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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 20070194931 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, Miller discloses an RFID system and method for reading at least one RFID tag, the system comprising:
an RFID reader coupled to a first antenna for reading an RFID tag (read coil antenna 12, Para. 9, 48); and
an RFID communication disruptor coupled to a second antenna and configured to disrupt a communication signal that is according to an RFID protocol, the communication signal for communication from the RFID reader to the RFID tag (ASK modulated signal from reader to tag), by transmitting an interference signal to prevent the RFID reader from reading the RFID tag (jamming coil antenna 44, Para. 13, 48, 52, 53, 75, 76);
wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to perform the interference with the communication signal when the RFID tag is beyond a tag reading boundary of the RFID reader by directing the second antenna (via directing jamming coil antenna 44 to prevent reading from outside betting area, Para. 52).
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses wherein the interference signal comprises a corrupted communication signal that is otherwise according to the RFID protocol (via modulated jammer signal, Para. 76).
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses wherein the corrupted communication signal comprises a partial communication signal according to the RFID protocol (via modulated jammer signal, Para. 76).
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses the interference signal comprises random or white noise (via noise signal, Para. 76).
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses the system configured to generate the communication signal by amplitude and/or phase modulation of a message (via ASK modulated signal, Para. 75), and configured to amplitude and/or phase modulate the interference signal such that each of the one or more bits of the message as detected is erroneously detected relative to the bit as transmitted (Para. 76).
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses wherein said amplitude and/or phase modulation is relative to the communication signal (Para. 76).
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses wherein the communication signal comprises a communication signal from the RFID reader to the RFID tag, the RFID tag configured as a bit detector to read a message in the communication signal (via detector of RFID device, Para. 75).
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses wherein, when the communication signal and interference signal interfere at the detector, the interference signal causes erroneous detection of one or more bits of the communication signal as detected relative to the bit as transmitted (Para. 75).
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses wherein the message is encoded in the communication signal using an amplitude and/or phase modulation scheme (ASK modulation, Para. 75), and wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to dither a phase of the interference signal to cause said erroneous detection of the one or more bits of the message as detected at the detector (via phase modulated signal, Para. 76, 76).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses wherein said dithering is relative to the communication signal (jammer modulation including phase modulated signal, Para. 76, 77).
Regarding claim 11, Miller discloses the system configured to perform communication using the RFID protocol which includes an error check, and configured such that said erroneous detection of the one or more bits of the communication signal causes the message to fail the error check (via decode errors, Para. 75).
Regarding claim 12, Miller teaches wherein the detector has an amplitude demodulator comprising an envelope detector circuit configured to vary a threshold amplitude based on a rolling average amplitude of an input signal and to perform envelope detection by detecting peaks of the input signal that are above the threshold amplitude (via RFID die configured to receive ASK modulated signal, Para. 75), wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to intermittently transmit the interference signal to alter the signal level at the input of the envelope detector to thereby cause the threshold to vary to prevent the envelope detector from correctly demodulating the communication signal (via amplitude modulated jamming signal, Para. 76).
Regarding claim 13, Miller discloses wherein the RFID communication disruptor comprises an interference transmitter to transmit the interference signal (via output 1316, Para. 110), the interference transmitter comprising a power amplifier to amplify a drive signal driving the interference transmitter (1306, Para. 109), wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to switch the power amplifier on and off to cause said intermittent transmitting of the interference signal (via amplitude modulated signal to jam ASK modulation, Para. 75-76).
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses the first antenna is configured to emit one or more beams in different directions inside a tag reading boundary (flux 120 from coil 12, Para. 46, Fig. 2), and wherein the second antenna is configured to emit one or more beams in different directions beyond the tag reading boundary (associated with each read coil 12 are jamming coils 44 disposed as described above. The jamming coils 44 are activated to help restrict the reading zone of the read coil 12 by either splitting the signal and shaping the resulting field pattern or by generating a separate independent jamming signal, Para. 52).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, and further in view of Knadle (US 20080150691).
Regarding claim 14, Miller teaches fails to disclose wherein the RFID reader comprises a plurality of detection channels, each channel associated with a direction relative to the first antenna, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor comprises a noise generator configured to generate noise in one or more of the detection channels to reduce a signal to noise ratio of the communication signal detected in the one or more detection channels.
Knadle teaches RFID systems can be configured to communicate with tags via a plurality of detection channels, each channel inherently associated with a direction relative to an antenna (Para. 31). And Miller already teaches RFID communication disruptor comprises a noise generator configured to generate noise to reduce a signal to noise ratio of the communication signal detected in the one or more detection channels (Para. 76).
From the teachings of Knadle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller to include wherein the RFID reader comprises a plurality of detection channels, each channel associated with a direction relative to the first antenna, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor comprises a noise generator configured to generate noise in one or more of the detection channels to reduce a signal to noise ratio of the communication signal detected in the one or more detection channels in order to prevent reading of tags outside of the reading boundary.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, and further in view of Butler (US 20070210923 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Miller fails to disclose wherein the RFID reader is configured to transmit the communication signal in a first polarization, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to transmit the interference signal in a second, different polarization.
Butler teaches RFID communications can be configured in different polarizations (Para. 593). And Miller already teaches sending interference signals to interfere with different RF communications (rejection of claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Miller to include wherein the RFID reader is configured to transmit the communication signal in a first polarization, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to transmit the interference signal in a second, different polarization to interfere with the communication signal in order to limit communications within a specific area.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, and further in view of Griffin (US 2013/0147609).
Regarding claim 16, Miller fails to disclose the RFID reader is configured to transmit the communication signal having a first carrier wave frequency, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to transmit the interference signal having a second, different carrier wave frequency.
Griffin teach an RFID system, wherein the RFID reader is configured to transmit a read communication signal having a first carrier wave frequency, and tags can respond with a different carrier wave frequency (via pilot signal from reader 105 can be different from carrier frequency of RF tag 105, Para. 42).
From the teachings of Griffin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Miller to include the RFID reader is configured to transmit the communication signal having a first carrier wave frequency, and wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to transmit the interference signal having a second, different carrier wave frequency in order to prevent reading of the tags at the tags’ carrier frequency.
Regarding claim 17, Miller teach wherein the RFID communication disruptor is configured to transmit the interference signal having a plurality of carrier wave frequencies, different to the first carrier wave frequency (via noise signals, Para. 76).
Conclusion
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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