DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims on 09/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. The effective filing date is 09/12/2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 and 01/30/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0255950 A1 Roeder et al. (hereinafter Roeder).
Regarding claim 1, Roeder teaches an inventory management device (Roeder Abstract, warehouse management system), comprising: a transportable frame that at least partially surrounds a housing, the transportable frame having a motor attachment surface (Roeder [0054-0055] the system includes a support structure, which includes cutouts to house the antenna components and has a slot to attach to a tine of a forklift, the slot for the forklift is the motor attachment surface); a radio frequency identification (RFID) interrogator located in the housing (Roeder Claim 1, the RFID tags are for interrogating; [0051] the antennas are located within the primary openings, see Fig. 1 and 2A, elements 202 and 204, to read tags on the inventory items when picked up by the forklift); and an RFID antenna located in the housing (Roeder [0051] the antennas are located within the primary openings, see Fig. 1 and 2A, elements 202 and 204, to read tags on the inventory items when picked up by the forklift).
Regarding claim 2, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 1, wherein the motor attachment surface is part of a longitudinally extending slot in a base of the transportable frame, the longitudinally extending slot being sized to accommodate one or more forks of a forklift (Roeder [0054-0055] the system includes a support structure, which includes cutouts to house the antenna components and has a slot to attach to a tine of a forklift, the slot for the forklift is the motor attachment surface; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Roeder teaches an inventory management system comprising the inventory management device of claim 1, wherein the system comprises: a plurality of passive location tags; and a plurality of passive asset tags, wherein the RFID interrogator is configured to activate the plurality of passive location tags and the plurality of passive asset tags, and the RFID antenna is configured to receive return signals from the plurality of passive location tags and the plurality of passive asset tags (Roeder [0048-0049] tags are presented on multiple locations within the storage of inventory, Fig. 2A, showcases tags on individual boxes (250) for information about the item, and presented on the pallet (252) to showcase the location of all boxes placed, this related to instant application Fig. 1, where element 16 is asset tags and element 18 is the location tag; [0009] the item identification and item location are the two aspects to identify).
Regarding claim 10, Roeder teaches the inventory management system of claim 9, wherein the inventory management device is configured to read one passive asset tag of the plurality of passive asset tags in a plurality of location areas to obtain a plurality of asset tag readings for the one passive asset tag (Roeder [0048-0049] a plurality of asset tags are presented at one location, and all asset tags may be read, see Fig. 2A for the plurality of asset tags (250) on one location tag (252)).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0260301 A1 Miller et al. (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 18, Miller teaches an inventory management (Miller Abstract, asset management) method, comprising the steps of: reading an asset tag in a plurality of location areas (Miller [0070] using RSSI to determine the location of a tag); obtaining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for the asset tag in each of the location areas (Miller [0070] RSSI determines the different locations based on the strength of the signal); and using a highest RSSI obtained to assign a location of the asset tag (Miller [0072] the hub can receive the information about the asset, including what the asset is, and the location, and manage its location).
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more electronic processors causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 18 (Miller [0017] the system include processors and memories).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder in view of US 2018/0075268 A1 Jun (hereinafter Jun).
Regarding claim 3, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 1, further comprising a second RFID antenna located in the housing, wherein each of the first and the second RFID antennas have a longitudinal axis and a width axis, with the longitudinal axis being longer than the width axis (Roeder [0062-0064, see Fig. 4C, where the circuit board extend the length of the tine, and the width is shown in Fig. 4D, element 430, the width is smaller than the length; [0069] the tine has multiple antennas, see element 801, 802, 803, 804, located within the housings and separated).
Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first RFID antenna is orthogonally offset from the second RFID antenna.
Jun is in the field of scanning inventories (Jun Abstract, scanning shelves) and teaches wherein the first RFID antenna is orthogonally offset from the second RFID antenna (Jun [0095-0096] he antennas include a vertical and horizontal antenna, making them orthogonal to each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antennas of Roeder with the position taught by Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to provide moveable antennas in order to reduce the cost associated by eliminating the need to update pre-existing shelving (Jun [0014] the antenna can be moved, and can fit pre-existing shelves and eliminate the need to renovate).
Regarding claim 4, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 3, wherein a third RFID antenna is located in the housing and a fourth RFID antenna is located in the housing (Roeder [0069] the tine has multiple antennas, see element 801, 802, 803, 804, located within the housings and separated).
Regarding claim 5, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 4. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein a blocking partition at least partially separates the first and the second RFID antennas from the third and the fourth RFID antennas.
Jun teaches a blocking partition at least partially separates the first and the second RFID antennas from the third and the fourth RFID antennas (Jun [0364] a blocking layer may be placed on the outer side of a scanner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple antenna of Roeder with the blocking layer of Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent scanning errors by preventing interference (Jun [0057] blocking o prevent scanning errors).
Regarding claim 6, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 5. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second RFID antennas and the third and the fourth RFID antennas are symmetrically arranged with respect to the blocking partition. Jun teaches wherein the first and the second RFID antennas and the third and the fourth RFID antennas are symmetrically arranged with respect to the blocking partition (Jun [0259-0260] the blocking function of the body in relation to multiple antenna, see Fig. 2, blocking layer 1022, and he different antennas 1024, which include both horizonal and vertical antenna). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple antenna of Roeder with the blocking layer of Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent scanning errors by preventing interference (Jun [0057] blocking o prevent scanning errors).
Regarding claim 12, Roeder teaches an inventory management device (Roeder Abstract, warehouse management system), comprising: a frame that at least partially surrounds a housing (Roeder [0054-0055] the system includes a support structure, which includes cutouts to house the antenna components and has a slot to attach to a tine of a forklift, the slot for the forklift is the motor attachment surface); a first radio frequency identification (RFID) antenna located in the housing (Roeder Claim 1, the RFID tags are for interrogating; [0051] the antennas are located within the primary openings, see Fig. 1 and 2A, elements 202 and 204, to read tags on the inventory items when picked up by the forklift); and a second RFID antenna located in the housing, wherein each of the first and the second RFID antennas have a longitudinal axis and a width axis, with the longitudinal axis being longer than the width axis (Roeder [0062-0064, see Fig. 4C, where the circuit board extend the length of the tine, and the width is shown in Fig. 4D, element 430, the width is smaller than the length; [0069] the tine has multiple antennas, see element 801, 802, 803, 804, located within the housings and separated). Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first RFID antenna is orthogonally offset from the second RFID antenna.
Jun teaches wherein the first RFID antenna is orthogonally offset from the second RFID antenna (Jun [0095-0096] he antennas include a vertical and horizontal antenna, making them orthogonal to each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antennas of Roeder with the position taught by Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to provide moveable antennas in order to reduce the cost associated by eliminating the need to update pre-existing shelving (Jun [0014] the antenna can be moved, and can fit pre-existing shelves and eliminate the need to renovate).
Regarding claim 13, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 12, wherein a third RFID antenna is located in the housing and a fourth RFID antenna is located in the housing (Roeder [0069] the tine has multiple antennas, see element 801, 802, 803, 804, located within the housings and separated).
Regarding claim 14, Roader teaches the inventory management device of claim 13. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein a blocking partition at least partially separates the first and the second RFID antennas from the third and the fourth RFID antennas.
Jun teaches wherein a blocking partition at least partially separates the first and the second RFID antennas from the third and the fourth RFID antennas (Jun [0364] a blocking layer may be placed on the outer side of a scanner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple antenna of Roeder with the blocking layer of Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent scanning errors by preventing interference (Jun [0057] blocking o prevent scanning errors).
Regarding claim 15, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 14. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second RFID antennas and the third and the fourth RFID antennas are symmetrically arranged with respect to the blocking partition.
Jun teaches wherein the first and the second RFID antennas and the third and the fourth RFID antennas are symmetrically arranged with respect to the blocking partition (Jun [0259-0260] the blocking function of the body in relation to multiple antenna, see Fig. 2, blocking layer 1022, and he different antennas 1024, which include both horizonal and vertical antenna). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple antenna of Roeder with the blocking layer of Jun. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent scanning errors by preventing interference (Jun [0057] blocking o prevent scanning errors).
Regarding claim 16, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 12, wherein the frame is a transportable frame having a motor attachment surface (Roeder [0054-0055] the system includes a support structure, which includes cutouts to house the antenna components and has a slot to attach to a tine of a forklift, the slot for the forklift is the motor attachment surface).
Regarding claim 17, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 16, wherein the motor attachment surface is part of a longitudinally extending slot in a base of the transportable frame, the longitudinally extending slot being sized to accommodate one or more forks of a forklift (Roeder [0054-0055] the system includes a support structure, which includes cutouts to house the antenna components and has a slot to attach to a tine of a forklift, the slot for the forklift is the motor attachment surface; Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 11, Roeder teaches the inventory management system of claim 10. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inventory management device is configured to obtain a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for each of the plurality of asset tag readings and use a highest RSSI to assign a location of the one passive asset tag. Miller is in the field of asset management (Miller Abstract) and teaches wherein the inventory management device is configured to obtain a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for each of the plurality of asset tag readings and use a highest RSSI to assign a location of the one passive asset tag (Miller [0070] RSSI determines the different locations based on the strength of the signal; [0072] the hub can receive the information about the asset, including what the asset is, and the location, and manage its location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inventory management of Roeder with the RSSI of Miller. The motivation for doing so would be to obtain the most accurate representation of the location by triangulating the location and using the strongest signal (Miller [0070] the strength indicator gives an accurate location).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder in view of US 2021/0150462 A1 Leitermann et al. (hereinafter Leitermann).
Regarding claim 7, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 1. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the RFID interrogator is configured to transmit an output power of 2 watts or more.
Leitermann is in the field of RFID readers (Leitermann Abstract, RFID readers) and teaches wherein the RFID interrogator is configured to transmit an output power of 2 watts or more (Leitermann [0039] the power of the signal can be 1-5 watts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RFID interrogator of Roeder with the power teaching of Leitermann. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the power level that is necessary to each a specific distance, the longer distance requires new power (Leitermann [0054] longer distance needs more power).
Regarding claim 8, Roeder teaches the inventory management device of claim 7. Roeder fails to explicitly disclose wherein the RFID interrogator is configured to transmit the output power at 4 watts or more. Leitermann teaches wherein the RFID interrogator is configured to transmit the output power at 4 watts or more (Leitermann [0039] the power of the signal can be 1-5 watts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RFID interrogator of Roeder with the power teaching of Leitermann. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the power level that is necessary to each a specific distance, the longer distance requires new power (Leitermann [0054] longer distance needs more power).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Leitermann.
Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches the inventory management method of claim 18.
Miller fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inventory management device performs the reading and obtaining steps, the inventory management device having a transportable frame and a radio frequency identification (RFID) interrogator, wherein the RFID interrogator transmits an output power of 2 watts or more.
Leitermann teaches wherein an inventory management device performs the reading and obtaining steps, the inventory management device having a transportable frame and a radio frequency identification (RFID) interrogator (Leitermann [0090-0091] the interrogation readers for signals, using RSSI, and RFID readers, see tag A and B; Fig. 11A, housing with two separate antennas), wherein the RFID interrogator transmits an output power of 2 watts or more (Leitermann [0039] the power of the signal can be 1-5 watts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RFID interrogator of Roeder with the power teaching of Leitermann. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the power level that is necessary to each a specific distance, the longer distance requires new power (Leitermann [0054] longer distance needs more power).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0243174 A1 Muirhead teaches orthogonal RFID sensors (Fig. 10).
US 2012/0242481 A1 Gernandt et al. teaches locating tagged items (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627