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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/1/2025 has been entered. Claim 3 is amended. Claims 29-32 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-32 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US Pub 2018/0350218), and further in view of O’Hagan (US Pub 2024/0169820).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 25, 26, 27, 28, Jeon discloses a system for controlling and communicating with a plurality of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, wherein each RFID tag has an associated RFID tag identifier and is controllably switchable between a readable session state and an unreadable session state (read state A, and shorter non-read state B consistent with the Electronic Product Code (EPC) Generation 2 protocol, Para. 24), the system comprising:
a session control broadcaster that (1) generates session control messages for the RFID tags (via triggering one or more RFID readers to direct at least the tag of interest to transition to the RFID tag to a state in which the RFID tag communicates the RFID tag information more frequently; see Para. 44, 25) and (2) wirelessly communicates the session control messages for reception by one or more of the RFID tags, wherein the session control messages are targeted to select RFID tags based on RFID tag identifier information for the select RFID tags (via causing one or more readers to trigger the tag in different read states; see Para. 12, 24); and
an RFID reader that (1) generates read request messages and (2) wirelessly communicates the read request messages for reception by one or more of the RFID tags that are in the readable session state (via RFID reader 108 generating read request message and communicating the read request message to the tags in a readable state; see Para. 12, 24).
Jeon discloses that the reader 108 sends a control message to change the state of the tag however it does not explicitly disclose that the control message control the tag to be in unreadable session state.
O’Hagan discloses a system for controlling and communicating with a plurality of RFID tags, wherein an RFID reader 310 (session control broadcaster) transmits messages to selectively activate RFID tags that correspond to an object of interest while muting (unreadable session state) other RFID tags (see Para. 42). O’Hagan discloses that the session control broadcaster (via reader 310) wirelessly communicates the session control messages via a first wireless transmitter (see Para. 42), and wherein the RFID reader (via proximity detection device 102/302) wirelessly communicates the read request messages via a second wireless transmitter (via proximity detection device 102 using transceiver 106; see Para. 28, 31).
From the teaching of O’Hagan it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Jeon to include the session control messages are operable to control readable session state of the selected RFID tags in order to monitor the object of interest.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon discloses that the session control broadcaster and the RFID reader are capable of operating concurrently with each other (Jeon discloses that the facility evaluation system receives in real-time the RFID tag read information corresponding to different RFID tags from one or more of the RFID readers, hence readers are operating concurrently. Further in the system of Jeon, RFID readers 108 are interpreted as session control broadcasters and RFID readers, since the RFID readers 108 perform the function of session control broadcaster as claimed).
O’Hagan discloses that the session control broadcaster (reader 310) and the RFID reader (proximity detection device 102) are capable of operating concurrently with each other (see Para. 38).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID tags include a previously hidden tag that is detected by the RFID reader when the previously hidden tag is in a hot spot of the RFID reader, and wherein the session control broadcaster generates one or more session control messages targeted to the previously hidden tag to cause the previously hidden tag to be in the readable state (via RFID readers 108, the facility evaluation system 102, the inventory system 124 or other system detecting the reading of the RFID tag associated with the disposable razor and further identify that this RFID tag has not been read for more than a threshold period of time, hence hidden. In response to the detection after the threshold period of time one or more RFID readers 108 can be directed to cause the RFID tag to transition to the more frequent response state; see Para. 25).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID tags include a previously hidden tag that is detected by the RFID reader when the previously hidden tag is in a hot spot of the RFID reader, and wherein the session control broadcaster generates one or more session control messages targeted to one or more RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag to cause the one or more related RFID tags to be in the readable state (the facility evaluation system 102 may direct one or more RFID readers 108 to activate one or more RFID tags to respond more frequently based on the one or more RFID tags being detected after a threshold period of time has elapsed where that RFID tag had not being detected, Para. 25).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID tags include a previously hidden tag that is detected by the RFID reader when the previously hidden tag is in a hot spot of the RFID reader, and wherein the session control broadcaster generates one or more session control messages targeted to (1) the previously hidden tag and (2) one or more RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag to cause the previously hidden tag and the one or more related RFID tags to be in the readable state (Para. 25).
Regarding claim 8, 11, O’Hagan discloses that the session control broadcaster (via reader 310) wirelessly communicates the session control messages via a first wireless transmitter (see Para. 42), and wherein the RFID reader (via proximity detection device 102) wirelessly communicates the read request messages via a second wireless transmitter/transceiver (via proximity detection device 102 using transceiver 106; see Para. 28).
Regarding claim 12, Jeon discloses that the RFID reader (1) receives responses from the RFID tags which receive the read request messages while in the readable session state and (2) communicates data representative of the received responses to a control system (via reader 108 receiving response from the tags and communicating data representative of the received response to facility evaluation system; see Para. 19).
Regarding claim 13, Jeon discloses that the control system updates a database based on the communicated data representative of the received responses (via updating database 114-115; see Para. 14).
Regarding claim 14, O’ Hagan discloses that the session control broadcaster (reader 310) and the RFID reader (proximity detection device 304) are separate units in different housings (see fig. 3). Further in the system of Jeon, RFID readers 108 are interpreted as session control broadcasters and RFID readers, since the RFID readers 108 perform the function of session control broadcaster as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, section V.B of MPEP 2144.04 states that making devices integral is merely a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeon and O’Hagan to include wherein the session control broadcaster and the RFID reader are located in a common housing as it is merely a design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID reader is a mobile device (via portable RFID readers, Para. 17).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon discloses the RFID reader is located in a fixed position (via mounted in the ceiling, Para. 17).
Regarding claim 20, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID tag identifier information comprises at least one partial RFID tag identifier (via RFID tag identifier information, Para. 14).
Regarding claim 21, O’Hagan discloses wherein the partial RFID tag identifier comprises a SKU (Para. 64).
Regarding claim 22, Jeon discloses the RFID tag identifier information comprises at least one full RFID tag identifier (via RFID tag identifier information, Para. 14).
Regarding claim 23, Jeon discloses wherein the session control messages comprise select commands to targeted RFID tag identifiers that command the RFID tags corresponding to the RFID tag identifier information to exhibit a readable state (cause one or more RFID readers to trigger an RFID tag to transition to a first state that causes the RFID tag to emit RFID tag information more frequently than in a typical state so that the one or more RFID readers continue to receive the RFID tag read information of the RFID tag at more frequent intervals, Para. 24-25).
Regarding claim 24, Jeon discloses wherein the read request messages comprise query commands for inventory rounds (Para. 25).
Regarding claim 29, Jeon discloses wherein the RFID reader also reads responses to the read request messages from RFID tags that receive the read request messages while in the readable session state, (2) determines RFID tag identifiers based on the read responses, and (3) communicates the determined RFID tag identifiers to the control system, and wherein the control system updates a database with data indicating presences of the RFID tags corresponding to the determined RFID tag identifiers (use of RFID tags to detect movement patterns provides enhanced tracking capabilities and precise identification of the consumer, Para. 12-14, 17).
Regarding claim 30, Jeon discloses wherein the session control broadcaster and the RFID reader have an overlapping zone of coverage so that the system is configured to concurrently (1) manage readability for a plurality of RFID tags within a population of RFID tags that are located within the overlapping zone of coverage using the session control messages and (2) read a plurality of RFID tags within the population of RFID tags that are located within the overlapping zone of coverage using the read request messages (Para. 12, 24).
Claims 4, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. in view of O’Hagan, and further in view of Wilkinson (US 20130027191 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon and O’Hagan fail to specifically disclose wherein the RFID reader and session control broadcaster perform their recited operations in Session 2 or Session 3.
Wilkinson discloses EPC GEN2 standard defines and will accommodate any of a variety of sessions for a given RFID tag (these being denoted as session 0, session 1, session 2, and so forth, Para. 28).
From the teachings of Wilkinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeon and O’Hagan to include wherein the RFID reader and session control broadcaster perform their recited operations in Session 2 or Session 3 as the read-state settings can be specific to a particular session type if desired.
Regarding claim 17, Jeon and O’Hagan fail to specifically disclose wherein the readable session state comprises an A state according to an Electronic Product Code (EPC) RFID protocol, and wherein the unreadable session state comprises a B state according to the EPC RFID protocol.
Wilkinson teaches readable session state comprises an A state according to an Electronic Product Code (EPC) RFID protocol, and wherein the unreadable session state comprises a B state according to the EPC RFID protocol (Para. 3-4).
From the teachings of Wilkinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeon and O’Hagan to include wherein the readable session state comprises an A state according to an Electronic Product Code (EPC) RFID protocol, and wherein the unreadable session state comprises a B state according to the EPC RFID protocol in order to use the widely accepted EPC RFID protocol, thereby improve ease of implementing the system.
Claims 31, 32, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. in view of O’Hagan, and further in view of Lauria (US 20170053505).
Regarding claim 31, Jeon discloses wherein the one or more session control messages targeted to (1) the previously hidden tag and (2) the one or more RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag (the facility evaluation system 102 may direct one or more RFID readers 108 to activate one or more RFID tags to respond more frequently based on the one or more RFID tags being detected after a threshold period of time has elapsed where that RFID tag had not being detected, Para. 25).
Jeon fails to specifically disclose a multicast session control message that uses a mask to target a group of RFID tags, wherein the group of RFID tags includes the previously hidden tag and a plurality of RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag.
Lauria teaches a RFID reader system including a reader to transmit RF signals transmitted for reception by select RFID tags include an RF signal that encodes a multicast session control message for reception by the group of select RFID tags using a mask (Targeting of the high-priority tags is performed by transmitting UPC masks during a select process. Less time is spent reading the low-priority tags, thereby enhancing the efficiency and speed of the reading performance of the system, Para. 25).
From the teachings of Lauria, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeon and O’Hagan to include a multicast session control message that uses a mask to target a group of RFID tags, wherein the group of RFID tags includes the previously hidden tag and a plurality of RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag in order to quickly and efficiently read a particular group of tags.
Regarding claim 32, Lauria teaches wherein the mask is based on a UPC that is shared by the previously hidden tag and the plurality of RFID tags that are related to the previously hidden tag (see rejection of claim 31 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the first paragraph of page 11 that “in view of the recitations in claim 1 that different components of the system perform session control tasks and RFID read operations and….separation of tasks between different system components”, that it is unreasonable to interpret claim 1 as encompassing the RFID readers of Jeon. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different components of the system perform session control tasks and RFID read operations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Therefore, the claims as presented must explicitly state that the session control broadcaster is separate and different from the RFID reader. Absent explicit language to clearly state the two components are different and separate, the examiner may properly interpret the RFID reader of Jeon to be both the session control broadcaster and the RFID reader.
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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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, Joseph Feild can be reached on (571)272-4090. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689