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 .
Acknowledgment
This Office Action is responsive to amendment filed on 07/16/2026.
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.
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) 1-3, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland et al. (US 7,317,426, previously cited) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2009/0051605).
Regarding claim 1, Copeland teaches an EAS surveillance system (600, fig. and 6) comprising an EAS antenna (602) disposed adjacent to a surface (checkstand surface) oriented vertically relative to a ground surface (fig. 1 and abstract, lines 11-14); where the EAS antenna is selected from a ferrite antenna (col. 3, lines 21-23) and the EAS antenna is disposed substantially horizontal relative to the ground surface (antenna 602 is disposed horizontal relative to the ground surface, fig. 6). See col. 2, lines 45-62 and col. 5, lines 18-45).
Copeland fails to teach single EAS detection antenna that disposed substantially horizontal relative to the ground surface.
However, Copeland teaches different embodiments having single antenna or multiple antennas arranged in both vertical and horizontal with respect to the ground surface (figs. 1, 6 and 7). Moreover, Nakajima teaches pedestal having single antenna (10) arranged in horizontal relative to the ground surface (fig. 6 and [0067]).
In view of Nakajima’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Copeland by incorporating the teaching as taught by Nakajima since it is just a matter of selecting number of antennas needed for detecting and arranging the antenna in the horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface.
Regarding claim 2, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches a shroud (pedestal which serves as shroud) disposed on the surface, the shroud defining an interior space surrounding the EAS detection antenna (col. 2, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 3, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches the shroud comprises a cavity (housing or casing inherently includes cavity) defined in the interior space for receiving the EAS detection antenna (col. 2, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 6, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches wherein the vertically oriented surface is a wall (wall of the checkstand, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches wherein the vertically oriented surface is a portion of a checkout station (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minas (EP 0352513, previously cited).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches the EAS antenna (109) may be mounted in a housing such as pedestal (pedestal serve as shroud, col. 2, lines 56-58) but silent to the shroud comprises a removable as claimed.
However, Minas EAS system comprising a shroud (col. 7, lines 24-42); and wherein the shroud comprises a removable section (100) for providing access to the interior space of the shroud and further limitations as claimed (figs. 8-9 and col. 9, line 45 to col. 10, line 17).
In view of Minasy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Copeland and Nakajima by incorporating the teaching as taught by Minas in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Copeland teaches a checkout station (checkstand, fig. 1) comprising a customer side defining a surface vertically oriented relative to a ground surface (checkstand of supermarket or drugstore (col. 1, lines 48-51) inherently includes a customer side defining a surface); and a EAS antenna (602) disposed adjacent the surface of the customer side, the EAS antenna selected from a ferrite antenna (col. 3, lines 21-23) and being disposed horizontal relative to the ground surface (antenna 602 is disposed horizontal relative to the ground surface, fig. 6). See col. 2, lines 45-62 and col. 5, lines 18-45).
Copeland fails to teach single EAS detection antenna that disposed substantially horizontal relative to the ground surface.
However, Copeland teaches different embodiments having single antenna or multiple antennas arranged in both vertical and horizontal with respect to the ground surface (figs. 1, 6 and 7). Moreover, Nakajima teaches pedestal having single antenna (10) arranged in horizontal relative to the ground surface (fig. 6 and [0067]).
In view of Nakajima’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Copeland by incorporating the teaching as taught by Nakajima since it is just a matter of selecting number of antennas needed for detecting and arranging the antenna in the horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface.
Copeland fails to further teach the checkstand of the supermarket comprising an upper shelf area as claimed.
However, Minas teaches a checkout station (14, fig. 1): comprising an upper shelf area (20) having a first end (front of counter 20), a second end (end of the counter 20) opposite the first end (col. 4, line 58 to col. 5, line 30), the first customer side (side of the cart 18), and a second sales clerk side (side of clerk 27), and a EAS tag deactivator (deactivation device) disposed between the first end and the second end (col. 5, line 55 to co. 6, line 2); the customer side defining a surface vertically oriented relative to a group surface (figs. 1-2); an EAS antenna (34) disposed adjacent to the surface of the customer side (fig. 1-2) and teaches the EAS antenna disposed between the EAS tag deactivator and the second end (fig. 3).
In view of Minasy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Copeland and Nakajima by incorporating the teaching as taught Minas in order to at the claimed invention. Such modification would not involve any inventive feature since it is just a matter of design option for the checkout station.
Regarding claim 10, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Copeland and Minas further teach a shroud (housing/casing) surrounding the EAS detection antenna (Copeland: col. 2, lines 56-57. Minas: fig. 5, col. 7, lines 24-42).
Regarding claim 11, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Copeland and Minas further teach the shroud (housing/casing) defines an interior space into which the EAS detection antenna is disposed (Copeland: col. 2, lines 56-57. Minas: fig. 5, col. 7, lines 24-42).
Regarding claim 12, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Minas further teaches wherein the shroud comprises a removable section (100) for providing access to the interior space of the shroud (fig. 8 and col. 9, line 45 to col. 10, line 17).
Regarding claim 13, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Minas further teaches wherein the removable section is a removable cap (100) positioned at an end of the shroud (figs. 8-9 and col. 9, line 45 to col. 10, line 17).
Regarding claim 14, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Copeland and Minas further teach the shroud comprises a cavity (housing or casing inherently includes cavity) defined in the interior space for receiving the EAS detection antenna (Copeland: col. 2, lines 55-61. Minas: col. 7, lines 24-42).
Regarding claim 15, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Minas further teaches wherein the shroud comprises a removable cap (100) covering the cavity (figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 17, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the placement or position of the EAS detection antenna as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of Copeland, Nakajima and Minas for the position of the EAS antenna is at least 50 cm away from the tag deactivator as claimed since it is just a matter of position or arranging of the EAST antenna on the surface of the customer side of the counter. Moreover, it has been decided that a mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious expedient over a prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.01 (VI)(C).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clucas et al. (US 2003/0001739, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Copeland further teaches the EAS system may be established at an exit area of the retail store (col. 1, lines 11-17) but silent to a door as claimed.
However, Clucas teaches an EAS system disposed adjacent to a surface oriented surface is a door (fig. 3 and [0029]).
In view of Clucas’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Copeland and Nakajima by incorporating the teaching as taught Clucas since it is just a matter of arranging and placing the EAS system as other defined area (see Clucas: [0029]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Barkan et al. (US 2017/0301204, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the shroud is a bumper rail disposed adjacent an upper end of the shelf area.
However, Barkan teaches EAS system installable in product processing workstation (checkout counter, fig.1) comprises a shroud (68, fig. 5) having surrounding antenna (40); wherein the shroud is a rail disposed adjacent an upper end of the shelf area (figs. 3-5, 9; [0027]- [0029]).
In view of Barkan’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of Copeland, Nakajima and Minas by incorporating the teaching of the arrangement of the antenna disposed on the shelf area as taught by Barkan since it just a matter of positioning and arranging the EAS detection antenna in the rail. Moreover, it has been decided that a mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious expedient over a prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.01 (VI)(C).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roesner (US 2010/0289623).
Regarding claim 18, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for an inhibitor antenna as claimed.
However, Roesner teaches interrogating radio frequency identification (RFID) tag comprising an inhibitor antenna as claimed ([0013]-[0015] and [0018]-[0020]).
In view of Roesner’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Copeland and Nakajima by incorporating the teaching as taught by Roesner so as to block unwanted signal.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Roesner.
Regarding claim 19, Copeland as modified by Nakajima and Minas teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for an inhibitor antenna as claimed.
However, Roesner teaches interrogating radio frequency identification (RFID) tag comprising an inhibitor antenna (110a) disposed between a scanning area and detection antenna as claimed (figs. 1-4, [0013]-[0015] and [0018]-[0020]).
In view of Roesner’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of Copeland, Nakajima and Minas by incorporating the teaching as taught by Roesner so as to block unwanted signal.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland as modified by Nakajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parma (US 2018/0075722).
Regarding claim 20, Copeland as modified by Nakajima teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a detection field of the antenna is at least about 140 cm to about 180 cm as claimed.
However, Copeland teaches the antenna 109 produces an interrogation zone (104) for detecting marker 102 (col. 3, lines 4-15). Moreover, Parma teaches antenna produces a detection field at least about 140 cm ([0123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Copeland and Nakajima by incorporating the teaching as taught by Parma since it is just a matter of selecting a distance for the detection field of the antenna.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Nakajima is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the examiner only used Nakajima as an example to support the arrangement of the antenna horizontally.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights