DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed September 11, 2025, claims 1-12 are pending in the application. The applicant has amended claims 1, 5, and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBusk et al. (2018/0096292 A1) in view of Roeder et al. (US 2006/0255951 A1).
Regarding claim 5, DeBusk discloses a stationary reader that reads information from an RF tag attached to an article ([0064]; FIG. 1: 14a, 14b), comprising:
an antenna that radiates radio waves to communicate with the RF tag ([0064]; FIG. 1: 14a, 14b); and
a shield that accommodates the antenna ([0064]),
the shield being configured to, while opening upward, surround an enclosure having the article therein, the reader being configured to read information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward ([0064]; FIG. 1).
DeBusk does not disclose that
the shield is configured to surround a shopping basket having the article therein to let a user load and unload the shopping basket, the shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls; the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward.
Roeder, addressing the same problem of how to shield an RF tag, teaches an order-picking system that includes a picking cart having a radio frequency (RF) antenna arranged above an object-stacking surface of the picking cart ([0014]), wherein shield is configured to surround a shopping basket having the article therein to let a user load and unload the shopping basket, the shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls, the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward ([0120]; FIG. 1; Roeder teaches shielding on the sides of a shopping cart, and a shopping cart is open upward between the sides of the shopping cart) for the benefit of providing better detection of tagged objects placed inside a shopping cart and eliminating false reads from RFID tags attached to objects external to a shopping cart ([0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Roeder with the reader of DeBusk because that would have enabled the reader to provide better detection of tagged objects placed inside a shopping cart and eliminate false reads from RFID tags attached to objects external to a shopping cart ([0120]).
Regarding claim 6, DeBusk discloses that the shield includes any one or both of a radio wave absorption layer that absorbs the radio waves, and a radio wave reflection layer that reflects the radio waves. ([0066], [0067])
Regarding claim 7, DeBusk discloses an information providing system ([0064]; FIG. 1: 10) comprising:
the reader according to claim 5 (see the citations for the rejection of claim 5); and
an information providing device that is communicable with the reader ([0070]; FIG. 1: 31).
Regarding claim 8, DeBusk discloses that the information providing device includes a tablet terminal or a mobile terminal. ([0070])
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1 and 9 and claims 2-4 and 10-12, which depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1-4, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a stationary reader that reads information from an RF tag attached to an article, as recited by the claims, comprising:
a shield that accommodates an antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls, a plate connecting the pair of sidewalls at a first end, and an opening between the pair of sidewalls at a second end opposite the first end, the opening having a substantially same width as the plate, the opening being configured to open upward;
the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward.
DeBusk et al. (US 2018/0096292) discloses a stationary reader that reads information from an RF tag attached to an article, comprising an antenna that radiates radio waves to communicate with the RF tag and a shield that accommodates the antenna and has an opening wider than the article. DeBusk does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
a shield that accommodates an antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls, a plate connecting the pair of sidewalls at a first end, and an opening between the pair of sidewalls at a second end opposite the first end, the opening having a substantially same width as the plate, the opening being configured to open upward;
the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward.
Roeder et al. (US 2006/0255951 A1) discloses an order-picking system that includes a picking cart having a radio frequency (RF) antenna arranged above an object-stacking surface of the picking cart, wherein a shield is configured to surround a shopping basket having the article therein to let a user load and unload the shopping basket, the reader reading information from the RF tag. Roeder does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
a shield that accommodates an antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls, a plate connecting the pair of sidewalls at a first end, and an opening between the pair of sidewalls at a second end opposite the first end, the opening having a substantially same width as the plate, the opening being configured to open upward;
the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward.
Regarding claims 9-12, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a stationary reader that includes a housing, the reader reading information from an RF tag attached to an article, as recited by the claims, comprising:
a shield that is disposed in the housing and accommodates the antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls,
while keeping each of the housing and the shield open in two directions including upward, the reader reading being configured to read the information from the RF tag of the article in the shield.
DeBusk et al. (US 2018/0096292) discloses a stationary reader that reads information from an RF tag attached to an article, comprising an antenna that radiates radio waves to communicate with the RF tag and a shield that accommodates the antenna and has an opening wider than the article. DeBusk does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
a shield that is disposed in the housing and accommodates the antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls,
while keeping each of the housing and the shield open in two directions including upward, the reader reading being configured to read the information from the RF tag of the article in the shield.
Roeder et al. (US 2006/0255951 A1) discloses an order-picking system that includes a picking cart having a radio frequency (RF) antenna arranged above an object-stacking surface of the picking cart, wherein a shield is configured to surround a shopping basket having the article therein to let a user load and unload the shopping basket, the reader reading information from the RF tag. Roeder does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
a shield that is disposed in the housing and accommodates the antenna, the shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls,
while keeping each of the housing and the shield open in two directions including upward, the reader reading being configured to read the information from the RF tag of the article in the shield.
Examiner’s note: the word, “upward,” as recited in the claims, is construed mean a direction that is approximately opposite of the direction of the force of gravity.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments, filed September 1, 2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejection of claims 5-8.
Against the rejection of claims 5-8, the applicant argues that for at least substantially the same reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that DeBusk fails to disclose or suggest a reader comprising a shield having a pair of sidewalls and an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls, the reader being configured to read the information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward as required by amended Claim 5 from which Claims 6-8 ultimately depend. The Office Action relies on Roeder merely for the disclosure of a shield configured to surround a shopping basket having the article therein. See, Office Action, page 5, line 13 — page 6, line 2. However, like DeBusk, Roeder fails to disclose a shield having an opening extending substantially an entire distance between the pair of sidewalls or a reader configured to read information from the RF tag while keeping the shield open upward. Thus, even if combinable, Applicant submits that Roeder fails to remedy the deficiencies of DeBusk with respect to Claims 5-8. (Emphasis added by the applicant.)
Regarding this argument, Roeder teaches, as cited in the Final Rejection, shielding on the sides of a shopping cart ([0120]). Roeder teaches a shopping cart that has a rectangular configuration and is open upward between the sides of the shopping cart (FIG. 13). Shielding on the sides of the shopping cart would leave a space between the sides of the shopping cart, and therefore between the sidewalls of the shielding, open upward.
Conclusion
7. The 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689