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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. (U.S. 2019/0303633 A1) in view of Rinzler et al. (WO/2017083715 A1).
Claim 1, Pleshek teaches:
A system for tracking tagged surgical articles across a network (Pleshek, Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 1: 10) defining an interior (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 68, Paragraph [0041], The body 14 of the container comprises a compartment 68.) having a lower interior surface (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 66), an upper interior surface (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 70), and a plurality of interior side walls (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 72) extending between the lower interior surface and the upper interior surface (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 72, Paragraph [0041], As can be seen in Fig. 3, the body 14 includes at least a side wall 72 on the left side, and another wall on the right side of the body 14, i.e. a plurality of interior side walls.); and
a tracking assembly (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 40) including a housing shaped to be received within the interior of the transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 40, Paragraph [0041], The compartment 68 houses at least some of the control system components 40, the components being functionally equivalent to a tracking assembly.), an antenna (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 53) supported by the housing adjacent to the lower interior surface (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53) and being arranged to selectively generate a wave extending away from the lower interior surface and towards the upper interior surface within the interior of the transport container (Pleshek, Paragraph [0028], The antenna mechanism 52, via antennas 53, emits at least one signal at a predetermined frequency and generates an electromagnetic field sufficient to permeate the entire interior of the compartment. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the antennas 53 are located on top of the body portion 66, i.e. adjacent to the lower interior surface. Because antennas 53 are located at the bottom of the compartment 68 and emit an electromagnetic field that permeates the entire interior compartment, the emitted field extends away from the body portion 66 towards the body portion 64.), a communication interface (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 44) for wirelessly communicating with the network (Pleshek, Paragraphs [0027] and [0029], The communications interface 44 enables the control system 40 to communicate data to a remote device 41 over network 43.), and a controller coupled to the housing (Pleshek, Figs. 2 and 3: 46) and disposed in electrical communication with the antenna and the communication interface (Pleshek, Paragraph [0030]), the controller being configured to:
generate the wave with the antenna to scan the interior of the transport container for tagged surgical articles (Pleshek, Paragraphs [0028] and [0030], The controller 46 controls the RFID detector 42 to perform the scans. The read RFID tags 30 are associated with products 26, which include pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and/or related medical instruments, e.g. surgical instruments (see Pleshek, Paragraph [0026]).),
receive identity data from each of the tagged surgical articles with the antenna in response to generating the wave (Pleshek, Paragraph [0026], The RFID tags 30 are encoded with descriptive information for the respective product.), and
transmit the identity data across the network via the communication interface (Pleshek, Paragraph [0027]).
Pleshek does not specifically teach:
The wave extending helically away.
Rinzler teaches:
The wave extending helically away (Rinzler, Paragraph [00148], The traveling waves include helical.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pleshek by integrating the teaching of an antenna that produces a helical wave, as taught by Rinzler.
The motivation would be to improve read accuracy and/or reliability of a portable container (see Rinzler, Paragraph [00266]).
Claim 2, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the tracking assembly further includes a shield arranged to block waves generated by the antenna from exiting the transport container (Pleshek, Paragraph [0037], The RFID shielding prevents reading tags located outside of the container.).
Claim 3, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the housing includes a base adjacent to the lower interior surface of the transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The bottom of the antennas 53 represent a base that is adjacent to the upper surface of body portion 66.), and wherein the housing includes a tower coupled to the base and extending away from the lower interior surface of the transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The middle and upper portions of antennas 53, represented by the rectangular shape in Fig. 3, is interpreted as a “tower” because they extend away from the upper surface of body portion 66. With respect to “tower”, 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).).
Claim 4, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 3, wherein the tower defines a tower interior (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The inside of antennas 53, represented by the rectangular shape in Fig. 3, is a “tower interior”. With respect to the term “tower interior”, 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).), and wherein the communication interface and the controller are operatively attached to the tower and supported in the tower interior (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, Paragraph [0030], The controller 46 is communicatively coupled to RFID detector 42 and communications interface 44, wherein the RFID detector 42 is communicatively coupled to antennas 53, which represent the interior of the “tower interior”. Thus, the communications interface 44 and the controller 46 are supported by the antennas 53.).
Claim 13, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, further comprising at least one battery module configured to power the controller (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 56, Paragraph [0038], The power source 48, which includes battery 56, powers various components of the control system 40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the battery 56 to provide power to the controller 46, because the controller 46 is one of a plurality of components of the control system 40 (see Pleshek, Fig. 2).).
Claim 14, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 13, wherein the housing includes a base adjacent to the lower interior surface of the transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The bottom of the antennas 53 represent a base that is adjacent to the upper surface of body portion 66.), and a tower coupled to the base, extending away from the lower interior surface of the transport container (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The middle and upper portions of antennas 53, represented by the rectangular shape in Fig. 3, is interpreted as a “tower” because they extend away from the upper surface of body portion 66. With respect to “tower”, 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).), and defining a tower interior (Pleshek, Fig. 3: 53, The inside of antennas 53, represented by the rectangular shape in Fig. 3, is a “tower interior”. With respect to the term “tower interior”, 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).), with the at least one battery module operatively attached to the tower and supported in the tower interior (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 56 and Fig. 3: 48, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the location of the power source 48 to be co-located with antennas 53, as a matter of engineering and design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the control system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 16, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the housing includes interior surfaces defining a housing interior, and wherein the shield is disposed on the interior surfaces of the housing (Pleshek, Paragraph [0037], The RFID container 10 may include at least one layer of RFID blocking material that surrounds, encompasses, or lines with the interior compartment.).
Claim 17, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a sensor (Pleshek, Fig. 2: 54) configured to generate data (Pleshek, Paragraphs [0031-0033]), wherein the sensor is in communication with the controller (Pleshek, Paragraph [0033], The controller 46 is operatively coupled to the sensors 54.), and wherein the controller is configured to generate the wave with the antenna dependent upon the data received from the sensor (Pleshek, Paragraph [0033], The controller 46 is operative to trigger one of more scans in response to a door sensor.).
Claim 18, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to selectively generate the wave by generating a wave signal that is transmitted to the antenna (Pleshek, Paragraph [0030], The controller 46 triggers the RFID scans via the RFID detector 42.), and wherein the controller is further configured to send the wave signal to the antenna at predetermined intervals of time (Pleshek, Paragraph [0039], The control system 40 may be configured to wake up on regular intervales and perform scans and/or transmit data.).
Claim 19, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the antenna is configured as a circular polarized flat panel ultra-high frequency (UHF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) antenna module (Pleshek, Paragraph [0028], In the combination of Pleshek in view of Rinzler, the container implements a plurality of antennas, which operate utilizing UHF (see Rinzler, Paragraph [00148]). The combination of Pleshek in view of Rinzler, however, does not explicitly teach that the antennas are arranged as a circular polarized flat panel antenna module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the antennas in Pleshek in view of Rinzler to form a circular polarized flat panel antenna module. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 20, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the communication interface is configured to transmit the identity data across the network according to a cellular protocol (Pleshek, Paragraph [0029]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleshek et al. (U.S. 2019/0303633 A1) in view of Rinzler et al. (WO/2017083715 A1), in view of Skaaksrud (U.S. 2015/0153175 A1).
Claim 15, Pleshek in view of Rinzler further teaches:
The system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the shield is disposed on the exterior surfaces of the housing (Pleshek, Paragraph [0037], The RFID shielding is placed to prevent reading RFID tags located outside of the container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the shielding to be placeable along the exterior surfaces of the housing for purposes of preventing the reading of RFID tags located outside of the container. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that surrounding exterior surfaces of the housing would effectively encompass the interior compartment of the container.).
Pleshek in view of Rinzler does not specifically teach:
Wherein the housing includes exterior surfaces facing the transport container.
Skaaksrud teaches:
Wherein the housing includes exterior surfaces facing the transport container (Skaaksrud, Paragraph [0144], The exterior surfaces of a package face the larger container.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pleshek in view of Rinzler by integrating the teaching of a larger container for transporting of packages, as taught by Skaaksrud.
The motivation would be to effectively track the transportation of items in a network to help manage costs (see Skaaksrud, Paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest related prior art to the Applicant’s claimed invention is Pleshek et al. (U.S. 2019/0303633 A1). In claim 5, the Applicant further defines a base having a base frame supporting the antenna and a base cover coupled to the base frame and selectively moveable relative to the base frame to permit access to the antenna, which provides structural detail to the base that was not defined in claim 3, to which claim 5 relies. Pleshek does not disclose a base frame having the structure required to read on Applicant’s claim 5 and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Pleshek to conclude at the Applicant’s claim 5 without using improper hindsight reasoning. It is further noted that Rinzler et al. (WO/2017083715 A1) does not cure the deficiencies of Pleshek.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686