DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) the Applicant purports that the limitation “responsive to a determination at the tag reader of at least one transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag based on the at least one received packet, determining information regarding the location of the tag” is not indefinite. In support of this position the Applicant argues, “When parsed correctly, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the step recited in the claim element at issue is determining information regarding the location of the tag.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Applicant intends the limitation to be parsed “correctly” in a particular manner, the claim language is not sufficient to explicitly define one single interpretation of the limitation. Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine) defines the word “determining” as a polyseme. As a polyseme, the word “determining” has multiple related meanings including: to fix conclusively or authoritatively, to fix the form beforehand, to fix the boundaries of, or to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation. In context and as particularly claimed, it is unclear if the term refers to selecting or choosing the transmission rate at the tag reader or if the tag reader identifies the transmission rate. MPEP 2173.01(I) states, “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. ... Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” The Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification indicates that the tag reader does in fact identify the transmission rate; however, the broadly recited term “determining” is not explicitly clarified in the specification as a special definition. The paragraph that the applicant cites in their remarks simply provides a positive recitation that the tag reader identifies the transmission rate, it does not explicitly define the indefinite word. MPEP 2173 states, “providing high quality patents is one of the agency’s guiding principles. The Office recognizes that issuing patents with clear and definite claim language is a key component to enhancing the quality of patents and raising confidence in the patent process.” As the limitation is neither clear nor definite, the Examiner maintains the 112b rejection.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 2 the Applicant purports that the claim language is not indefinite. In support of this position the Applicant particularly argues, “The Office Action's rejection seems to relate more to 112(a) but Applicants do not see any problem as the invention as claimed is fully disclosed. While Applicants understand that the claim language is somewhat complicated, it is clear the there are four different signals referred to and each has its own energy level, which is an easy way to track them.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For clarity of the record and to aid the Applicant’s appreciation of the rejection, it is initially noted that “the claim language must be ‘definite’ to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Conversely, a claim that does not comply with this requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is ‘indefinite’” MPEP 2173. Alternatively, “35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the ‘specification shall contain a written description of the invention’ MPEP 2163(I). The previously filled action does not reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the written description provided by the specification is not at issue. The previously filled rejection does, however, indicate that the term “second wireless signal” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regardless of the purported complexity of the claim language, the term “second wireless signal” is recited twice as being transmitted at different known energies (“third” and “fourth” energies) within the same time window (“second” time window). As claimed, is unclear if the first and second “second wireless signal” are the same signal transmitted at different energies or are entirely different signals. The transmission sequence has not been identified in the previous rejection, or the rejection below, as being indefinite; the “second wireless signal” is indefinite. As the Applicant has not provided argument or evidence to the contrary, the Examiner maintains the 112b rejection.
On pages 11 and 12 of their remarks, the Applicant repeats the above argument, addressing the claimed “second wireless signal,” and applies it to the 112(b) rejection of “transmitting during the time window by at least one additional tag reader at least one additional wireless signal having a controlled, known second energy” and “transmitting, during the second time window, by the at least one additional tag reader, at least an additional second wireless signal having a controlled, known fourth energy” as recited by claim 2. In doing so, the Applicant fails to address the particular rejection regarding each limitation. MPEP 2173 states “Such a rejection requires that the applicant respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance.” As the Applicant has failed to respond or amend the particular limitations at issue the Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection. For clarity of the record it is additionally noted that the previously filled office action does not reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the written description provided by the specification is not at issue. After applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitations are unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
With respect to claim 4 the Applicant purports that the limitation “the transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number in each of the at least one received packet” is not indefinite. In support of this position the Applicant argues that, “It must be recalled that ‘based on’ does not mean that what is the recited basis is the only basis. Clearly, the transmission rate is determined based in the number of packets transmitted per unit time.” The fact that the term “based on” indicates inclusion without exclusion does not allow the Applicant to import unclaimed subject matter into the claims. The transmission rate is not clearly determined based in the number of packets transmitted per unit time as this is not claimed. Although a transmission rate necessarily relies upon the rate that packets are transmitted, claims 4 and 5 clearly disclose that the transmission rate is determined “based on a packet number in each of the at least one received packet.” Further, the Applicant is respectfully reminded that the inclusivity of the term “based on” was not indicated as indefinite. The previously filled office action particularly indicates that the claimed “packet number” is indefinite. It is unclear what the term refers to as it may refer to either a total number of packets each tag will transmit or an index for the specific packet that has been transmitted in a sequence of packets. On page 13 of the arguments, the Applicant additionally explains that “sometimes a packet is transmitted but not received. Nevertheless, such packet should be counted. Therefore, one cannot rely only on counting the number of packets actually received but must somehow also account for the packets transmitted but not received. This can be done by looking at the packet numbers of the packets received and recognizing that any gaps in such numbers represent one or more packets that were transmitted but not received and should therefore be counted” citing paragraph 28 of the instant specification for support. This does not resolve the fact that neither the claims nor the specifications explicitly define the term “packet number.” MPEP 2173.01(I) states “Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” An embodiment in the specification disclosing the step of “looking at the packet numbers of the packets received” does not constitute a special definition of the term “packet number.” The Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection.
With respect to claim 9 the Applicant argues that the claim language is clear and supported by the instant specification. In support of this position the Applicant argues that the “sequence called for in the claim” is explained in paragraphs 21-27 of the specification. The Examiner finds this argument insufficient as the “sequence called for in the claim” was not indicated as indefinite. Page 5 of the previously filled office action explicitly indicates that the step of changing the “prescribed energy” is indefinite. As explained in greater detail above, the MPEP 2173 states “Such a rejection requires that the applicant respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance.” As the Applicant has failed to respond or amend the particular limitations at issue the Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 under Fischer, the Applicant purports that the prior art fails to teach, “responsive to a determination at the tag reader of at least one transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag based on the at least one received packet window determining information regarding the location of the tag” as recited by claim 1. In support of this position the Applicant argues that “while Fischer teaches various techniques to determine tag location, merely teaching to determine tag location is insufficient to teach the specific claim language, i.e., how the location is determined. In this regard, there is no recognition in Fischer of the operative principle of the invention as claimed, namely, that a battery-less wireless tag's location is determined based on the wireless tag's transmitting rate as correlated with a change in the transmit power level of at least one tag reader, which is what the claim as currently drafted is directed to.” In response the Applicant is reminded that the claim does not disclose that the location of the tag is determined in response to a determination of a transmission rate of packets or “that a battery-less wireless tag's location is determined based on the wireless tag's transmitting rate as correlated with a change in the transmit power level of at least one tag reader.” The claim explicitly discloses that “information regarding the location of the tag” is determined “responsive to a determination at the tag reader of at least one transmission rate of packets.” The phrase “information regarding the location of the tag” and “a battery-less wireless tag's location” are not synonymous. Information regarding a location is recited at a high level of generality and only limits identifying information related to the location of the tag. It is noted that it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced MicroDevicesInc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Further, Fischer discloses on paragraph [0393], “control packets containing time slot assignment information for a particular reader may also carry information relating to anticipated time slot assignments for the reader. […] It is noted that such reader control packets may further include other control information such as the transmit power, bit rate, and other protocol information regarding singulation and/or specific tag targets.” Time slot assignment information refers to the transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag identified by the tag reader. Information regarding singulation and/or specific tag targets is required to identify the location of a tag among a plurality of tags, which is information related to the location of the tag. The Examiner maintains the art rejection. It is additionally noted that it is for the Applicants’ benefit that portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited in order to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “responsive to a determination at the tag reader of at least one transmission rate of packets.” A review of the specification sets forth the term ”determination”. As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the term ”determination” is intended to mean that the transmission rate is selected or identified at the tag reader. Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [00041], “As reader 505 moves, the energizing power received by each of tags 507 will change, and hence so will their corresponding transmission rate. Thus, a new determination may be made.” It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “determination” and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the term “determination” in claim 1 will be interpreted to mean “identification.”
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “transmitting, during the second time window, by the at least one additional tag reader, at least an additional second wireless signal having a controlled, known fourth energy” as recited on lines 11 and 12 of claim 2. A review of the specification sets forth the term ”additional second wireless signal.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. Lines 9 and 10 of claim 2 recite the transmission of a “second wireless signal.” As claimed it is unclear if the “second wireless signal” recited on lines 11 and 12 is different from the similar recitation on lines 9 and 10. Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [00010], “transmitting, by the mobile tag reader, during a time window, at least one wireless signal having a controlled known energy;” however, the Examiner cannot find further clarification on the term. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “second wireless signal” and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the “second wireless signals” in claim 2 will be interpreted refer to separate signals.
Claim 2 recites, “ transmitting during the time window by at least one additional tag reader at least one additional wireless signal having a controlled, known second energy.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. A review of the specification sets forth the term "additional wireless signal." Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [0008], “transmitting by each of the plurality of tag readers an energizing signal for the battery-less wireless tag during each of a plurality of time windows, wherein the energizing signal transmitted by each respective one of the plurality of tag readers is transmitted with its own a prescribed energy.” Paragraph [0008] discloses that each tag reader transmits a signal in its own time window. The Examiner cannot find a disclosure wherein the additional tag readers transmit within the initial time window. It is unclear what signals are explicitly transmitted during which window. It suggested that the Applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed "additional wireless signal" and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification.
Claim 2 further recites, “transmitting, during the second time window, by the at least one additional tag reader, at least an additional second wireless signal having a controlled, known fourth energy.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. A review of the specification sets forth the term " an additional second wireless signal." Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [0008], “transmitting by each of the plurality of tag readers an energizing signal for the battery-less wireless tag during each of a plurality of time windows, wherein the energizing signal transmitted by each respective one of the plurality of tag readers is transmitted with its own a prescribed energy.” Paragraph [0008] discloses that each tag reader transmits a signal in its own time window. The above limitation discloses wherein additional tag readers transmit in the second time window. The second time window already contains the transmission of the previously claimed “third energy” signal. The Examiner cannot find a disclosure wherein the additional tag readers transmits additional signals in the second time window. It is unclear what signals are explicitly transmitted during which window. It suggested that the Applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed "additional wireless signal" and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification.
Regarding claim 4 and similarly claims 5, 12, and 17 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “the transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number in each of the at least one received pack.” A review of the specification sets forth the term ”packet number.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the claimed “packet number” refers to a total number of packets each tag will transmit or an index for the specific packet that has been transmitted in a sequence of packets. Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [00028], “The actual number of tags transmitted by tag 107 may be deduced by taking into account the packet number included in each transmitted packet. For example, if a packet number of a first received packet is 84 and the next received packet number is 87, it can be deduced that even though only two packets were received, in actuality four packets were transmitted,” suggesting that the term refers to an index for each received packet. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “packet number” and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the “packet number” will be interpreted refer to an index for each received packet.
Regarding claim 9 and similarly claim 14 , it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “wherein the prescribed energy of at least one of the energizing signals in at least one of the time windows is changed with respect to one of the time windows preceding the at least one of the time windows.” As claimed the limitation “changed with respect to one of the time windows preceding the at least one of the time windows“ is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear what is explicitly meant my changing the “prescribed energy” is with respect to one of “the time windows preceding the at least one of the time windows.” Review of the specification reveals both that the “As reader 505 moves, the energizing power received by each of tags 507 will change” [00041] and “changing the output power of the reader simulates changes in channel loss” [00037]. It is not clear if the limitation refers to a change in received energy is due to a moving tag, or if the output power is manually adjusted. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “changed” and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted refer to manually adjusting output power.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15 and 17-18 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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)(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 1-3,6-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer(US20060022815A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses
A method for determining a location of a battery-less wireless tag by a tag reader (“ a passive tag powered by inductive coupling, receiving induced power from RF signals transmitted by an RFID reader” [0008]) being at a fixed-location (“the tags attached to these items or individuals may be mobile or stationary, i.e., moving or disposed at fixed locations in the environment” [0014]), comprising: transmitting, by the tag reader, at least one wireless signal having a controlled known energy (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]); receiving at the tag reader at least one packet transmitted by the tag (“Each of the plurality of readers 10.1-10.q included in the system architecture 100 (see FIG. 1) is configured to […] to receive RF signals comprising tag data from the tag(s) in response to the message packet [0074]) within a time window (“The window of time to determine concurrency is called the locating or observation window. “ [0193]); responsive to a determination at the tag reader of at least one transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag based on the at least one received packet window (“ the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI)” [0273] & “the directions of tag movement can be determined by subjecting power measurement samples to pattern matching” [0273]), determining information regarding the location of the tag (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer discloses wherein, the transmitting of the at least one wireless signal having the controlled known energy, which is a first energy, is performed during the time window, the method further comprising: transmitting during the time window by at least one additional tag reader at least one additional wireless signal having a controlled, known second energy (“coordinate multiple readers occupying the same general vicinity within a site or facility and connected through a wired or wireless network such that the readers are time-multiplexed and frequency-multiplexed, and their transmit power is adjusted for desired tasks at specific times” [0168]), the at least one transmission rate of packets includes a first transmission rate by the wireless tag that is determined based on the at least one packet received from the wireless tag for the time window transmitting, (“ the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI)” [0273]) by the tag reader, at least a second wireless signal having a controlled known third energy during a second time window (“adaptively adjusting the transmit power of the reader to estimate the power level and the range where the tag becomes visible” [0073]); transmitting, during the second time window, by the at least one additional tag reader, at least an additional second wireless signal having a controlled, known fourth energy (“Each reader can have multiple operating profile […] In the radar mode, the reader operates on a low duty cycle relative to the tag flux in the particular location [0582]), wherein at least one of the first energy, second energy, third energy, and fourth energy is different from the energy of the others of the first energy, second energy, third energy, and fourth energy (“ transmit power is adjusted for desired tasks at specific times, thereby reducing the likelihood of the transmissions of one reader interfering with the receptions of the other readers “ [0168]) and wherein each of the first energy, second energy, third energy, and fourth energy is an energy that is zero or greater (“The interrogation scheduler sub-component uses this information to assure that the available power is not over-consumed by scheduling too many readers or too much transmit power simultaneously.” [0139]), wherein the transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag during the second time window is determined based on at least one packet received from the wireless tag during the second time window and is a second transmission rate (“The power measure unit 1714 (see FIG. 17b) measures the power of the RF signal received from a tag by the RF receiver 1712,” [0274]); and wherein the at least one transmission rate of packets further includes the second transmission rate (“ the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI)” [0273])
Regarding claim 3, Fischer discloses wherein, fixed location of the tag reader is a known location (“information relating to the reader location can be added to the sequential-interrogator-use history list” [0403]).
Regarding claim 6, Fischer discloses wherein, the information regarding location of the tag is based on a channel loss between the wireless tag and the tag reader (“the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) or any other suitable power measuring device” [0273]), wherein the channel loss is based on at least on the wireless tag's transmission rate versus channel loss characteristic and the transmission rate of packets (“The power measure unit 1714 (see FIG. 17b) measures the power of the RF signal received from a tag by the RF receiver 1712, and provides the power measurements to the Sample Averager” [0274]).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer discloses wherein, the transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag is determined based on packets received during the time window (“The receiver 1712 associated with the reader 1704 receives RF signals from the tags 1708.1-1708.2 in response to the interrogations. The power measure unit 1714 associated with the reader 1704 measures the power corresponding to the received RF signals for each interrogation” [0273]).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer discloses wherein, the battery-less wireless tag is moveable with respect to the tag reader (“the tags attached to these items or individuals may be mobile” [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer discloses
A method for determining a location of a battery-less wireless tag with respect to at least one tag reader of a plurality of tag readers (“ a passive tag powered by inductive coupling, receiving induced power from RF signals transmitted by an RFID reader” [0008] & Fig.1, Parts.12.1-12.p), comprising transmitting by each of the plurality of tag readers an energizing signal for the battery-less wireless tag (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]) during each of a plurality of time windows(“The window of time to determine concurrency is called the locating or observation window. “ [0193]), wherein the energizing signal transmitted by each respective one of the plurality of tag readers is transmitted with its own prescribed energy (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]), wherein each respective prescribed energy is zero or greater (“The interrogation scheduler sub-component uses this information to assure that the available power is not over-consumed by scheduling too many readers or too much transmit power simultaneously.” [0139]), wherein the prescribed energy of at least one of the energizing signals in at least one of the time windows is changed with respect to one of the time windows preceding the at least one of the time windows (“ transmit power is adjusted for desired tasks at specific times, thereby reducing the likelihood of the transmissions of one reader interfering with the receptions of the other readers “ [0168]); and determining a location of the battery-less wireless tag based on a transmission rate of the battery-less wireless tag (“For example, the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) or any other suitable power measuring device” [0273]) in each of at least two of the time windows which include the at least one of the time windows and the one of the time windows preceding the at least one of the time windows (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]).
Regarding claim 10, Fischer discloses
The method of claim 9, wherein the location of the battery-less wireless tag is determined with respect to at least one tag reader of a plurality of tag readers (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer discloses
The method of claim 9, wherein there are at least three tag readers in the plurality and wherein the location of the tag is further based on triangulation when the at least three tag readers have a known location (“ The time difference of these measurements between readers are used to triangulate the location of the tag” [0175]).
Regarding claim 13, Fischer discloses
The method of claim 9, wherein the battery-less wireless tag is moveable with respect to the tag reader (“the tags attached to these items or individuals may be mobile” [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, Fischer discloses
A method for determining a location a of battery-less wireless tag (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]) by correlating a transmission rate of the battery-less wireless tag (“For example, the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) or any other suitable power measuring device” [0273]) with at least one change in the transmit power level of at least one energizing signal transmitted by a respective at least one tag reader (“adaptively adjusting the transmit power of the reader to estimate the power level and the range where the tag becomes visible” [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Fischer discloses
The method of claim 14, wherein the battery-less wireless tag is moveable with respect to the tag reader (“the tags attached to these items or individuals may be mobile” [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer discloses
A method for determining a location of a mobile tag reader (“The array of coordinated readers can also determine the location of a particular reader” [0174]) in an area containing a plurality of battery-less wireless tags that each have a known fixed location (“the tags attached to these items or individuals may be mobile or stationary, i.e., moving or disposed at fixed locations in the environment” [0014]), comprising: transmitting, by the mobile tag reader (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]), during a time window (“The window of time to determine concurrency is called the locating or observation window. “ [0193]), at least one wireless signal having a controlled known energy (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) “ [0009]); receiving at the mobile tag reader at least one packet transmitted by each of one or more of the wireless tags within the time window (“Each of the plurality of readers 10.1-10.q included in the system architecture 100 (see FIG. 1) is configured to […] to receive RF signals comprising tag data from the tag(s) in response to the message packet [0074]); responsive to a determination at the mobile tag reader of a transmission rate of packets from each of the one or more wireless tags of the plurality, which is based on the at least one packet received from each of the one or more of the wireless tags (“ the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI)” [0273]), determining a location of the mobile tag reader (“the process of determining the physical location of a reader includes calculating the time differences of signal arrivals by combining information relating to the time-stamped signal receptions.” [0080])
Regarding claim 18, discloses wherein, there are at least three battery-less wireless tags in the plurality and wherein the location of the mobile tag reader is further based on triangulation with respect to the known fixed location of at least three of the battery-less wireless tags (“ The time difference of these measurements between readers are used to triangulate the location of the tag” [0175]).
Regarding claim 19, Fischer discloses
A system for determining a location of a battery-less wireless tag, comprising: a processing circuitry (FIG.2b, Part 224) ; and a memory, the memory containing instructions(“elements of the system architecture 100 may be embodied in whole or in part using hardware or software or some combination thereof […] memory” [0060]) that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to: transmit at least one wireless signal having a controlled known energy (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]); receive at least one packet transmitted by the tag within a time window (“Each of the plurality of readers 10.1-10.q included in the system architecture 100 (see FIG. 1) is configured to […] to receive RF signals comprising tag data from the tag(s) in response to the message packet [0074] & “The window of time to determine concurrency is called the locating or observation window. “ [0193]); and responsive to a determination of at least one transmission rate of packets by the wireless tag based on the at least one received packet (“ the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) “ [0273]), determine information regarding the location of the tag (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]).
Regarding claim 20, Fischer discloses
A system for determining a location of a mobile tag reader in an area containing a plurality of battery-less wireless tags that each have a known fixed location, comprising: a processing circuitry (FIG.2b, Part 224); and a memory, the memory containing instructions that (“elements of the system architecture 100 may be embodied in whole or in part using hardware or software or some combination thereof […] memory” [0060]), when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to: transmit, during a time window, at least one wireless signal having a controlled known energy (“setting of various parameters (e.g., the transmit power) employed by the reader during the interrogation sequence” [0009]); receive at the mobile tag reader at least one packet transmitted by each of one or more of the wireless tags within the time window (“Each of the plurality of readers 10.1-10.q included in the system architecture 100 (see FIG. 1) is configured to […] to receive RF signals comprising tag data from the tag(s) in response to the message packet [0074] & “The window of time to determine concurrency is called the locating or observation window. “ [0193]) responsive to a determined transmission rate of packets from each of the one or more wireless tags of the plurality, which is based on the at least one packet received from each of the one or more of the wireless tags (“the power measure unit 1714 may comprise a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI)” [0273]), determine a location of the mobile tag reader (“readers can also identify the locations of tags within a predetermined area using coordinated RF transmissions” [0176]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer(US20060022815A1) in view of KIM(KR100738485B1).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Fischer does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number. Kim discloses wherein, the transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number in each of the at least one received packet (“a part of the leader command packet, provides synchronization to the tag, and the clock cycle T0 determines the tag's transmission rate.” [Page.8, ll.8-9]).
KIM teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer with the teachings of KIM to incorporate the feature of determining the transmission rate of packets with a packet number so as to gain the advantage of reducing tag recognition time [Page.8 Par.1 Kim]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Fischer does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number. Kim discloses wherein, the transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number (“a part of the leader command packet, provides synchronization to the tag, and the clock cycle T0 determines the tag's transmission rate.” [Page.8, ll.8-9]) in at least one received packet in a prior time window (“The third step is when the leader command packet is transmitted to the tag.” [Page.8, ll.3-4])
KIM teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer with the teachings of KIM to incorporate the feature of determining the transmission rate of packets with a packet number so as to gain the advantage of reducing tag recognition time [Page.8 Par.1 Kim]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Fischer does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number. KIM discloses wherein, transmission rate of the battery-less wireless tag is determined based on a packet number in each of at least one received packet received (“a part of the leader command packet, provides synchronization to the tag, and the clock cycle T0 determines the tag's transmission rate.” [Page.8, ll.8-9]) from the wireless tag during each of the at least two of the time windows (“This is the '[PREAMBLE]' part of the leader command, and energy is supplied to the tag by [PREAMBLE]. The third step is when the leader command packet is transmitted to the tag” [Page.8, ll.2-4]).
KIM teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer with the teachings of KIM to incorporate the feature of determining the transmission rate of packets with a packet number so as to gain the advantage of reducing tag recognition time [Page.8 Par.1 Kim]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Fischer as modified by kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Fischer does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein transmission rate of packets is determined based on a packet number. kim discloses wherein, the transmission rate of packets from each of the one or more wireless tags of the plurality is determined based on a packet number in the at least one packet received from each of the one or more of the wireless tags (“a part of the leader command packet, provides synchronization to the tag, and the clock cycle T0 determines the tag's transmission rate.” [Page.8, ll.8-9]).
KIM teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer with the teachings of KIM to incorporate the feature of determining the transmission rate of packets with a packet number so as to gain the advantage of reducing tag recognition time [Page.8 Par.1 Kim]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Liao(US20140125461A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0006] “arranging a working frequency over which the location tag and the mobile tag mutually communicate with each other, setting transmit power and communication time.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights