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 Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
392
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Indeed the broadest interpretation of a stale state would be encompassed by an RFID tag confidence value greater than zero and less than 1.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
84
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Values associated with tags are changed to 1.0 upon detection and 0 upon exit. These are changes to tag state.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
298
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees the asserted premise. Belstner falls within the BRI of the claimed subject matter.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
No modification to Belstner was proposed.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
142
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
No modification to Belstner was proposed.
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
284
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response: Belstner was not relied on for the referenced limitations. See rejection regarding Hewett’s teachings.
Argument:
PNG
media_image7.png
172
686
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
154
662
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response:
Examiner disagrees with these arguments as Belstner falls within the scope of the BRI of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-14, 16-22, 27, 28, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belstner (US 20190019139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Belstner discloses:
1. A method of tracking items associated with respective radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags entering and exiting a store with an inventory database storing states of the RFID tags (abstract, paragraph 52 interrogate, paragraph 58 database updated), the states including an available state (paragraph 58 1.0 indicates item was read) indicating that an item associated with a corresponding RFID tag is available for sale, a stale state indicating that a predetermined time period has elapsed since the corresponding RFID tag has responded to an interrogation signal (paragraph 58 a value less than 1 but greater than zero indicates an item hasn’t been read perhaps in a few days see paragraph 75), and a sold state indicating that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold and/or removed from the store (paragraph 58 value set to zero), the method comprising:
in response to failing to detect a response from an RFID tag in the available state to a first interrogation signal, changing a state of the RFID tag to the stale state (paragraph 58-77 illustrates that a value is set less than one based on no RFID being unread); in response to detecting a response from the RFID tag to a second interrogation signal, changing the state of the RFID tag from the stale state to the available state (paragraph 58 set to 1.0); and
in response to detecting a sale of an item associated with the RFID tag and/or movement of the RFID tag out of the store, changing the state of the RFID tag to the sold state (paragraph 58 exit reader after sale set value to 0).
Regarding claim 7, Belstner discloses:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the sale of the item comprises updating a point-of-sale (POS) system to reflect that the item has been sold (fig. 7 725).
Regarding claim 8, Belstner discloses:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the sale of the item comprises transacting the sale of the item with a point-of-sale (POS) system (fig. 7 705).
Regarding claim 9, Belstner discloses:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the sale of the item comprises detecting that the RFID tag has been removed from the store ([0010] In various example embodiments the system may also create a contra-EPC. For example, at least one of the plurality of RFID readers may comprise an exit RFID reader used in a point-of-sale (POS) system that records the sale of an object in a database. A processor may be connected to the POS system to perform the following steps, for example: (1) when sales information is received from the POS system, monitoring the exit RFID reader for detection of data signal from a RFID tag in the plurality, and if an RFID tag is so detected, matching the sales information to the RFID tag and updating the database; and (2) if an RFID tag is not so detected, creating a contra-EPC associated with the object and updating the database).
Regarding claim 10, Belstner discloses:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: disposing the item so as to prevent the RFID tag from producing a detectable response to the second interrogation signal (paragraph 100 bottom).
Regarding claim 11, Belstner discloses:
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: placing the item in a stack of items that prevents the RFID tag from producing a detectable response to the second interrogation signal (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 12, Belstner discloses:
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving an indication that another item associated with another RFID tag is no longer part of an inventory tracked with the inventory database, changing the state of the other RFID tag to an ignored state (paragraph 93, fig. 7 RFID/EPC marked as sold).
Regarding claim 13, Belstner discloses:
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving an indication that another item associated with another RFID tag cannot be found, changing the state of other RFID tag to a missing state (paragraph 90 not detected within period of time, it is assumed item has left the store).
Regarding claim 14, Belstner discloses:
14. The method of claim 1, further comprising: keeping the RFID tag in the inventory database in the stale state despite failing to detect the response from an RFID tag in the available state to the first interrogation signal (paragraph 12 remain in stale state but just at lower confidence).
Regarding claim 16, Belstner discloses:
16. A controller appliance for monitoring states of radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags (paragraph 49 controller 35 receives data from RFID reader, paragraph 9 database storing information about rfid tags, see also paragraph 58 describing stored information), the states including an available state indicating that an item associated with a corresponding RFID tag is available for sale (paragraph 58 1.0 value), a stale state indicating that a predetermined time period has elapsed since the corresponding RFID tag has responded to an interrogation signal (paragraph 58-78 illustrate that confidence value decreases based on days since an item has been observed), and a sold state indicating that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold (paragraph 58 If an exit event is recorded (i.e., read by the exit RFID reader after a sale or consciously removed from inventory) then the probability for that EPC is set to 0, see also fig. 7), the controller appliance comprising: a communications interface configured to communicate with at least one RFID tag reader and with an inventory database storing the states of RFID tags (page 8 claim 9); a processor operably coupled to the communications interface; and a non-volatile memory operably coupled to the processor and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (page 8 claim 9 processor with storage disc and instructions) to update the states of RFID tags based on responses from the RFID tags to interrogation signals from the at least one RFID tag reader and failures by the RFID tags to respond to the interrogation signals from the at least one RFID tag reader ([0058] Each time something happens that can confirm an item is actually present (i.e. read by RFID reader within the store) the probability for that EPC is set to 1.0. If an exit event is recorded (i.e., read by the exit RFID reader after a sale or consciously removed from inventory) then the probability for that EPC is set to 0. It is between these two extremes that the probabilistic methods described herein may be used. As time passes without another confirmation of the item within the store, the probability that it is still in the store decreases according to a confidence probability curve that may be unique to the facility. In various example embodiments the confidence probability curve may be based on at least the following five parameters).
Regarding claim 17, Belstner discloses:
17. A system for monitoring radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags in a store, the system comprising: a plurality of RFID tag readers to transmit interrogation signals to RFID tags and to receive responses from the RFID tags to the interrogation signals (paragraph 49); and a controller appliance, operably coupled to the plurality of RFID tag readers (paragraph 49 controller 35), to update states of RFID tags based on the responses from the RFID tags (paragraph 51, paragraph 58 set state based on response), the states including an available state indicating that an item associated with a corresponding RFID tag is available for sale (paragraph 58 value 1.0), a stale state indicating that a predetermined time period has elapsed since the corresponding RFID tag has responded to an interrogation signal (paragraph 58-78 confidence less than 1 and more than zero), and a sold state indicating that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold (paragraph 58 confidence 0 based on sale/exit).
Regarding claim 18, Belstner discloses:
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of RFID tag readers is configured to change a rate of transmitting the interrogation signals based on a time of day (paragraph 101 different rate when facility is closed vs open).
Regarding claim 19, Belstner discloses:
19. The system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of RFID tag readers comprises: a first RFID tag reader configured to monitor a first zone of the store; and a second RFID tag reader configured to monitor a second zone of the store (paragraph 49 overhead, handheld, exit).
Regarding claim 20, Belstner discloses:
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the first RFID tag reader is configured to emit first interrogation signals at a first rate and the second RFID tag reader is configured to emit second interrogation signals at a second rate different than the first rate (paragraph 101 all RFID readers capable of operating at different rates).
Regarding claim 21, Belstner discloses:
21. The system of claim 19, wherein the first RFID tag reader is configured to emit first interrogation signals at a first power level and the second RFID tag reader is configured to emit second interrogation signals at a second power level different than the first power level (paragraph 101 RFID reader operate at different frequency implies greater power usage).
Regarding claim 22, Belstner discloses:
22. The system of claim 19, wherein the first RFID tag reader is configured to emit first interrogation signals at a first Q parameter and the second RFID tag reader is configured to emit second interrogation signals at a second Q parameter different than the first Q parameter (paragraph 101 RFID readers capable of different )
Regarding claim 27, Belstner discloses:
27. The system of claim 17, wherein the controller appliance is configured to transition an RFID tag to the sold state in response to an indication from at least one of the plurality of RFID tag readers that the RFID has been physically removed from the store ([0058] Each time something happens that can confirm an item is actually present (i.e. read by RFID reader within the store) the probability for that EPC is set to 1.0. If an exit event is recorded (i.e., read by the exit RFID reader after a sale or consciously removed from inventory))
Regarding claim 28, Belstner discloses:
28. The system of claim 17, wherein the controller appliance is communicatively coupled to a point-of-sale (POS) system and configured to transition the corresponding RFID tag to the sold state in response to an indication from the POS system that the item has been sold (fig. 7 705->725).
Regarding claim 30, Belstner discloses:
30. The system of claim 17, wherein the controller appliance is configured to transition a state of the corresponding RFID tag from the stale state to the sold state in response to an indication that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold (paragraph 58, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 31, Belstner discloses:
31. The system of claim 17, wherein the controller appliance is configured to transition a state of the corresponding RFID tag from a missing state indicated that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag is missing to the sold state in response to an indication that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold (paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 32, Belstner discloses:
32. The system of claim 17, wherein the controller appliance is configured to keep an RFID tag in an inventory database in the stale state despite the plurality of RFID tag readers failing to detect responses from the RFID tag (fig. 6A-6B many days in state state, see also [58]-[78]).
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.
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(s) 2-4, 24-26, 33, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belstner (US 20190019139 A1) in view of Hewett (US 20210199748 A1)
Regarding claims 2-4, Belstner discloses the subject matter of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the state of the RFID tag comprises a timestamp associated with a last detected response from the RFID tag (paragraph 9), but fails to disclose and Hewett discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the RFID tag comprises information about an estimated location of the RFID tag (paragraph 39, paragraph 125), an error associated with the estimated location of the RFID tag (paragraph 104), and
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined time period is based on the estimated location of the RFID tag (paragraph 100 frequent polling based on location changing).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined time period is based on a last detected response from the RFID tag ([0100] In yet another example, steps 302 to 314 can be repeated more or less frequently in response to measured changes in the number or positions of the RFID tags. For example, the processor may determine that a first RFID tag is moving if its position or corresponding LOS path angle(s) of arrival change smoothly as a function of time. The processor may correlate the first RFID tag's movement with the movement of a person from video or image data of the person or information about a second RFID tag, smartphone, or other RF transceiver carried by or affixed to the person. If the processor correlates the first RFID tag's movement with the person's movement, the processor may determine that the person is carrying the first RFID tag as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Belstner by tracking location and interrogating based on location changes. The motivation for the combination is efficient identification of RFID tags (paragraph 120).
Claims 24-26 are rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to claim 17.
Regarding claim 33, Belstner discloses:
33. A method of tracking items associated with respective radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags entering and exiting a store with an inventory database storing states of the RFID tags (paragraph 58), the states including an available state indicating that an item associated with a corresponding RFID tag is available for sale (paragraph 58 confidence 1.0), a stale state indicating that a predetermined time period has elapsed since the corresponding RFID tag has responded to an interrogation signal (paragraph 58-77 confidence under 1 based on days since last read), and a sold state indicating that the item associated with the corresponding RFID tag has been sold and/or removed from the store (paragraph 58 confidence 0), the method comprising: transmitting, by at least one RFID tag reader, a first interrogation signal to a first RFID tag (paragraph 52 rfid tag is interrogated, paragraph 53 interrogation signal);
detecting, by the at least one RFID tag reader, a response from the first RFID tag to the first interrogation signal (paragraph 52 if it reported);
in response to detecting the response from the first RFID tag to the first interrogation signal, updating a state of the first RFID tag in the inventory database to the available state (paragraph 58) transmitting, by the at least one RFID tag reader, a second interrogation signal to the first RFID tag with the at least one RFID tag reader (paragraph 100); failing to detect any response from the first RFID tag to the second interrogation signal due to tag shadowing, tag detuning, and/or re-radiation cancellation caused by the second RFID tag (paragraph 100 describes tag shadowing);
in response to failing to detect any response from the first RFID tag to the second interrogation signal, changing the state of the first RFID tag in the inventory database from the available state to the stale state (paragraph 58-78 confidence under 1.0 based on inability to read);
transmitting, by the at least one RFID tag reader, a third interrogation signal to the first RFID tag (Paragraph 101 periodic rescan);
detecting, by the at least one RFID tag reader, a response from the first RFID tag to the third interrogation signal (paragraph 58 read by rfid reader); and in response to detecting the response from the first RFID tag to the third interrogation signal, changing the state of the first RFID tag in the inventory database from the stale state to the available state (paragraph 58 1.0 state).
Belstner fails to disclose and Hewett discloses:
estimating a position of the first RFID tag based at least in part on the response to the first interrogation signal and (paragraph 100, paragraph 125-134) and updating to indicate the position of the first RFID tag (paragraph 125-134 describe RFID location tracking). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Belstner by tracking location and interrogating based on location changes. The motivation for the combination is efficient identification of RFID tags (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 34, Belstner discloses: 34. The method of claim 33, wherein disposing the first RFID tag within 20 centimeters of the second RFID tag comprises stacking an item associated with the first RFID tag on an item associated with the second RFID tag (paragraph 100 stack clothing with respective RFID tags).
Regarding claim 35, Belstner fails to clearly disclose and Hewett discloses: interrogations of RFID tags are performed at a frequency based on stored state information that one or more RFID tags may have moved or transitioned between states (paragraph 168). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Belstner by adjusting interrogation frequency. The motivation for the combination is efficient identification of RFID tags (paragraph 120).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belstner (US 20190019139 A1) in view of Tennill (US 20200374672 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Belstner fails to clearly disclose and Tennill discloses:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating an entry in the inventory database for the item associated with the RFID tag in response to detecting the RFID tag at a receiving area of the store, the entry comprising an Electronic Product Code (EPC) stored in a memory of the RFID tag, the EPC representing the item associated with the RFID tag (paragraph 7, 33, 42, 43)
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: verifying that the EPC correctly represents the item associated with the RFID tag ([0039] The containers can next be transported to shipping verification. The number of containers that are to be included in a shipment is known by the inventory management system, including the individual EPCs or identifiers of the items that are in each container. The inventory management system can identify which particular container(s) should be on a truck for each ASN. An ASN can be used as a shipping verification that indicates that a particular ASN includes a certain number of containers, and identifiers therefor. The containers themselves may/may not include RFID tags and ASNs, as compared to the items therein. As the containers pass through a portal, it may only be necessary to read one of the RFID tags of the items in each container because the items in each container are associated with each other and the corresponding container.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Belstner by having a process to add new items. The motivation for the combination is improved inventory management (paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 23, Belstner discloses RFID reader at an entrance/exit of the store (paragraph 10), but fails to disclose and Tennill discloses RFID reader at receiving (paragraph 7, 33, 42, 43)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Belstner by having a process to add new items. The motivation for the combination is improved inventory management (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 15, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belstner (US 20190019139 A1) in view of Diorio (US 8587411 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Belstner fails to disclose and Diorio discloses:
transitioning a state of the RFID tag in response to a command received via an application programming interface (fig. 1, column 3 66-column 4 line 9, column 9 63-67, column 21 53-61, column 22 4-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Belstner through the use of API commands. The motivation for the combination is to save time (column 2 30-35).
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwase (US 20230094353 A1) discloses updating an inventory database based on reading RFID tags. Li (US 20210364625 A1) discloses a system for rfid tag location determination. Jain (US 20140084060 A1) discloses RFID-based inventory monitoring including maintaining a status equivalent to “stale” (see paragraph 82 “potentially missing”).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627