Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 1/12/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et.al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0071053), in view of Bridgelall (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0126013)
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Bhatia teaches a master controller configured to communicate with at least one database, the at least one database configured to store information about a plurality of items, the stored information including a location for each of the plurality of items and a unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of items; (the tagging entry is received at a central system, such as the communications component 216 of FIG. 2. At block 304, the tagging entry is stored by the central system in a data store. In one embodiment, the received tagging entry is stored in a look-up table that may store, for example, an identifier associated with the item to be tracked, and data corresponding to the RFID tag. Location data is received at block 306, the location data indicating that the RFID tag of the item has been read by an RFID tag reader, [42-43])
multiple sensors located in an environment, each of the multiple sensors are configured to communicate with the master controller as servant devices, and each of the sensors configured to detect at least one of near field communication (NFC) tags or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags; (he communications component 216 is generally responsible for receiving large amounts of data from the processing unit 218, which receives data from a number of sensor/tag readers, such as RFID tag readers 220, 222, and 224, [37-38, Fig. 2-3),
multiple items located in the environment, each of the multiple items includes an NFC tag or an RFID tag, the NFC tag or the RFID tag includes the unique identifier associated with the item, (identifier associated with the item to be tracked, and data corresponding to the RFID tag, [42-43],
wherein each of the multiple sensors are configured to link with the NFC tag or the RFID tag of at least one of the multiple items to obtain the unique identifier associated with the item, and transmit the unique identifier with the master controller in response to linking with the NFC tag or the RFID tag, and wherein, in response to the master controller receiving the unique identifier from one of the multiple sensors, the master controller is configured to update the location of one of the multiple items corresponding to the unique identifier according to a location of the one of the multiple sensors which transmitted the unique identifier to the master controller, it is determined whether the identifier of the location data matches any of the identifiers of the tagging entries. This could be determined by, for instance, identifying the record-keeping unit that sent the tagging entry associated with the matching identifier and communicating the location data to the identified record-keeping unit… FIG. 2, once the communications component 216 has determined, such as by an algorithm or other logic, to which record-keeping unit(s) the data is to be sent, the data is sent. This allows the record-keeping units 202, 204, and 206 to update their respective records as to where a particular item is located at a particular time. [41-45].
Bhatia substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose each NFC/RFID tag is configured to link with one of the multiple sensors to identify a location if items having the NFC/RFID tag associated with the one of the multiple sensors. Bhatia teaches tracking tagged items and updating location data based on RFID detection.
However, Bridgelall teaches locate items corresponding to the slave units within the area corresponding to the location of each fixed device. The fixed devices are further operated as RFID readers to identify and locate items having RFID tags with respect to the fixed device, [5], determine the location of a slave unit within a particular piconet, [2], he fixed device is further arranged to operate as an RFID tag reader to identify and locate RFID tags on items in the one or more cells, [7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teaches of Bhatia and Bridhelall in order to improve location specificity and associate detected RID tags with particular sensor zones, [1-4].
Regarding claims 2, 17, Bhatia teaches the environment is at least one of a retail environment, a wholesale environment, an inventory management environment or an internet of things (IoT) environment, (an RFID-based inventory management system suitable for various environments, [18-19, 24]).
Regarding claims 3, 18, Bhatia teaches the database is configured to store at least one of a location of the master controller or locations of each of the multiple sensors, (a system where the master controller coordinates multiple RFID sensors, [31, 35]),
Regarding claim 5, Bhatia teaches each of the multiple sensors includes a battery pack configured to power the sensor, (an active/sensor tag may have a battery and periodically transmits its ID signal. Another type of active tag may also have a battery, but the battery is only activated in the presence of an RFID reader, [31-32]).
Regarding claims 8, Bhatia teaches each of the multiple items includes an RFID tag having the unique identifier associated with the item; and each of the multiple sensors is configured to link with the RFID tag to obtain the unique identifier associated with the item, (One use of RFID technology is to automatically identify and track tags attached to different objects, [32]).
Regarding claims 9, Bhatia teaches the at least one database comprises a cloud server database; and the cloud server database is configured to store at least one of product description data for each of the multiple items, tag identification data for each of the multiple items, product age data for each of the multiple items, time in residence data for each of the multiple items, or universal product code (UPC) data for each of the multiple items, [31-35].
Regarding claim 10, Bhatia teaches wherein a first one of the multiple sensors is located in a first area of the environment, and the master controller is configured to: detect a first placement location of a first one of the multiple items in the first area of a retail environment, in response to the first one of the multiple sensors linking with the first one of the multiple items; record the first placement location of the first one of the multiple items into the database according to the unique identifier associated with the first one of the multiple items, detect a lift of the first one of the multiple items in response to the first one of the multiple sensors failing to link with the first one of the multiple items for a set period of time; and record the lift of the first one of the multiple items into the database, (a second tagging entry may be received from a second record-keeping unit, the second tagging entry indicating that a second item has been tagged with an RFID tag. The second tagging entry may comprise at least an identifier associated with the second item. The second tagging entry, like the first tagging entry, may be stored in the data store. A second set of location data is received indicating that the RFID tag of the item has been read by an RFID tag reader, [44], location doesn’t match [44-46], time, [36]).
Regarding claim 11, Bhatia teaches a second one of the multiple sensors is located in a second area of the environment, the second area of the environment different than the first area of the environment; and the master controller is configured to: subsequent to detecting and recording the lift, detect a second placement location of the first one of the multiple items in the second area of the retail environment, in response to the second one of the multiple sensors linking with the item, and record the second placement location of the first one of the multiple items in the database as a relocation event of the first one of the multiple items, according to the unique identifier, 44-46].
Regarding claim 12, Bhatia teaches the master controller is configured to, subsequent to recording the relocation event, record an item return event in response to detecting that the first one of the multiple items has linked with the first one of the multiple sensors, (a system where RFID sensors detect the presence and absence, [46]).
Claims 4, 6-7, 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia and Bridgelall combination, in view of the design choice.
Regarding claim 4, 19, Bhatia teaches each of the multiple sensors are configured to communicate with the master controller via at least one of a wireless antenna and a BLUETOOTH interface, (the use of wireless communication for data transmission between RFID sensors and the master controller. While Bluetooth is not explicitly mentioned, the use of wireless communication encompasses Bluetooth technology, [32]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of another type of a wireless method would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the system already disclosed by Bhatia.
Regarding claims 6, 20, Bhatia does not explicitly disclose the master controller includes a battery pack configured to power the master controller. However, incorporating a battery pack into the master controller for uninterrupted operation is a conventional design choice in RFID systems, which renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Bhatia does not explicitly disclose each of the multiple items includes an NFC tag having the unique identifier associated with the item; and each of the multiple sensors is configured to link with the NFC tag to obtain the unique identifier associated with the item. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to use of NFC tags as an alternative to RFID tags, as a subset of RFID in the context of item tracking.
Regarding claim 15, Bhatia does not explicitly disclose the master controller is a low power microcontroller. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to use a low-power microcontroller for the master controller as a conventional design choice in RFID systems to ensure energy efficiency.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia and Bridgelall combination, in view of Calvarese et.al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0079571).
Regarding claim 13, Bhatia does not explicitly teach the set period of time is at least sixty seconds. However, Calvarese teaches timeout period “60 seconds” for RFID reader duty cycle, (it is determined whether a first time period (e.g. 60 seconds) has elapsed since a successful read). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bhatia and Calvarese in order to cause a reduction in duty cycle as time passes during autonomous mode, [53].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia and Bridgelall combination, in view of Stilp (U.S. Patent No. 7,053,764).
Regarding claim 14, Bhatia does not explicitly teach the master controller is a first master controller; the system further comprises a second master controller; and the second master controller is configured to communicate with a portion of the multiple sensors.
However, Stilp teaches power line carrier communications between the RFID readers and one or more controllers, Col.4 ln 59-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teaches of Bhatia and Stilp in order to allocate subsets of sensors to different controllers for scalability or load balancing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Bridgelall reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner further addresses Applicant arguments which are not persuasive.
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 deterministic 1:1, exclusive sensor association, constrained fields, elimination of triangulation, absence of RSSI processing or binary placement verification are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Applicant’s arguments regarding triangulation, multipath interference, power consumptions, continuous pinging and deterministic placement chains are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because such limitations are not positively recited.
Bhatia teaches RFID readers positioned at known physical locations where location data is generated when a particular RFID reader reads a tag and already teaches determining item locations based on association with a particular reader. The Examiner relies on Bridgelall reference for teaching direct tag association in which a tag communicated with a particular reader within range reinforcing the claimed “link with one of the multiple sensors” limitation.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant focuses arguments on the operation of Bhatia based on continuous triangulation requirements. The Examiner’s rationale for adding a battery pack is straightforward. Maintaining operation during interruptions, backup power, portability are conventional engineering motivations. The arguments regarding “battery lasting years, multiple replacement per week, constant pinging” are not supported by claim limitations. Adding battery backup to network controllers was conventional well before the filing date of this invention.
Regarding claim 13, the argument is not persuasive. Calvarese teaches determining whether a specified time interval such as 60s has elapsed since a successful RFID read in order to modify RFID operational behavior which Examiner relies on for the general teaching of time-based RFID operational control. “Hunting methodology”, triangulation and broken system are not withing the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the argument is not persuasive. “1 million message round trips” and “single payload change events” are not supported by the actual claim language. Stilp teaches multiple controllers communicating with RFID readers and the Examiner reasonable concludes that allocating subsets of sensors among multiple controllers would have been obvious scalability and load balancing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights