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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-16 are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 2 of the application is anticipated by claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 3 of the application is anticipated by claim 3 of the patent.
Claim 4 of the application is anticipated by claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 5 of the application is anticipated by claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 6 of the application is anticipated by claim 6 of the patent.
Claim 17 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 18 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 19 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 20 of the application is anticipated by claim 20 of the patent.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,582 in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
Claim 1 of the patent anticipates most of the features recited in claim 7 of the application. However claim 1 of the patent fails to explicitly teach wherein wirelessly detecting the network identifier and the product identifier that were wirelessly transmitted by the item at the geographic location comprises wirelessly detecting a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize RFID for transmission of information by an item.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to claim 1 of the patent to help improve the energy efficiency of the wireless transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0252405 (Bales et al.).
The applied reference has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claims 1 and 17, Bales teaches a wireless communication network comprising:
a wireless radio (411, fig 4) to wirelessly detect a network identifier and a product identifier that were wirelessly transmitted by an item (401, fig 4) at a geographic location (see paragraph 27, 5GID and GTIN sent by item 401 to transceiver 411);
receiver circuitry to select an Application Programming Interface (API) based on the network identifier, wherein the selected API is associated with a wireless network slice (see paragraph 27, based on received 5GID, API selected for slice X);
the receiver circuitry to generate an API call based on the selected API, wherein the API call indicates the product identifier and the geographic location for the item (see paragraph 27, API call comprising GTIN and location generated); and
the receiver circuitry to transfer the API call for delivery to the wireless network slice (see paragraph 27, API call sent for slice X).
As to claim 2, Bales further teaches wherein selecting the API based on the network identifier comprises selecting the API based on the product identifier and the network identifier (see paragraph 27, API called based on GTIN and 5GID).
As to claim 3, Bales further teaches wherein selecting the API based on the network identifier comprises selecting the API based on the geographic location and the network identifier (see paragraph 27, API called based on location and 5GID).
As to claim 5, Bales further teaches wherein generating the API call that indicates the product identifier and the geographic location for the item based on the selected API comprises generating the API call that indicates the network identifier, the product identifier, and the geographic location for the item based on the selected API (see paragraph 27, API call indicates 5GID, GTIN and location).
As to claims 6 and 20, Bales further teaches where the product identifier comprises a Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) (see paragraph 27).
As to claim 7, Bales further teaches wherein wirelessly detecting the network identifier and the product identifier that were wirelessly transmitted by the item at the geographic location comprises wirelessly detecting a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (see paragraph 20).
As to claim 18, Bales further teaches a network controller (422, fig 4) to authenticate the receiver circuitry, and in response, to transfer the selected API to the receiver circuitry (see paragraph 26, AMF 422 authenticates transceiver 411).
As to claim 19, Bales further teaches the wireless network slice to receive the API call from the receiver circuitry; the wireless network slice to select an application that is associated with the item based on the product identifier for the item; and the wireless network slice to transfer the product identifier and the geographic location for the item for delivery to selected application (see paragraphs 25-27, slice X delivers API call information to dAPP).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights