DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s Remarks which is filed on August 5, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as discussed below. Applicant's argument with respect to the pending claims 19 and 21-22, filed on August 5, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
On pages 1-3, Applicant's arguments with respect to the invention in Pidwerbetsky et al. does not teach or suggest that “a controller configured to determine the identity data of the device based on the second radio frequency signals received in the transceiver and at least one motion parameter of the device” is not persuasive. The claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974).
Examiner found that the controller configured to determine an identity of a device based on the frequency of the second signal as recited in the claim. Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose the Processor 305 of the tag 105 is typically an inexpensive 4 or 8 bit microprocessor and its associated memory, and it generates an Information Signal 306 based on the particular program being executed by processor 305. Signal 306 is eventually communicated to be sent from the Tag 105 back to the Interrogator (e.g., 103). Information Signal 306 is sent to a Modulator Control Circuit 307, which uses the Information Signal 306 to modulate a subcarrier frequency generated by the Frequency Source 308 to produce signal The resulting filtered signal--then typically an Information Signal 211 carried on a subcarrier--is then demodulated from the subcarrier in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, which then sends the Information Signal 213 to a Processor 200 to determine the content of the message (i.e. an identity of the device). A subcarrier demodulator may be implemented using a simple analog to digital (A/D) converter and a digital signal processor (DSP) for more complex applications. For example, a diode may be used for amplitude modulated subcarriers and the DSP may be used for PSK modulated subcarriers. The I and Q channels of Signal 209 can be combined in the Filter/Amplifier 210, or in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, or they could be combined in the Processor 200 and an Interrogator determines the relative velocity between itself and a cooperative Tag by using a Doppler shifted subcarrier. We note that an RFID system can achieve extended range by using a precise frequency subcarrier (f.sub.s), digital signal processing, and precise location of the subcarrier with respect to harmonics of the AC power line frequency) (column 3 lines 47 to column 4 line 3; column 4 lines 26 to 37; column 5 lines 52 to 65; see Figures 1 and 2).
The known location and motion the interrogator is irrelevant to determine the identity of the device and/or the device is in motion or not.
Also, applicant has point in in Figure 10 of Pidwerbetsky in the arguments, however, the examiner has not use Figure 10, column 11 line 10 to column 12 line 8 in any part of the rejections. In other words, the Figure 10 discloses other coordinate system.
Furthermore, Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine at least one motion parameter (i.e. an Interrogator determines the relative velocity between itself and a cooperative Tag by using a Doppler shifted subcarrier. We note that an RFID system can achieve extended range by using a precise frequency subcarrier (f.sub.s), digital signal processing, and precise location of the subcarrier with respect to harmonics of the AC power line frequency) (column 5 lines 52 to 65).
For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claim 19 is maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 19 and 21-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pidwerbetsky et al. (US# 6,046,683).
Referring to claim 19, Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose a system (i.e. a radio communication system) (column 2 lines 13 to 34; see Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a device (105) configured to receive commands via radio frequency signals and to provide identity data in response to the commands (column 3 lines 17 to 29; see Figure 1); and
an apparatus ((103) (i.e. a interrogator), comprising:
a modulator (202) configured to generate a first signal according to a command (i.e. a Radio Signal Source 201 synthesizes a radio signal, the Modulator 202 modulates the radio signal using Information Signal 200a) (column 3 lines 6 to 29; column 4 lines 11 to 37; see Figures 1 and 2);
a transceiver (a transmitter 203) coupled to the modulator (202) to transmit the command via first radio frequency signals (i.e. the Transmitter 203 transmits this modulated signal via Antenna 204, illustratively using amplitude modulation, to a Tag 105) (column 3 lines 6 to 29; column 4 lines 11 to 37; see Figures 1 and 2);
a circuit (i.e. a subcarrier demodulator 210 and a filter amplifier 212) coupled to the transceiver (i.e. a mixer 208 and a low noise 207) to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals (i.e. the Interrogator 103 receives the reflected and modulated signal with the Receive Antenna 206, amplifies the signal with a Low Noise Amplifier 207, and demodulates the signal using homodyne detection in a Quadrature Mixer 208. (In an alternative embodiment, a single antenna may replace Transmit antenna (204) and Receive Antenna (206). In this event, an electronic method of canceling the transmitted signal from that received by the receiver chain is needed; this could be accomplished by a device such as a Circulator.) Using the same Radio Signal Source 201 as used in the transmit chain means the demodulation to baseband is done using Homodyne detection; this has advantages in that it greatly reduces phase noise in the receiver circuits. The Mixer 208 then sends the Demodulated Signal 209 (if a Quadrature Mixer, it would send both I (in phase) and Q (quadrature) signals) to the Filter/Amplifier 210. The resulting filtered signal--then typically an Information Signal 211 carried on a subcarrier--is then demodulated from the subcarrier in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, which then sends the Information Signal 213 to a Processor 200 to determine the content of the message. A subcarrier demodulator may be implemented using a simple analog to digital (A/D) converter and a digital signal processor (DSP) for more complex applications) (column 3 lines 6 to 29; column 4 lines 11 to 37; see Figures 1 and 2); and
a controller (i.e. a processor 209) configured to determine: an identity of a device based on second data received in the transceiver and a frequency of the second signal (i.e. the Processor 305 of the tag 105 is typically an inexpensive 4 or 8 bit microprocessor and its associated memory, and it generates an Information Signal 306 based on the particular program being executed by processor 305. Signal 306 is eventually communicated to be sent from the Tag 105 back to the Interrogator (e.g., 103). Information Signal 306 is sent to a Modulator Control Circuit 307, which uses the Information Signal 306 to modulate a subcarrier frequency generated by the Frequency Source 308 to produce signal The resulting filtered signal--then typically an Information Signal 211 carried on a subcarrier--is then demodulated from the subcarrier in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, which then sends the Information Signal 213 to a Processor 200 to determine the content of the message. A subcarrier demodulator may be implemented using a simple analog to digital (A/D) converter and a digital signal processor (DSP) for more complex applications. For example, a diode may be used for amplitude modulated subcarriers and the DSP may be used for PSK modulated subcarriers. The I and Q channels of Signal 209 can be combined in the Filter/Amplifier 210, or in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, or they could be combined in the Processor 200 and an Interrogator determines the relative velocity between itself and a cooperative Tag by using a Doppler shifted subcarrier. We note that an RFID system can achieve extended range by using a precise frequency subcarrier (f.sub.s), digital signal processing, and precise location of the subcarrier with respect to harmonics of the AC power line frequency) (column 3 lines 47 to column 4 line 3; column 4 lines 26 to 37; column 5 lines 52 to 65; see Figures 1 and 2);
a controller configured to determine at least one motion parameter of the device (i.e. an Interrogator determines the relative velocity between itself and a cooperative Tag by using a Doppler shifted subcarrier. We note that an RFID system can achieve extended range by using a precise frequency subcarrier (f.sub.s), digital signal processing, and precise location of the subcarrier with respect to harmonics of the AC power line frequency) (column 5 lines 52 to 65).
However, Pidwerbetsky et al. did not explicitly disclose the apparatus includes a transceiver.
In the same field of a radio frequency identification communication system, Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose a transceiver using in the interrogator (i.e. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems are used for identification and/or tracking of equipment, inventory, or living things. RFID systems are radio communication systems that communicate between a radio transceiver, called an Interrogator, and a number of inexpensive devices called Tags) (column 1 lines 41 to 48; see Figure 1).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that using the transceiver to replace with the transmitter and the receiver of the interrogator taught by Pidwerbetsky et al. because using the transceiver in the interrogator would provide an alternative device for bi-directional communication signals to the RFID tag.
Referring to claim 21, Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the circuit is configured to generate the second signal from removal of modulations from the second radio frequency signals received in the transceiver (i.e. the Mixer 208 then sends the Demodulated Signal 209 (if a Quadrature Mixer, it would send both I (in phase) and Q (quadrature) signals) to the Filter/Amplifier 210. The resulting filtered signal--then typically an Information Signal 211 carried on a subcarrier--is then demodulated from the subcarrier in the Subcarrier Demodulator 212, which then sends the Information Signal 213 to a Processor 200 to determine the content of the message) (column 4 lines 19 to 37; see Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claim 22, Pidwerbetsky et al. disclose the system of claim 21, wherein the second radio frequency signals include signals reflected by the device and modulated according to the identification data of the device (i.e. the Interrogator 103 receives the reflected and modulated signal with the Receive Antenna 206, amplifies the signal with a Low Noise Amplifier 207, and demodulates the signal using homodyne detection in a Quadrature Mixer 208. (In an alternative embodiment, a single antenna may replace Transmit antenna (204) and Receive Antenna (206). In this event, an electronic method of canceling the transmitted signal from that received by the receiver chain is needed; this could be accomplished by a device such as a Circulator.) Using the same Radio Signal Source 201 as used in the transmit chain means the demodulation to baseband is done using Homodyne detection; this has advantages in that it greatly reduces phase noise in the receiver circuits) (column 4 lines 11 to 37; see Figure 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,021. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the apparatus includes a modulator configured to generate a first signal modulated according to first data; a transceiver coupled to the modulator to transmit the first data via first radio frequency signals; a circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals; and a controller configured to determine: an identity of a device based on second data received in the transceiver and a frequency of the second signal.
It is noted that although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,021. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,021 except without the limitation "wherein the frequency of the second signal is indicative of a frequency shift between the first radio frequency signals and the second radio frequency signals resulting from the device reflecting the first radio frequency signals."
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application Patent No. 12,033,021
1 1
10 1
19 16
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,042,720. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the apparatus includes a modulator configured to generate a first signal modulated according to first data; a transceiver coupled to the modulator to transmit the first data via first radio frequency signals; a circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals; and a controller configured to determine: an identity of a device based on second data received in the transceiver and a frequency of the second signal.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the instant application did not explicitly disclose the
frequency detector coupled with the circuit to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the first signal provided by the circuit and a third signal generated in apparatus.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals received via the transceiver through the antenna of the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be using the frequency detector coupled with the circuit to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the first signal provided by the circuit and a third signal generated in apparatus. The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,042,720 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application Patent No. 11,042,720
1 1
10 8
19 15
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the apparatus includes a modulator configured to generate a first signal modulated according to first data; a transceiver coupled to the modulator to transmit the first data via first radio frequency signals; a circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals; and a controller configured to determine: an identity of a device based on second data received in the transceiver and a frequency of the second signal.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the instant application did not explicitly disclose the oscillator to generate a signal and a frequency detector coupled with the modulation remover to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the signal generated by the oscillator and the modulation-free version of the signal received in the transceiver.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the signal is generated by a device (i.e. generally generated by an oscillator) for transmission of data via the antenna in the Claim 1 of the instant Application and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals received via the transceiver through the antenna of the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be using the frequency detector coupled with the circuit to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the first signal provided by the circuit and a third signal generated in apparatus. The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,650,200 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
Therefore, the claims of the instant application is similar to the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,650,200. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,200 except the limitation "an oscillator to generate a signal, and the frequency detector coupled with the circuit to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the first signal provided by the circuit and a third signal generated in apparatus".
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application Patent No. 10,650,200
1 1
2
19 3
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,438,031. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the apparatus includes a modulator configured to generate a first signal modulated according to first data; a transceiver coupled to the modulator to transmit the first data via first radio frequency signals; a circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals; and a controller configured to determine: an identity of a device based on second data received in the transceiver and a frequency of the second signal.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the instant application did not explicitly disclose the oscillator to generate a signal; the frequency detector coupled with the modulation remover to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the signal generated by the oscillator and the modulation-free version of the signal received in the transceiver; and wherein the identity of the device is determined based at least in part on the modulation in the reflected version of the signal received in the transceiver.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the signal is generated by a device (i.e. generally generated by an oscillator) for transmission of data via the antenna in the Claim 1 of the instant Application and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals received via the transceiver through the antenna of the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be using the frequency detector coupled with the circuit to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the first signal provided by the circuit and a third signal generated in apparatus. And furthermore, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the circuit coupled to the transceiver to generate a second signal based on second radio frequency signals received via the transceiver through the antenna of the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be that the identity of the device is determined based at least in part on the modulation in the reflected version of the signal received in the transceiver. The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,438,031 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
Therefore, the claims of the instant application is broader to the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,438,031. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,438,031 except the limitation "an oscillator to generate a signal; the frequency detector coupled with the modulation remover to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the signal generated by the oscillator and the modulation-free version of the signal received in the transceiver; and wherein the identity of the device is determined based at least in part on the modulation in the reflected version of the signal received in the transceiver".
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application Patent No. 10,438,031
1 1
10 7
19 13
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are allowed if the Applicant overcomes the rejections of the Claims Under the Doctrine of Double Patenting.
Claim 23 is 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 and the Applicant overcomes the rejections of the Claims Under the Doctrine of Double Patenting.
Referring to claim 23, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the at least one motion parameter comprises a position, a speed, an acceleration, or a jerk, or any combination thereof; the circuit comprises a detector configured to determine a Doppler frequency shift between the second signal generated by the circuit and a fourth signal generated in the apparatus; and the motion parameter is determined based at least in part on the Doppler frequency shift.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights