DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-17 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 7, 2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 28, 2024, 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 § 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.
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) 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., U.S. Patent Application 2010/0172502 in view of Horowitz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0083964.
As per Claim 1, Jones discloses a method for tracking a geographical location of a designated item, the method comprising:
collecting a plurality of items including the designated item to form an aggregate (pg.3, ¶ [0079] discusses a collection can include a case of items, a pallet of items and a container filled with items),
wherein each of the plurality of items, including the designated item, has a corresponding item label (pg.4, ¶ [0082] discusses items are grouped into collections and each item in the collection is tagged with an RFID tag encoded in accordance with an embodiment of the invention so that information concerning all of the items in the collection can be recovered from a subset of the RFID tags in the collection), and
the aggregate is formed in such way to obscure one or more of the item labels (pg.5, [0087] discusses the tags in the middle of the pallet cannot be energized sufficiently; the orientation of the tag can prevent a successful read due to the in-lay);
applying a group label to the aggregate (pg.6, ¶ [0094] discusses the encrypted pseudo-random key is encoded on a collection RFID tag that can be affixed to a palette or other container or item that is transported with the collection);
reading the group label with a first scanner (pg.8, ¶ [0116] discusses the collection can be transported and an RFID reader can attempt to read the RFID tags of the items in the collection);
associating a first location with the first scanner (pg.10, ¶ [0126] discusses Once, the pallet reaches its first destination, the pallet is read (334), and the encoding strings and corresponding recovered EPC data are sent to a database 336 for further analysis and processing by business intelligence and back-end software);
ascribing the first location to the group label (pg.4, ¶ [0084] discusses a warehouse that includes RFID readers for tracking items entering, within and leaving the warehouse).
Jones discloses a system and method of ascribing a first location to each tag in order to track the movement through the supply chain. However, Jones fails to explicitly state ascribing the first location to the designated item.
Horowitz et al. teaches ascribing the first location to the designated item (pg.6, ¶ [0064] discusses the cluster ID along with any location tag that were identified in the same read are stored together with a time date stamp in a location list for each cluster ID that was determined as present in that read. The cluster location list provides the real-time trail of where a particular cluster is or has been).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of item tracking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones to include the ability to store the location for each item as taught by Horowitz et al. to provide a method and system for tracking each item in a cluster of items. Abstract
As per Claim 2, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the one or more of the item labels is an RFID tag and wherein the group label is an RFID tag (pg.5, ¶ [0090] discusses applying each item an RFID tag and pg.10, ¶ [0103] discusses collection RFID is fixed to a transportation container such as a pallet).
As per Claim 3, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises associating a second location to a second scanner (pg.4, ¶ [0086] discusses A retail store including RFID readers for tracking items entering, within and leaving the retail store);
scanning the group label with the second scanner and ascribing the second location to the designated item (pg.4, ¶ [0086] discusses Interrogating RFID tags of collections as they enter the retail store and as items are distributed throughout the store and are sold enables the tracking of inventory, the location of goods, and the detection of loss of goods).
As per Claim 4, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising
removing a moved item from the aggregate (pg.10, ¶ [0127] discusses when a collection arrives at a retail location, the collection is typically broken up and the items stored);
scanning an item label associated with the moved item and updating information associated with the group label (pg.10, ¶ [0129] discusses once the tagged items are placed on the store shelf, the RFID reader system periodically interrogates (374) each interrogation space….In the event that any item in the interrogation space is moved, the RFID reader system has the capability to detect such a displacement as shown in the step in the flow chart. If this movement is detected, the central inventory table database is updated (378) via the RFID reader system and the encoding string table for the parent collection of the RFID tag is punctured (380). The parent collection can refer to the group of tags associated, for example, by a region in the storage area).
As per Claim 5, Jones discloses the method according to claim 4 further comprising the step of updating information associated with a further group label after moving a moved item (pg.10, ¶ [0130] discusses if a pallet lot is to be split into smaller lots, a separate list of item identifier strings is generated for each small lot 408, 410. The small lot can go through the same process of encoding and decoding as described above using tag readers and printers 396 to generate new encoding strings for the smaller lots).
The cited portion of Jones teaches where the items can be associated with a smaller lot, where the Examiner is construing the smaller lot as a further group label.
As per Claim 6, Jones discloses the method according to claim 5 wherein the step of moving the moved item comprises updating the location descriptor for a label associated with the moved item (pg.10, ¶ [0129] discusses When the tag reaches the point-of-sale tem1inal (i.e., cashier) or a portal exit, the tag or some portion of it, may optionally be killed (380) to protect the consumer's privacy and prevent issues that may arise were someone to attempt to associate the tag content with the consumer).
Examiner is construing the ability for the tag be killed as updating the location descriptor as to not follow the customer.
As per Claim 7, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein each item label and each group label have label information associated therewith (pg.4, ¶ [0084] discusses the information encoded across the RFID tags of the entire collection includes information concerning every item in the collection and manifest information that can be secured via an interleaving and/or encryption process….pg.6, ¶ [0096] discusses the item identifier string 102 includes a first sequence of bits that constitute a goods description string 103 and second sequence of bits that constitute an item sequence number 104 or Case ID. The goods description string 103 is often a nonunique string that is used to simply describe an item).
As per Claim 8, Jones discloses the method according to claim 6 wherein the label information comprises one or more of the following: owner identification, label type, item type, creation date, location designator and serial number (pg.6, ¶ [0097] discusses the unique word 110 also includes a collection serial number. The collection serial number is a number that is capable of uniquely identifying the collection of items).
As per Claim 9, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the step of ascribing the first location to the group label and/o1r the step of ascribing the first location to the designated item may comprise updating a location designator for label information associated with the group label 2 and/or the designated item (Figure 21, depicts Step 374 where the tags are interrogated. Steps 376 “Has any item in the designated interrogation space moved from previous location?”, Step 378 “Update Central Inventory database for removed tags”).
The cited portion of Jones teaches where movement is detected the central inventory database is updated and the encoding string table for the collection of RFID tag is punctured, therefore updating the location information in the group label and/or time label.
As per Claim 10, Jones discloses the method according to claim 7 wherein the label information comprises data stored in or on the label associated with the item (Figure 8a, depicts item identifier strings used to generate code word elements that are used as at least part of an encoding string to encode an RFID tag).
As per Claim 11, Jones discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein the label information further comprises an active status (pg.10, ¶ [0129] discusses If "verification" (376) is achieved the system continues interrogating. In the event that any item in the interrogation space is moved, the RFID reader system has the capability to detect such a displacement).
The cited portion of Jones discloses that an interrogator is capable of verifying whether an item is within the interrogation space and is therefore in stock.
As per Claim 12, Jones discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein updating the label information comprises storing new data in or on the label (pg.10, ¶ [0130] discusses a choice can be made as to whether to reencode the RFID tags of received goods or as to whether to simply use existing encoding strings…pg.11, ¶ [0130] discusses each item's RFID tag is encoded with a new encoding string. In a number of other embodiments, each item's original RFID tag is cancelled and a new RFID tag containing a new encoding string is affixed to the item).
The cited portion of Jones discusses a pallet split into smaller lots and reencoding the RFID tags with a new string.
As per Claim 13, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising scanning a group label or an item label wherein, when scanning a label, a label type is determined from the label information and the scanner determines whether the label type matches a sought label type (pg.10, ¶ [0128] discusses when the selective interrogation capability is combined with a database of the encoding strings of the RFID tags of items stored in a storage area and the location of the items, it is possible to invoke queries such as: identify all items in isle 13, shelve 14; notify if isle 13, shelve 14 has less than N items; notify if any item moves from isle 12, shelve 2. Each of these queries may also point to shelves that are unions or intersections (if overlapped) of cubes).
The cited portion of Jones teaches a system and method capable of searching for a particular item within a storage area.
As per Claim 15, Jones discloses a system for tracking a geographical location of a designated item, the system comprising:
a plurality of items including the designated item collected to form an aggregate (pg.3, ¶ [0079] discusses a collection can include a case of items, a pallet of items and a container filled with items),
wherein each of the plurality of items, including the designated item, has a corresponding item label (pg.4, ¶ [0082] discusses items are grouped into collections and each item in the collection is tagged with an RFID tag encoded in accordance with an embodiment of the invention so that information concerning all of the items in the collection can be recovered from a subset of the RFID tags in the collection), and
the aggregate is formed in such way to obscure one or more of the item labels (pg.5, [0087] discusses the tags in the middle of the pallet cannot be energized sufficiently; the orientation of the tag can prevent a successful read due to the in-lay);
a group label applied to the aggregate (pg.6, ¶ [0094] discusses the encrypted pseudo-random key is encoded on a collection RFID tag that can be affixed to a palette or other container or item that is transported with the collection);
a first scanner associated with a first location (pg.8, ¶ [0116] discusses the collection can be transported and an RFID reader can attempt to read the RFID tags of the items in the collection);
a processor connected to memory and machine-readable instructions loaded to the memory to cause the processor to:
read the group label with the first scanner (pg.8, ¶ [0116] discusses the collection can be transported and an RFID reader can attempt to read the RFID tags of the items in the collection);
associate a first location with the first scanner (pg.10, ¶ [0126] discusses Once, the pallet reaches its first destination, the pallet is read (334), and the encoding strings and corresponding recovered EPC data are sent to a database 336 for further analysis and processing by business intelligence and back-end software);
ascribe the first location to the group label (pg.4, ¶ [0084] discusses a warehouse that includes RFID readers for tracking items entering, within and leaving the warehouse); and
Jones discloses a system and method of ascribing a first location to each tag in order to track the movement through the supply chain. However, Jones fails to explicitly state ascribing the first location to the designated item.
Horowitz et al. teaches ascribing the first location to the designated item (pg.6, ¶ [0064] discusses the cluster ID along with any location tag that were identified in the same read are stored together with a time date stamp in a location list for each cluster ID that was determined as present in that read. The cluster location list provides the real-time trail of where a particular cluster is or has been).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of item tracking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones to include the ability to store the location for each item as taught by Horowitz et al. to provide a method and system for tracking each item in a cluster of items. Abstract
As per Claim 16, Jones discloses the system according to claim 15 further comprising a second scanner associated with a second location (pg.4, ¶ [0086] discusses A retail store including RFID readers for tracking items entering, within and leaving the retail store)and
the processor may be adapted to3 ascribe the second location to the designated item when the group label is scanned with the second scanner (pg.4, ¶ [0086] discusses Interrogating RFID tags of collections as they enter the retail store and as items are distributed throughout the store and are sold enables the tracking of inventory, the location of goods, and the detection of loss of goods).
As per Claim 17, Jones discloses the system according to claim 15 wherein the system is adapted to update information associated with the group label when a moved item is removed from the aggregate and an item label associated with the moved item is scanned with a scanner (pg.10, ¶ [0127] discusses when a collection arrives at a retail location, the collection is typically broken up and the items stored…pg.10, ¶ [0129] discusses When the tag reaches the point-of-sale tem1inal (i.e., cashier) or a portal exit, the tag or some portion of it, may optionally be killed (380) to protect the consumer's privacy and prevent issues that may arise were someone to attempt to associate the tag content with the consumer).
Examiner is construing the ability for the tag be killed as updating the location descriptor as to not follow the customer. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art that a point of sale is performing the scanning of the label in order for the label to be killed upon exiting the store.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., U.S. Patent Application 2010/0172502 in view of Horowitz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0083964 further in view of Trivelpiece et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0236323.
As per Claim 14, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the step of collecting a plurality of items including the designated item to form an aggregate includes the step of disabling each of the item labels of each of the plurality of items.
Both Jones and Horowitz disclose applying passive, active and/or semi-active RFID tags to items for the use of tracking.
However, the Jones-Horowitz combination fails to explicitly state wherein the step of collecting a plurality of items including the designated item to form an aggregate includes the step of disabling each of the item labels of each of the plurality of items.
Trivelpiece teaches wherein the step of collecting a plurality of items including the designated item to form an aggregate includes the step of disabling each of the item labels of each of the plurality of items (pg.6, ¶ [0070] discusses the tag 200 can be further configured to enter the sleep state in response to its continuous detection of motion for a given period of time. The tag can be transitioned from its sleep state in response to expiration of a defined time period, the tag's reception of a control signal from an external device, and/or the tag's detection of no motion for a period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have RFID tags enter a sleep state as in the improvement discussed in Trivelpiece in the system executing the method of the Jones-Horowitz combination. As in Trivelpiece, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to allow items tagged with RFID tags to enter a sleep state to the Jones-Horowitz combination with the predicted result of avoiding false reads as needed in the Jones-Horowitz combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ebert et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0227392 discusses methods and apparatus, including computer program products, for real-time and context-aware tracking of items. Tags bound to items are read and information read from the tags and location information about the tags is provided by at least two enterprises and used to maintain disposition information about the items, which is made visible to enterprises in the supply chain. The disposition information can be mapped to a world model that tracks the items and circumstances affecting the items, for example, geo-spatial events and traffic delays. Visibility of the disposition information can be controlled through authorization. Visible information can include relationships between particular items and business documents such as order and shipping documents. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The Examiner notes, the italicized portions of the above claim are used to denote intended use and are given little patentable weight. The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
2 The Examiner notes, the italicized portions of the claims also denote intended use and is also given little patentable weight.
3 The Examiner notes, the italicized portions of the claim also denote intended use and are given little patentable weight.
Prosecution Insights