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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 28, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “passes through an associated combination comprising a single coverage area”. A review of the specification sets forth the term “single coverage area.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The Claim discloses that one path of a plurality of paths passes through an associated combination of coverage areas. It is unclear what is meant by the claimed “associated combination of coverage areas” being comprised of a single coverage area, as this would no longer be a combination of coverage areas. Review of the specification reveals at page 4 lines 5-8, “The means for receiving may be configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which each path, of the at least two paths that respectively pass through each coverage area, passes through an associated combination of one or more coverage areas of the plurality of coverage areas.” It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “a single coverage area.” For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to indicate that one path of a plurality of paths passes through one or more coverage areas.
Regarding claim 34, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “arrangement in which the offset distance is approximately half the diameter of the first at least one coverage area.” As claimed the term “approximately” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III) defines the an approximation as relative terminology. Review of the specification reveals at page 5 lines 6-10, “The means for receiving may be configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which the offset distance is approximately half the dimension of the first at least one coverage area in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel,” however the Examiner find no disclosure defining what range is explicitly covered by the approximation. As the claim and specification lacks clarity regarding what range is explicitly covered by the term “approximately,” the term renders the claim indefinite. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “offset distance.”
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.
Claims 25-28, 35, and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrick(US20100109844A1) in view of Wagner(US 10843333 B2).
Regarding claim 25, Carrick discloses
A system for sorting a plurality of objects, wherein each object of the plurality of objects is attached to a respective tag having a corresponding identifier (“ the RFID system 100 enables determination of a tag's position in a conveyor process to assist in culling or sorting tagged objects by identifier codes” [0194]), the system comprising: a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects (“The RFID tag may be disposed on an article located on a conveyor belt. “ [0012]) through a localization region (“ the communication link 250 may comprise hardware and software supporting a wired link with a computer, personal computer, network of computers, another tag reader, or network of tag readers” [0060]); an array of reader antennas configured (“multiple tag readers 110, each having their own antenna, may be in communication with each other” [0150]) to: provide a plurality of coverage areas (“The objects may be loaded in no organized manner onto a conveyer belt system, which may have one or more tag readers mounted adjacent to the belt. “ [0194]); and receive signals from the respective tag of each object, as that object is transported through the localization region (“distances between the first and second RFID tag readers at each of plural positions an approximate location of the first RFID tag reader.” [0168]), and follows a path, […] that passes through at least one coverage area of the plurality of coverage areas (“The objects may be loaded in no organized manner onto a conveyer belt system, which may have one or more tag readers mounted adjacent to the belt” [0194]); control apparatus configured to: respectively read, for each tag, the corresponding identifier of that tag, from the signals received from that tag as the object to which that tag is attached is transported through the localization region (“ the RFID system 100 enables determination of a tag's position in a conveyor process to assist in culling or sorting tagged objects by identifier codes” [0194]);respectively identify, for each tag, at least one coverage area of the plurality of coverage areas in which signals have been received from that tag (“The relative positions of the antennas of multiple tag readers would also be provided for analysis and determination of tag location.” [0150]); respectively determine a position of each object corresponding to the path of each object region (“ the RFID system 100 enables determination of a tag's position in a conveyor process to assist in culling or sorting tagged objects by identifier codes” [0194]), […]; and control a sorting station to respectively separate each object based on the respective position of each object and the respective identifier of each object (“the RFID system 100 enables determination of a tag's position in a conveyor process to assist in culling or sorting tagged objects by identifier codes” [0194]); and the sorting station for sorting each object based on control from the control apparatus (“The objects may be loaded in no organized manner onto a conveyer belt system, which may have one or more tag readers mounted adjacent to the belt. The tag readers may be in communication with automated robotic arms and conveyer drive controls in some embodiments” [0194])
Carrick discloses a system for sorting a plurality of objects including a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects. Although the instant application does not explicitly define the claimed “plurality of paths,” Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple conveyor paths. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses, a plurality of possible paths through the localization region (“Each of the in-feed conveyor 34 and the conveyors at the input area 35, may be independently actuatable” [Col.5, ll.35-37]) […] wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through each coverage area, and wherein the position is determined by respectively differentiating, for each object, between the at least two paths that pass through the at least one coverage area identified for the tag of that object (FIG.20, parts.230, 234, and 260 & FIG. 21, Part.230).
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 26, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which each path […] that respectively pass through each coverage area, passes through an associated combination of one or more coverage areas of the plurality of coverage areas (“The objects may be loaded in no organized manner onto a conveyer belt system, which may have one or more tag readers mounted adjacent to the belt. The tag readers may be in communication with automated robotic arms and conveyer drive controls in some embodiments” [0194]); and wherein the control apparatus is configured to determine the position of each object to be a path […] that has an associated combination of one or more coverage areas that is the same as the at least one coverage area identified for the tag of that object (“The tag reader may repeat this for each of plural antennas and the processor can calculate a position of the RFID tag from the distances determined using each of plural antennas.” [0011]).
Carrick discloses a system for sorting a plurality of objects including a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects. Although the instant application does not explicitly define the claimed “plurality of paths,” Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple conveyor paths. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses at least two paths (“Each of the in-feed conveyor 34 and the conveyors at the input area 35, may be independently actuatable” [Col.5, ll.35-37])
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 27, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 26. Carrick discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which at least one path, […] that respectively pass through each coverage area, passes through an associated combination of at least two coverage areas (“The objects may be loaded in no organized manner onto a conveyer belt system, which may have one or more tag readers mounted adjacent to the belt. The tag readers may be in communication with automated robotic arms and conveyer drive controls in some embodiments” [0194]);
Carrick discloses a system for sorting a plurality of objects including a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects. Although the instant application does not explicitly define the claimed “plurality of paths,” Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple conveyor paths. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses at least two paths (“Each of the in-feed conveyor 34 and the conveyors at the input area 35, may be independently actuatable” [Col.5, ll.35-37])
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 28, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 26. Carrick discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which at least one path, […] respectively pass through each coverage area, passes through an associated combination comprising a single coverage area (FIG.1B, Part.110)
Carrick discloses a system for sorting a plurality of objects including a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects. Although the instant application does not explicitly define the claimed “plurality of paths,” Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple conveyor paths. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses at least two paths (“Each of the in-feed conveyor 34 and the conveyors at the input area 35, may be independently actuatable” [Col.5, ll.35-37])
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 35, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to determine a respective position of each of the plurality of objects (“ the RFID system 100 enables determination of a tag's position in a conveyor process to assist in culling or sorting tagged objects by identifier codes” [0194]).
Carrick discloses a system for sorting a plurality of objects including a conveyor for transporting each object of the plurality of objects. Although the instant application does not explicitly define the claimed “plurality of paths,” Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple conveyor paths. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses, the plurality of possible paths through the localization region, to the at least one coverage area of the plurality of coverage areas through which that path passes (FIG.20, parts.230, 234, and 260 & FIG. 21, Part.230).
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 42, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to discriminate between objects based on the respective identifiers (“ RFID system that is useful for determining the presence, identity, range, location, orientation and velocity of one or more RFID-tagged objects” [0005])
Regarding claim 43, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick discloses wherein, the respective tag of each object is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and wherein the array of reader antennas is configured for receiving respective RFID signals from each RFID tag (“an RFID tag reader is adapted to interrogate a singulated RFID tag at a plurality of carrier-wave frequencies” [0005])
Regarding claim 44, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 43. Carrick discloses wherein, the respective tag of each object is a passive RFID tag and wherein the array of reader antennas is configured to provide each coverage area of the plurality of coverage areas by illuminating that coverage area with an RFID signal for activating the passive RFID tag (“ The RFID tags 120a-120d can be passive backscatter tags comprising an RFID chip which harvests some of the signal energy broadcasted from the tag reader 110 for on-board processing, and reflects, retransmits, or scatters back remaining electromagnetic energy. In some embodiments” [0049])
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrick(US20100109844A1) as modified by Wagner(US 10843333 B2)as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Rosenbaum (US 20080007410 A1)
Regarding claim 29, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick as modified by Wagner do not appear to disclose a first and second coverage area explicitly separated by an offset distance that is less than a diameter of the first at least one coverage area, in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel. Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation systems. Rosenbaum discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the coverage areas in an arrangement in which a first at least one coverage area (FIG.4, Part.4) is offset, in a direction orthogonal to a direction of travel of the conveyor, from a second at least one coverage area (FIG.4, Part.6), by an offset distance that is less than a diameter of the first at least one coverage area, in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel (“A reading zone 16 having a length of about 1-2 m is assigned to the second reading device 6” [0017])
Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Rosenbaum to incorporate the features of a first and second coverage area separated by an offset distance that is less than a diameter of the first at least one coverage area, in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel so as to gain the advantage of improving design efficiency [0008, Rosenbaum]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 30, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Rosenbaum disclose all the limitations of claim 29. Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-overlapping first and second coverage area. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area in a manner in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area do not overlap spatially with one another (FIG.21, part.230)
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of a non-overlapping first and second coverage area so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 31, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Rosenbaum disclose all the limitations of claim 30. Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-overlapping first and second coverage area. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area in a manner in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area do not overlap spatially with one another by providing the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area in an arrangement in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area are spatially separated in the direction of travel (“FIG. 21 for example, shows a system 290 that includes a plurality of container processing stations 230 “ [Col.13, ll.8-9])
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of a non-overlapping first and second coverage area in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area are spatially separated in the direction of travel so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 32, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Rosenbaum disclose all the limitations of claim 30. Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-overlapping first and second coverage area. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area in a manner in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area do not overlap spatially with one another by separating provision of the first at least one coverage area and of the second at least one coverage area in time (“FIG. 21 for example, shows a system 290 that includes a plurality of container processing stations 230 “ [Col.13, ll.8-9]. The Examiner notes that figure 21 depicts a plurality of processing stations separated along one or more conveyor belts. Each processing station comprises a perception unit. As the conveyor belt transports items from one processing station to the next at a constant speed, a first coverage area and a second coverage area are separated in time ).
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of a non-overlapping first and second coverage area in which the first at least one coverage area and the second at least one coverage area are separated provisionally in time so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 33, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Rosenbaum disclose all the limitations of claim 29. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose a first at least one coverage area that comprises a plurality of coverage areas that are spatially separated from one another, in a direction orthogonal to the direction of travel, by a separation distance that is less than the offset distance. Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation. Rosenbaum discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which the first at least one coverage area comprises a plurality of coverage areas that are spatially separated from one another, in a direction orthogonal to the direction of travel, by a separation distance that is less than the offset distance (“A reading zone 16 having a length of about 1-2 m is assigned to the second reading device 6” [0017] & Fig.4, Part.6)
Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Rosenbaum to incorporate the features of a first at least one coverage area that comprises a plurality of coverage areas that are spatially separated from one another, in a direction orthogonal to the direction of travel, by a separation distance that is less than the offset distance so as to gain the advantage of improving design efficiency [0008, Rosenbaum]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 34, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Rosenbaum disclose all the limitations of claim 29. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which the offset distance is approximately half the diameter of the first at least one coverage area in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel. Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation. Rosenbaum discloses wherein, the array of reader antennas is configured to provide the plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which the offset distance is approximately half the diameter of the first at least one coverage area in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel (“the second reading devices 6 are arranged in pairs. Each pair includes two platforms that extend on both sides of the guide 1a to cover at least the width and/or the length of the tray 20.” [0040])
Rosenbaum teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Rosenbaum to incorporate the features of a first at least one coverage area that comprises a plurality of coverage areas in an arrangement in which the offset distance is approximately half the diameter of the first at least one coverage area in the direction orthogonal to the direction of travel so as to gain the advantage of improving design efficiency [0008, Rosenbaum]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrick(US20100109844A1) as modified by Wagner(US 10843333 B2)as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Pesavento (US 9916484 B2).
Regarding claim 36, Carrick as modified by Wagner disclose all the limitations of claim 25. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to respectively acquire, for each object, information representing a number of times that a signal is received from the tag of that object (“determining a response rate for each beam” [Col.3, ll.33-34]) as that object passes through a corresponding coverage area (“ A tag's response rate is representative of the number of responses
received from a tag over some other parameter” [Col.18, ll.12-14])
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 37, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Pesavento disclose all the limitations of claim 36. Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose at least two paths that respectively pass through the at least one coverage area. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to respectively differentiate, for each object, between the at least two paths that respectively pass through the at least one coverage area identified for the tag of that object. (FIG.20, parts.230, 234, and 260 & FIG. 21, Part.230).
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses, based on the number of times that a signal is received from the tag of that object as that object passes through that coverage area (“ A tag's response rate is representative of the number of responses received from a tag over some other parameter” [Col.18, ll.12-14] & “ selecting a first beam having a first response rate and a second beam having a second response rate, where the first beam partially overlaps the second beam to form an overlap region, and using a target location of the first beam, a target location of the second beam, and the first and second response rates to estimate the IC location within the overlap region.” [Col.29, ll.32-38])
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 38, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Pesavento disclose all the limitations of claim 36. Carrick discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to determine a respective position of each object, based on information for mapping each path (“The tag reader may repeat this for each of plural antennas and the processor can calculate a position of the RFID tag from the distances determined using each of plural antennas” [0011]),
Carrick does not appear to explicitly disclose at least two paths that respectively pass through the at least one coverage area. Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. Wagner discloses wherein, the plurality of possible paths through the localization region, that passes through a corresponding coverage area (FIG.20, parts.230, 234, and 260 & FIG. 21, Part.230).
Wagner teaches in the same field of endeavor of object transportation and sorting systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick with the teachings of Wagner to incorporate the features of wherein at least two paths, of the plurality of possible paths, respectively pass through a coverage area, so as to gain the advantage of improving object handling capacity [Col.13, ll.18-25, Wagner]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses, a respective range of possible numbers of times that a signal will be received from the tag of that object as that object passes through that corresponding coverage area (“ selecting a first beam having a first response rate and a second beam having a second response rate, where the first beam partially overlaps the second beam to form an overlap region, and using a target location of the first beam, a target location of the second beam, and the first and second response rates to estimate the IC location within the overlap region.” [Col.29, ll.32-38] & “the tag localization techniques described herein may be used to determine the instantaneous location and direction-of-travel of moving tags” [Col.21, ll.55-57])
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 39, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Pesavento disclose all the limitations of claim 38. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses wherein, each range of possible numbers of times that a signal will be received from a tag of an object, as that object passes through that corresponding coverage area, is delimited by at least one threshold value corresponding to an upper or lower end of the range of possible numbers of times (“ A tag's response rate is representative of the number of responses
received from a tag over some other parameter. For example, a tag's response rate may be a ratio of the count of responses from the tag received on a beam to the number of interrogating signals transmitted on the beam, or may be a ratio of the tag's response count to a period of time over which interrogating signals were transmitted. “ [Col.18, ll.12-19])
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of at least one threshold value corresponding to an upper or lower end of the range of possible numbers of received signals so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 40, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Pesavento disclose all the limitations of claim 36. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to respectively determine an orientation of each object (“Tag response rates may be affected by structure physical configuration due to RF blocking or interference from structural components interposed between readers and tags” [Col.22, ll.15-18]) based on the number of times that a signal is received from the tag of that object as that object passes through a corresponding coverage area (“By using beam profiles along with the tag response rates as a function of frequency, an SBR may be able to better estimate the tag's location” [Col.20, ll.63-66]).
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of determining an orientation of each object based on the number of times that a signal is received from the tag of that object as that object passes through a corresponding coverage area so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 41, Carrick as modified by Wagner and Pesavento disclose all the limitations of claim 40. Carrick as modified by Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose recording the number of times that a signal is received from the tag. Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. Pesavento discloses wherein, the control apparatus is configured to respectively determine the orientation of each object based on information for mapping each orientation (“By using beam profiles along with the tag response rates as a function of frequency, an SBR may be able to better estimate the tag's location” [Col.20, ll.63-66]), of a plurality of possible orientations, to a respective range of possible numbers of times that a signal will be received from the tag of that object as that object passes through the corresponding coverage area(“Tag response rates may be affected by structure physical configuration due to RF blocking or interference from structural components interposed between readers and tags” [Col.22, ll.15-18]).
Pesavento teaches in the same field of endeavor of RFID tag positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrick as modified by Wagner with the teachings of Pesavento to incorporate the features of determining an orientation of each object based on information for mapping each orientation of a plurality of possible orientations, to a respective range of possible numbers of times that a signal will be received from the tag of that object as that object passes through the corresponding coverage area so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning [Col.29, Par.5, Pesavento]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
PALMADE(US20220292271A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0009] “, one method implemented makes use either of counting a number of responses emitted by the electronic ID tags, or of a response period thereof, in order to determine the respective positions of said electronic ID tags.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights