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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 7, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on June 17, 2024. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and newly added claim 19 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 15 and 16, this claim presents a system/means for testing a radio frequency, RF, transponders according to the method of claim 1, a method for testing radio frequency, RF, transponders. Therefore, the argument made against claim 1 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 15. In addition, it is clearly seen that claim 1 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claim 15.
With regard to claim 18, this claim presents a non-transitory computer readable medium for testing radio frequency, RF, transponders according to the method of claim 1, a method for testing radio frequency, RF, transponders. Therefore, the argument made against claim 1 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 18. In addition, it is noted that the non-transitory computer readable medium is well- known to one having ordinary skill in the art for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by circuitry, causes the system of claim 15 to perform the method of claim 1.
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 8 and 10 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.
There are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claims 8 and 10, each claim recites a term "optionally", which means that something is available as a choice, but not required. This term indicates that a user or individual can choose to do something or not, without any negative consequences for not doing it. Unlike required elements, optional ones don't have to be included or performed. That is, the features recited after the term "optionally" don't have to be included or performed and are not given any patentable weight.
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible.
For examining purposes, these claims will be examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Forster et al. (US 2006/0226983 A1).
Forster et al. teaches a radio frequency identification (RFID) device test system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
376
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
644
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1, 15, 16 and 18, a system (FIG. 1, test system 100) for testing a radio frequency, RF, transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)), comprising: a testing zone (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) for receiving the RF transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)), and a block (FIG. 1, RFID device tester 106) configured to detect responses (test results) of the RF transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)) provided successively to the testing zone (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) at one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102), wherein the one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) configured to operate at a test frequency and a test power (test frequency at a defined power or voltage level and frequency), wherein said block (FIG. 1, RFID device tester 106) configured to detect the responses (test results) of the RF transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)) are configured to adapt the test frequency and/or the test power (test frequency at a defined power or voltage level and frequency) at the one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) for an RF transponder (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (10)) under the test on the basis of the detected responses (test results) of at least one previous RF transponder (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) or RFID devices 102 (7) and 102 (13))) at the one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0006]-[0010], [0016]-[0028] and [0041]-[0046]).
With regard to claim 16, means (FIG. 2 in view of FIG. 1, controller 206 (e.g., a computer, a microcontroller, or other type of control system) that controls the operation of RFID device tester 106) for carrying out a method for testing radio frequency, RF, transponders (Paragraphs: [0016]-[0028] and [0042]-[0044]).
With regard to claim 18, it is noted that the non-transitory computer readable medium is an inherent feature of the controller (FIG. 2 in view of FIG. 1, controller 206 (e.g., a computer, a microcontroller, or other type of control system) that controls the operation of RFID device tester 106) and well- known to one having ordinary skill in the art for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by circuitry, causes the system of claim 15 to perform the method of claim 1 (Paragraphs: [0016]-[0028] and [0042]-[0044]).
With regard to claim 2, the one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) comprise an adaptive test point (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) to the RFID device 102 (10) under test); and the test frequency and/or test power at the adaptive test point (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) to the RFID device 102 (10) under test) is adapted on the basis of the detected responses of at least one previous RF transponder (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) or RFID devices 102 (7) and 102 (13))) at the adaptive test point (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) to the RFID device 102 (10) under test) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0018]-[0028]).
With regard to claim 3, the at least one previous RF transponder (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) or RFID devices 102 (7) and 102 (13))) corresponds to at least one of: the previous RF transponder (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) or RFID devices 102 (7) and 102 (13))), a number of previous RF transponders (FIG. 1, adjacent RFID devices 102 (9) and 102 (11) or RFID devices 102 (7) and 102 (13))), a group of previous RF transponders, and selected RF transponders (Paragraphs: [0018]-[0028]).
With regard to claim 4, the one or more test points (FIG. 1, test position currently occupied by RFID device 102) comprise at least two adaptive test points, wherein at least one of the at least two adaptive test points configured to operate at a variable test frequency; and/or at least one of the at least two adaptive test points configured to operate at a variable test power (variable test thresholds for RFID devices in various configurations based on the operational state of neighboring RFID devices 102) (Paragraphs: [0006] and [0028]).
With regard to claim 10, adapting at least one adaptive test point according to an adaptation algorithm (test procedures or test setups) based on the detected responses ( test results) of the at least one previous RF transponders (an RFID test pass/fail threshold that takes into account the characteristics of nearby RFID devices (e.g., adjacent RFID devices)), and optionally, if predefined criteria concerning the adaptation algorithm or at least one adaptive test point are fulfilled, providing an alert (Paragraphs: [0005], [0023] and [0027]).
With regard to claims, 13, 17 and 19, the system (FIG. 1, test system 100) is used on a manufacturing process (manufacturing process) of RF transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)) to monitor the RF transponders (FIG. 1, RFID devices 102 (1) through 102 (19)) and/or the manufacturing process (manufacturing process) (Paragraphs: [0017] and [0022]).
With regard to claim 14, monitoring the manufacturing line based on: the test frequency and/or test power; or the adaptation history or statistical characteristics of at least one adaptive test point; and/or the response power, non-response or invalid response of the RF transponders at at least one adaptive test point (Paragraphs: [0005], [0006], [0017], [0022], [0023], [0027] and [0028]).
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 5-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al.
Forster et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-4, 10 and 13-19 above including the controller (FIG. 2 in view of FIG. 1, controller 206 (e.g., a computer, a microcontroller, or other type of control system)) that controls the operation of the system (FIG. 1, test system 100 including RFID device tester 106), but it does not specifically teach the following features as recited in claims 5-9, 11 and 12.
However, it is clear that the features as recited in claims 5-9, 11 and 12 upon which applicants rely will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such potential is critical. These recited features in claims 5-9, 11 and 12 merely recite desirable and exemplary design choices of an adaptive setting in RFID testing for the RFID device test system. Forster et al. discloses in paragraph [0052] that an adaptive setting for RFID devices may be implemented for the test system (FIG.2 in view of FIG. 1, test system 200).
It is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that an adaptive setting in RFID testing refers to the system's ability to dynamically adjust its operational or evaluation parameters in real-time based on the environmental conditions or the behavior of the device under test. Common adaptive settings and techniques include Adaptive Reader Modes, Adaptive Smoothing Filters, Dynamic Thresholding, Adaptive Antenna Selection, Feedback-Driven Test Environments and Manufacturing Test Adaptation. Specially, in Manufacturing Test Adaptation, adaptive testing can modify the test sequence, voltage (VDD), or clock frequency based on real-time data from previous test bins to reduce costs and improve quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RFID device test system of Forster et al. to implement desirable and exemplary adaptive settings and techniques since such an arrangement is beneficial to ensure reliable data collection despite signal interference, tag movement, or hardware variability. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of RFID device test system to optimize performance in high-interference zones, to reduce costs and improve quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Bolander et al. (US 7,257,504 B2) teaches a RFID tag.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858