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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11, 13-19 and 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (hereafter Johnson)(US PgPub 2002/0109636).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a reader for an electronic identification tag (Figure 1), the reader comprising: a transmitter antenna for exciting a passive electronic identification tag in proximity to the reader (Figure 1, Element 12, Paragraph 0014 and claims 1 and 5 where the antenna 12 transmits signals to excite tags attached to proximate livestock), the transmitter antenna comprising one or more windings (Paragraph 0023 where each coil is comprised of approximately 25 windings); and a receiver antenna for coupling a signal from the electronic identification tag to other parts of a receiver module (Figure 1, Elements 14, 30, Paragraphs 0014, 0016 and claims 1 and 5 where the antenna 14 receives data from the proximate tags), the receiver antenna comprising twin windings wound in an anti-phase manner (Paragraph 0023 and claims 1 and 5 where each coil is comprised of approximately 25 windings (which reads on the claimed “twin windings”) and the antenna coils are oriented in a manner to create out of phase areas in close proximity to the antenna coils to cancel external RF noise).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses wherein the transmitter antenna and the receiver antenna are positioned substantially perpendicular to one another (Figure 1, Elements 12, 14 and Paragraphs 0007 and 0014 where the antennas are arranged orthogonally).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson discloses wherein the transmitter antenna and the receiver antenna are perpendicular within a tolerance of +/- 5° (Figure 1, Elements 12, 14 and Paragraphs 0007 and 0014 where the antennas are arranged orthogonally).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses wherein the twin windings are configured to cause a reduction of the interference coupled into the received antenna (Paragraphs 0006, 0007, 0023, abstract and claims 1 and 5 where each coil is comprised of approximately 25 windings (which reads on the claimed “twin windings”) and the antenna coils are oriented in a manner to create out of phase areas in close proximity to the antenna coils to cancel external RF noise/interference).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses wherein the transmitter antenna and/or the receiver antenna is enclosed in a panel (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0014 where the antennas are enclosed in a housing).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses wherein the electronic identification tag is affixed to an animal, and the system used for animal identification (Figure 1, Element 12, Paragraph 0014 and claims 1 and 5 where the antenna 12 transmits signals to excite tags attached to proximate livestock).
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (hereafter Johnson)(US PgPub 2002/0109636) and in view of Kuwako et al. (hereafter Kuwako)(US PgPub 2008/0186140).
Regarding claim 26, Johnson discloses tuning the antennas does not specifically disclose an impedance matching circuit. In the same field of endeavor, Kuwako discloses a RFID tag reader that includes an impedance matching circuit that automatically performs impedance matching (Figure 3, Element 204 and Paragraphs 0031, 0034 and 0036-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the automatic impedance match adjustment of Kuwako to the RFID reader system of Johnson, motivation being to expand a reading range of the RFID reader as suggested by Kuwako. Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686