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 and request for continued examination filed 06/04/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-28 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, as amended, recites “locations of the stream of signals from the”. For purposes of examination only, the limitation will be interpreted similarly to claim 12: “locations of the stream of signals”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 13-16, 18, and 25-26 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 Austin (U.S. 2014/0285324 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, wherein 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.) and each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first position parameter of the object determined by a first tag reader, a second position parameter of the object determined by a second tag reader (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The plurality of RFID readers transmit their position parameters, e.g. distances, latitudes/longitudes, altitudes, coordinates (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0111]), to the computer system 130. It is noted that the location software 131 for determining the position of the tag (using the position parameters) may be included as a software component on one or more readers.);
determining a first motion status of the object (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 position of the object using the locations 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 position of the object as a true position of the object (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 position of the object using the locations 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 position of the object as a true position of the object (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 position 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 and each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first location of the object determined by a first tag reader, a second location of the object determined by a second tag reader, and a timestamp;
wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window;
the second process is associated with a second computing window; and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window;
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the first process during the first computing window; and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the second process during the second computing window.
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.
As per the limitations of a first location of the object determined by a first tag reader and a second location of the object determined by a second tag reader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the RFID readers including location software 131 to include at least a first and second tag reader (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112]). The RFID readers equipped with location software 131 have similar capabilities to the server 130 for using the measured position parameters to determine the location of the tag. Thus, such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Christopher teaches:
RFID tag data including raw locations 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]).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window;
the second process is associated with a second computing window; and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window;
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the first process during the first computing window; and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the second process during the second computing window.
Austin teaches:
Wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043], When a tag is indicated as moving, the RFID reader reduces a period of the interrogation transmissions, thereby decreasing the time between interrogation transmissions, i.e. decreasing the computing window for determining tag location.);
the second process is associated with a second computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043], When a tag is indicated as stationary, the RFID reader increases a period of the interrogation transmissions, thereby increasing the time between interrogation transmissions, i.e. increasing the computing window for determining tag location.); and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
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 periods of interrogation transmissions, as taught by Austin.
The motivation would be to better track movement of the tag, thereby saving communication overhead and reducing the possibility of interference (see Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin further teaches:
In response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations 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.) during the first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]); and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations 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.)during the second computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
Claim 2, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin 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”.), wherein the new signal comprises a new first location of the object determined by the first tag reader, a new second location of the object determined by the second tag reader (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], In the embodiment wherein at least the first and second readers are equipped with the location software 131, subsequent positions of the tag determined by the readers utilizing the location software 131 are “new” locations.), and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006]);
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 a second motion status of the object using the new signal and the true position (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 position of the object using 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 position of the object as the updated true position (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 position of the object using 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 position of the object as the updated true position (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 position 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, in view of Austin 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, in view of Austin further teaches:
The system of claim 3, the steps further comprising:
predicting an updated first position of the object based on determining that 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, in view of Austin 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 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, wherein 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.) and each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first position parameter of the object determined by a first tag reader, a second position parameter of the object determined by a second tag reader (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], The plurality of RFID readers transmit their position parameters, e.g. distances, latitudes/longitudes, altitudes, coordinates (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0111]), to the computer system 130. It is noted that the location software 131 for determining the position of the tag (using the position parameters) may be included as a software component on one or more readers.);
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 (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 position of the object using the locations 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 position of the object as a true position of the object (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 position of the object using the second locations 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 position of the object as a true position of the object (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 position 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 and each signal within the stream of signals comprises a first location of the object determined by a first tag reader, a second location of the object determined by a second tag reader, and a timestamp;
wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window;
the second process is associated with a second computing window; and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window;
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the first process during the first computing window; and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the second process during the second computing window.
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.
As per the limitations of a first location of the object determined by a first tag reader and a second location of the object determined by a second tag reader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the RFID readers including location software 131 to include at least a first and second tag reader (see Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112]). The RFID readers equipped with location software 131 have similar capabilities to the server 130 for using the measured position parameters to determine the location of the tag. Thus, such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Christopher teaches:
RFID tag data including raw locations 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]).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window;
the second process is associated with a second computing window; and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window;
in response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the first process during the first computing window; and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations of the stream of signals in the second process during the second computing window.
Austin teaches:
Wherein:
the first process is associated with a first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043], When a tag is indicated as moving, the RFID reader reduces a period of the interrogation transmissions, thereby decreasing the time between interrogation transmissions, i.e. decreasing the computing window for determining tag location.);
the second process is associated with a second computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043], When a tag is indicated as stationary, the RFID reader increases a period of the interrogation transmissions, thereby increasing the time between interrogation transmissions, i.e. increasing the computing window for determining tag location.); and
the second computing window is longer than the first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
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 periods of interrogation transmissions, as taught by Austin.
The motivation would be to better track movement of the tag, thereby saving communication overhead and reducing the possibility of interference (see Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin further teaches:
In response to the assignment to the first process:
calculating a first position of the object using the locations 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.) during the first computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]); and
in response to the assignment to the second process:
calculating a second position of the object using the locations 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.)during the second computing window (Austin, Paragraph [0043]).
Claim 14, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin further teaches:
The method of claim 13, 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”.), wherein the new signal comprises a new first location of the object determined by the first tag reader, a new second location of the object determined by the second tag reader (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0112], In the embodiment wherein at least the first and second readers are equipped with the location software 131, subsequent positions of the tag determined by the readers utilizing the location software 131 are “new” locations.), and a timestamp (Christopher, Paragraph [0006]);
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 a second motion status of the object using the new signal and the true position (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 position of the object using 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 position of the object as the updated true position of the object (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 position of the object using 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 position of the object as the updated true position of the object (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 position 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, in view of Austin 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, in view of Austin further teaches:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: predicting an updated first position of the object based on determining that 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, in view of Austin 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 25, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin further teaches:
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.).
Claim 26, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher, in view of Austin further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the first motion status of the object includes comparing a previously determined position of the object and the first position of the object (Shoarinejad, Paragraph [0114], The velocity and the direction of the velocity is obtained from using the previous time interval position and the current position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a comparison to be made between the previous time interval position and the current position to determine the velocity and direction of velocity.).
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 Austin (U.S. 2014/0285324 A1) in view of Marsee (U.S. 2018/03370780 A1).
Claim 5, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin teaches:
The system of claim 2, the steps further comprising:
determining a moving speed of the object from the updated first position of the object 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 in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed; and
in response to the moving speed exceeding 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 exceeding 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 in view of Austin 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 in view of Austin teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining a moving speed of the object from the updated first position of the object 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 in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Comparing the moving speed of the object to a maximum speed; and
in response to the moving speed exceeding 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 exceeding 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 in view of Austin 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 Austin (U.S. 2014/0285324 A1) in view of Heikkila et al. (U.S. 9,125,019 B1).
Claim 8, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein each of the first locations of the stream of signals and the second locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value.
Heikkila teaches:
Wherein each of the first locations of the stream of signals and the second 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 in view of Austin 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 Austin, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein calculating the first position comprises generating a probability map using the 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 Austin, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein calculating the second position comprises generating a probability map using the 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 in view of Austin teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher does not specifically teach:
Wherein each of the first locations of the stream of signals and the second locations of the stream of signals has a corresponding confidence value.
Heikkila teaches:
Wherein each of the first locations of the stream of signals and the second 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 in view of Austin 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 Austin, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein calculating the first position comprises generating a probability map using the 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 Austin, in view of Heikkila further teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein calculating the second position comprises generating a probability map using the 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, 23-24, and 27-28 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 Austin (U.S. 2014/0285324 A1) in view of Best et al. (U.S. 2011/0043373 A1).
Claim 11, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first position is calculated by calculating a first weighted average of the locations of the stream of signals from the plurality of tag readers.
Best teaches:
Wherein the position is calculated 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 in view of Austin 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 in view of Austin further teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Wherein the second position is calculated by calculating a second weighted average of the locations of the stream of signals.
Best teaches:
Wherein the position is calculated 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 in view of Austin 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 in view of Austin teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first position is calculated by calculating a first weighted average of the locations of the stream of signals.
Best teaches:
Wherein the position is calculated 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 in view of Austin 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 in view of Austin teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin does not specifically teach:
Wherein the second position is calculated by calculating a second weighted average of the locations of the stream of signals.
Best teaches:
Wherein the position is calculated 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 in view of Austin 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 27, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin in view of Best further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein calculating the first weighted average includes assigning higher weights to more recent signals of the stream of signals (Best, Paragraphs [0047-0048], In the example of Fig. 3B, weighting factors are assigned to each position of tags 415, 420, 425, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the signals from tags 415, 420, and 425 to be the most recent signals received by the RFID reader, wherein the weighting factors assigned to each tag is thus higher, e.g. greater than 0, than other signals previously received from said RFID reader as the reader moves.).
Claim 28, Shoarinejad in view of Christopher in view of Austin in view of Best further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein calculating the second weighted average includes assigning even weights to all signals of the stream of signals (Best, Paragraphs [0047-0048], In the example of Fig. 3B, weighting factors are assigned to each position of tags 415, 420, 425, respectively. The received signal strength, or a function of the received signal strength determines the weighting factors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for it to be within the scope of the teachings of Best for the received signal strength to be equal among the tags 415, 420, and 425, e.g. if the RFID reader is the same distance away from each tag, thereby causing the weighting factors to be equal. Such a modification would not change the operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
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