Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 4/15/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 4/15/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhatia et.al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0071053).
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 including an NFC tag or an RFID tag, the NFC tag or the RFID tag including 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].
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]).
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 4, 6-7, 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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