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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 12/03/25.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,6-7,14-15, and 20.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the reference of Suzuki is relied upon for teaching the RFID-specific processing of the RSSI collected values (paragraph 022). The reference of Thiel is only relied on for the teaching the mathematical concept of converting the measured RSSI values from the logarithm form to the linear form (029,039). Thiel also teaching a weighing technique for summing the signal strength and teaches discarding the bottom 5% of the signal strength measurement (paragraph 029) and therefore teaches the plurality of RSSI values from the logarithm form to the linear form is based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims is directed to abstract ideas (mathematical determination of location and informational reporting) implemented with generic data collection/presentation, fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that amount to “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-10,14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US Patent Application Publication 20220358298 in view of Thiel et al. US Patent Application Publication 20160037355.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method comprising: receiving, by computing hardware, a data frame, wherein: the data frame comprises read data collected from a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag over an interval of time (paragraph 014), the read data is collected from the RFID tag responding to receiving a radio frequency (“RF”) signal sent from an antenna in communication with a reader, and the read data comprises a plurality of received signal strength indicator RSSI values (paragraph 022); generating, by the computing hardware, a linearized power value for each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values to form a set of linearized power values for the data frame (paragraph 034); summating, by the computing hardware, the set of linearized power values to generate a summated power value for the data frame (paragraph 037-038,052); evaluating, by the computing hardware, the summated power value for the data frame, along with one or more other summated power values for one or more other data frames, to determine that the summated power value and the one or more other summated power values meet a target predicate (paragraph 058,068); and responsive to determining the summated power value and the one or more other summated power values meet the target predicate, causing an action to be performed with respect to the RFID tag (selection of the unprocessed record is based on power near summation, fig. 8, paragraph 068-069). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039). Thiel teaches the converting each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values from the logarithm form to the linear form is based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna (029,039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
Regarding claim 2, Suzu teaches the action comprises changing a setting of the reader with respect to processing additional read data collected from the RFID tag (paragraph 046-047).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the target predicate defines a set of rules used in evaluating whether the summated power value and the one or more other summated power values satisfy a threshold value (paragraph 60-62).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the one or more other data frames are one or more previous data frames comprising read data collected from the RFID tag at a previous time (paragraph 040,059).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches generating the linearized power value for each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values comprises normalizing the RSSI value based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna (normalizing is determined by dividing total RSSI by the number of readings, paragraph 067-068). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches a system comprising: a computer-readable medium storing instructions (paragraph 027); and a processing device (31) communicatively coupled to the computer-readable medium, wherein the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations (paragraph 027) comprising: receiving a plurality of data frames (paragraph 014), wherein: each data frame of the plurality of data frames comprises read data collected from a plurality of radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tags over an interval of time (paragraph 022), the read data is collected from the plurality of RFID tags responding to receiving a radio frequency (“RF’) signal sent from an antenna in communication with a reader (paragraph 019-020), and the read data comprises a plurality of received signal strength indicator (RSSI values (paragraph 034); for each data frame of the plurality of data frames : generating a linearized power value for each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values to form a set of linearized power values for the data frame (paragraph 037-038,052); and for each RFID tag in the plurality of tags represented in the data frame: grouping the linearized power values found in the set of linearized power values for the RFID tag into a group of linearized power values and summating the group of linearized power values to generate a summated power value for the RFID tag and the data frame (fig. 8, paragraph 068-069);
evaluating the summated power value for each data frame of the plurality of data frames for a particular RFID tag of the plurality of RFID tags to determine that the summated power value for each data frame over the plurality of data frames for the particular RFID tag meets a target predicate (threshold, paragraph 60-62); and
responsive to determining the summated power value for each data frame over the plurality of data frames for the particular RFID tag meets the target predicate, causing an action to be performed with respect to the particular RFID tag (selection of the unprocessed record is based on power near summation, fig. 8, paragraph 068-069). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039). Thiel teaches the converting each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values from the logarithm form to the linear form is based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna (029,039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the action comprises generating an indication of a location of the particular RFID tag for display on a user interface (the area in which the tag is located represents the location, paragraph 016-018,033).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the target predicate defines a set of rules used in evaluating whether the summated power value for at least one data frame of the plurality of data frames for the particular RFID tag satisfies a threshold value (paragraph 60-62).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches the plurality of data frames comprises a sequence of data frames occurring over a period of time (paragraph 040,059).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches generating the linearized power value for each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values comprises normalizing the RSSI value based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna (normalizing is determined by dividing total RSSI by the number of readings, paragraph 067-068). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by computing hardware, configure the computing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first data frame and a second data frame (paragraph 014), wherein: the first data frame comprises first read data collected from a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag over a first interval of time (paragraph 022), the first read data is collected from the RFID tag responding to receiving a first radio frequency (“RF”) signal sent from a first antenna in communication with a reader (paragraph 019-020), the first read data comprises a first plurality of received signal strength indicator values (paragraph 034); the second data frame comprises second read data collected from the RFID tag over a second interval of time (paragraph 019-020), the second read data is collected from the RFID tag responding to receiving a second RF signal sent from a second antenna in communication with the reader, and the second read data comprises a second plurality of RSSI values (paragraph 034); generating a first linearized power value for each RSSI value of the first plurality of RSSI values to form a set of first linearized power values (paragraph 037-038,052); summating the set of first linearized power values to generate a first summated power value (paragraph 037-038,052); generating a second linearized power value for each RSSI value of the second plurality of RSSI values to form a set of second linearized power values (paragraph 037-038,052); summating the set of second linearized power values to generate a second summated power value (paragraph 037-038,052,068-069); evaluating the first summated power value, along with one or more other first summated power values generated from other first read data collected for the RFID tag at the first antenna (paragraph 060-062), and the second summated power value, along with one or more other second summated power values generated from other second read data collected for the RFID tag at the second antenna, to determine that the first summated power value, along with the one or more other first summated power values, and the second summated power value, along with the one or more other second summated power values, meet a target predicate (paragraph 060-062); and responsive to determining the first summated power value, along with the one or more other first summated power values, and the second summated power value, along with the one or more other second summated power values, meet the target predicate, causing an action to be performed with respect to the RFID tag (fig. 8, paragraph 068-069). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039). Thiel teaches the converting each RSSI value of the plurality of RSSI values from the logarithm form to the linear form is based at least in part on a power value of the RF signal sent from the antenna (029,039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the first antenna is located in a first location and the second antenna is located in a second location that is different from the first location, and the action comprises updating an inventory record to indicate a movement of the RFID tag from the first location to the second location (paragraph 016-020).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki teaches the first antenna is located in a first location and the second antenna is located in a second location that is different from the first location, and the action comprises providing an indication on a user interface of a movement of the RFID tag from the first location to the second location (the area in which the tag is located represents the location, paragraph 016-018,033).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches the target predicate defines a set of rules used in evaluating whether the first summated power value, along with the one or more other first summated power values, and the second summated power value, along with the one or more other second summated power values, satisfy a threshold value (paragraph 60-62).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki teaches the target predicate defines a set of rules used in evaluating whether the first summated power value, along with the one or more other first summated power values, and the second summated power value, along with the one or more other second summated power values, represent a drop of power for the RFID tag collected at the first antenna and an increase of power for the RFID tag collected at the second antenna (paragraph 14-20,fig.10, paragraph 0106-0112).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki teaches generating the first linearized power value involves normalizing each RSSI value of the first plurality of RSSI values based at least in part on a first power value of the first RF signal sent from the first antenna and generating the second linearized power value involves normalizing each RSSI value of the second plurality of RSSI values based at least in part on a second power value of the second RF signal sent from the second antenna (normalizing is determined by dividing total RSSI by the number of readings, paragraph 067-068, fig.10, paragraph 0106-0112). Suzu is silent on teaching converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form. Thiel in an analogous art teaches converting the RSSI values from a logarithm form to a linear form(paragraph 039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzu as disclosed by Thiel because such modification represents the substitution one format for another representation of the signal strength measurements
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US Patent Application Publication 20220358298 in view of Thiel et al. US Patent Application Publication 20160037355 and further in view of Han et al. US Patent Application Publication 20160283755.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki is silent on teaching the setting comprises changing the setting of the reader to a single target mode to initiate an interrupt of a read of the RFID tag. Han et al. in an analogous art teaches changing the setting of the reader to a single target mode to initiate an interrupt of a read of the RFID tag (paragraph 059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzuki in view of Thiel as disclosed Han et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Han et al. in order to reliably identify the RFID tag located in the interrogation field and further reduce the effects of interference.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US Patent Application Publication 20220358298 in view of Thiel et al. US Patent Application Publication 20160037355 and further in view of Hosseini et al. US Patent 9514342.
Regarding claims 11-13, Suzuki is silent on teaching the system is a mobile device that comprises the reader and the antenna and the mobile device travels through an area in which the plurality of RFID tags is located. Hosseini et al. in an analogous art teaches a mobile device that comprises the reader and the antenna and the mobile device travels through an area in which the plurality of RFID tags is located (col. 4 lines 21-29) and teaches the action comprises generating an indication for display on a user interface provided on a screen of the mobile device as to whether the mobile device is pointed in a direction of a location of the particular RFID tag (col. 4 lines 41-32,col. 7 lines 18-28).12). Hosseini et al. teaches the action comprises generating an indication for display on a user interface provided on a screen of the mobile device as to whether the mobile device is within a certain distance of the particular RFID tag (col. 4 lines 41-32,col. 7 lines 18-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Suzuki in view of Thiel as disclosed by Hosseini et al because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Suzuki I view of Thiel by allowing the RFID reader to be transported to the area in which the RFID tags are located and further reducing the number of RFID readers that are required for detecting the RFID tags.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights