.
The motivation would be to improve the accuracy of an entity, e.g. an object, by improving the accuracy of the location of the RFID tags (see Christopher, Paragraph [0058]).
Claim 14, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein assigning the object to the first process or the second process comprises:
receiving a new signal of the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream. Each subsequent signal received from the tag(s) by the reader(s) and transmitted to the server 130 is interpreted as a “new signal”.), the new signal comprises a first raw location, a second raw location, and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006], The interrogator relay unit “IRU” receives data from an RFID tag in response to an RF interrogation signal, which includes location data, and timestamp data, which is then reported to the remote server using the IRU. The location data includes a combination of floor number and location within the floor, latitude, longitude, elevation, and/or other location information (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]). The plurality of different types of location information are equivalent to first and second raw location data.);
adding the new signal to the stream of signals (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The computer system 130 accumulate the plurality of measured position parameters from the RFID readers, wherein each plurality of measured position parameters from a single RFID reader is equivalent to a stream.);
determining, using the first raw location of the new signal and the true location, a second motion status of the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], Using the measured tag position parameters and corresponding mapped positions, the server 130 is able to determine if the tag is moving as well as the rate of movement and direction of movement of the tag.);
assigning the object to the first process or the second process based on the second motion status (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The first and second process are interpreted as the type of processing to be performed based on the motion of the tag.);
in response to the assignment to the first process:
updating the first location using the first raw location of the new signal in the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the updated first location as the updated true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The updated locations of the tag are presented to a user via a display.);
in response to the assignment to the second process:
updating the second location using the second raw location of the new signal in the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving. It is also noted that a second process may additionally or alternatively be interpreted as the process of calculating the rate of movement and the direction of movement of the tag, based on the determination that the tag is moving.); and
publishing the updated second location as the updated true location (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display.); and
associating the updated true location to the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The server or the readers may store in memory the current and previous positions of the interrogated tags.).
Claim 15, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein each of the plurality of tag readers provides one signal of the stream of signals and covers a conical area, each reader being at a vertex of the conical area (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0108], Each of the plurality of readers is limited based on the reader’s range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the shape of the range of interest to a conical shape, and a location of the reader to be at the vertex of the center of the range, as a matter of engineering choice. Such a modification would not render the invention for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 16, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: predicting an updated first location based on determining that the first raw location of the new signal is outside of all the conical areas of the plurality of tag readers (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0111], The location data is used to generate mapped position information, such as actual locations in rooms, warehouses, hallways, shelves, aisles, streets. In an example of a warehouse, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that location data indicative of the tag being outside of the warehouse indicates that the tag is located outside of its intended location, i.e. the warehouse, wherein the intended location is represented by the areas specifically covered by the RFID readers, e.g. the conically shaped areas within the warehouse. Thus, a lost or stolen item (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]), may have location data indicative of the item leaving the warehouse or being outside of the warehouse, for example, wherein the predicted location could be based on the direction of movement of the item.).
Claim 18, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the first motion status is moving or stationary (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]), and wherein determining the first motion status comprises:
in response to the object having the moving motion status, assigning the object to the first process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is moving, the server 130 presents an updated location of the tag at each time interval. The first process is thus the presenting of new locations when it is determined that the tag is moving.); and
in response to the object having the stationary motion status, assigning the object to the second process (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is not moving, the server 130 presents the same location to the user via the display. The second process is thus the presenting of the same location when it is determined that the tag is not moving.).
Claim 19, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein:
calculating the first location uses the first raw locations of the stream of signals in a first computing window;
calculating the second location uses the second raw locations of the stream of signals in a second computing window; and
the first computing window is shorter than the second computing window (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The locations of the tags may be determined at time intervals. The time intervals may be based on a synchronized clock or as instructed by a server 130 (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the time intervals to be the same or different, depending upon whether the time intervals are synced or controlled specifically by a server 130. Thus, it is within the scope of the teachings of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher for the time intervals for determining the locations of tags to be different, i.e. for a first time interval to be longer or shorter than a second time interval. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system of frequently repeating RF signal transmissions and reception, and would therefore yield predictable results.).
Claim 25, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher
The system of claim 1, wherein when the first motion status is stationary (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], If the tag is stationary, the location presented to the user will not change with time.), publishing the first motion status to a secondary system configured to request a location associated with the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The tags are read by readers at frequent time intervals, instructed by server 130. The locations of the tag may be displayed to a user. Thus, the server, in combination with the display, represent a secondary system configured to effectively request location data, via the readers, associated with the object.).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoarinejad et al. (U.S. 2013/0076568 A1) in view of Christopher (U.S. 2008/0042836 A1) in view of Marsee (U.S. 2018/03370780 A1).
Claim 5, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The system of claim 2, the steps further comprising:
determining a moving speed of the object from the updated first location and the corresponding timestamp of the new signal (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], In the combination of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, the measured location parameters of Shoarinejad are combined with the location data and timestamp of Christopher (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]).).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed; and
in response to the moving speed exceeds the maximum speed, discarding the new signal.
Marsee teaches:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed (Marsee, Paragraph [0068], Measured parameters are compared with predetermined thresholds.); and
in response to the moving speed exceeds the maximum speed, discarding the new signal (Marsee, Paragraph [0071], Parameter algorithms may be implemented to ignore specific velocity magnitudes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of parameter algorithms, as taught by Marsee.
The motivation would be to reduce and/or eliminate calculation errors by ignoring unwanted data (see Marsee, Paragraph [0071]).
Claim 17, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining a moving speed of the object from the updated first location and the corresponding timestamp of the new signal (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], In the combination of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, the measured location parameters of Shoarinejad are combined with the location data and timestamp of Christopher (see Christopher, Paragraph [0040]).).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed; and
in response to the moving speed exceeds the maximum speed, discarding the new signal.
Marsee teaches:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed (Marsee, Paragraph [0068], Measured parameters are compared with predetermined thresholds.); and
in response to the moving speed exceeds the maximum speed, discarding the new signal (Marsee, Paragraph [0071], Parameter algorithms may be implemented to ignore specific velocity magnitudes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of parameter algorithms, as taught by Marsee.
The motivation would be to reduce and/or eliminate calculation errors by ignoring unwanted data (see Marsee, Paragraph [0071]).
Claims 8-10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoarinejad et al. (U.S. 2013/0076568 A1) in view of Christopher (U.S. 2008/0042836 A1) in view of Heikkila et al. (U.S. 9,125,019 B1).
Claim 8, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein each of the first raw locations of the stream of signals and the second raw locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value.
Heikkila teaches:
Wherein each of the first raw locations of the stream of signals and the second raw locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value (Heikkila, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, Each of the locations 218 in the probability map 201 are indicated as probability scores, wherein the higher the score the higher the probability of a device being at the particular location, wherein the probability score is functionally equivalent to a confidence value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of probability map and probability scores, as taught by Heikkila.
The motivation would be to use the advantages of the probability map for rapidly and efficiently estimating locations of particular objects (Heikkila, Col. 14, Lines 27-35).
Claim 9, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein calculating the first location comprises generating a probability map using the first raw locations of the stream of signals and their corresponding confidence values (Heikkila, Fig. 2: 201, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, The probability map includes locations 218 which are indicated as probability scores.).
Claim 10, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein calculating the second location comprises generating a probability map using the second raw locations of the stream of signals and their corresponding confidence values (Heikkila, Fig. 2: 201, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, The probability map includes locations 218 which are indicated as probability scores.).
Claim 20, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein each of the first raw locations of the stream of signals and the second raw locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value.
Heikkila teaches:
Wherein each of the first raw locations of the stream of signals and the second raw locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value (Heikkila, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, Each of the locations 218 in the probability map 201 are indicated as probability scores, wherein the higher the score the higher the probability of a device being at the particular location, wherein the probability score is functionally equivalent to a confidence value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of probability map and probability scores, as taught by Heikkila.
The motivation would be to use the advantages of the probability map for rapidly and efficiently estimating locations of particular objects (Heikkila, Col. 14, Lines 27-35).
Claim 21, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein calculating the first location comprises generating a probability map using the first raw locations of the stream of signals and their corresponding confidence values (Heikkila, Fig. 2: 201, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, The probability map includes locations 218 which are indicated as probability scores.).
Claim 22, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein calculating the second location comprises generating a probability map using the second raw locations of the stream of signals and their corresponding confidence values (Heikkila, Fig. 2: 201, Col. 14, Lines 10-23, The probability map includes locations 218 which are indicated as probability scores.).
Claims 11-12 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoarinejad et al. (U.S. 2013/0076568 A1) in view of Christopher (U.S. 2008/0042836 A1) in view of Best et al. (U.S. 2011/0043373 A1).
Claim 11, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the first raw locations of the signals from the plurality of tag readers.
Best teaches:
Wherein the location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the locations of the signals of tags (Best, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of a weight average of locations of tags, as taught by Best.
The motivation would be to utilize a robust, simple, and reasonably accurate method of location determination (see Best, Paragraph [0048]).
Claim 12, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher further teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein the second location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the second raw locations of the stream of signals from the plurality of tag readers.
Best teaches:
Wherein the location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the locations of the signals of tags (Best, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of a weight average of locations of tags, as taught by Best.
The motivation would be to utilize a robust, simple, and reasonably accurate method of location determination (see Best, Paragraph [0048]).
Claim 23, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the first raw locations of the stream of signals from the plurality of tag readers.
Best teaches:
Wherein the location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the locations of the signals of tags (Best, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of a weight average of locations of tags, as taught by Best.
The motivation would be to utilize a robust, simple, and reasonably accurate method of location determination (see Best, Paragraph [0048]).
Claim 24, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein the second location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the second raw locations of the stream of signals from the plurality of tag readers.
Best teaches:
Wherein the location is determined by calculating a weighted average of the locations of the signals of tags (Best, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shoarinejad in view of Christopher by integrating the teaching of a weight average of locations of tags, as taught by Best.
The motivation would be to utilize a robust, simple, and reasonably accurate method of location determination (see Best, Paragraph [0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument on Page 11 that the cited references fail to teach determining the location (of the tag or object) based on multiple locations, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0110] of Shoarinejad discloses the process of the plurality of RFID readers receiving backscattered signals from tag 101A. The readers repeat their RF signal transmissions at frequent time intervals (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the repeated RF signal transmissions, and their corresponding received backscattered signals, represent a plurality of location determinations based on the received backscattered signals.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach a first and second process, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., first and second process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As disclosed in Paragraph [0114] of Shoarinejad, a tag may be determined to be moving or stationary, wherein processing required to determine whether a tag is moving or stationary, respectively, is functionally equivalent to a first or second process based on a motion status. The Applicant appears to have a different interpretation of a “process”, however, the claims, in light of the Applicant’s specification, do not inherently or explicitly define the Applicant’s process away from the above interpretation.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 25, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights