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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,171 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application, with various wordings.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,466. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,466 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,158 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,493 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 10 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,534 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,539,402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,539,402 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 14, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 6, 14, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,042 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 11 and 18 of the instant application except for honeycomb network arrangement of the tag. Since arranging/positioning tags in array such as in honeycomb configuration for testing/calibrating is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such configuration for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in arranging devices for testing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to the claimed subject matters is Smith (9,483,671). Smith discloses systems with Readers and Tags in which a Reader queries the Tags with a parameter that includes a level of probability of reply according to which the Tags individually and randomly decide whether or not to reply. In one embodiment, the Tags can switch between two states: A and B. The query command also specifies a state (A or B) so that only the Tags in the specified state can reply. After successfully sending the Tag identification data from a Tag to the Reader, the Tag switches to the other state from the specified state. In one embodiment, the operations about the two states are symmetric. In one embodiment, the Tags can remember the parameters used in a query so that a short form of query command can be used to repeat the query with the same query parameters (See figs. 1, 4 and col. 7 line 23 to col. 8 line 28). However, none of cited prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a system and method for facilitating wireless communication between an electronic reading device and a network of tags, the method comprising: receiving, by a plurality of tags in a honeycomb network, an electromagnetic signal from the electronic reading device, wherein the electromagnetic signal activates the tags within a range of the electronic reading device; determining, by each of the plurality of tags, a value representative of a reliability metric of the electromagnetic signal received by each of the plurality of tags from the electronic reading device; comparing, by each of the plurality of tags, the determined value with values of one or more neighboring tags within the network; and initiating the wireless communication with the electronic reading device by at least one tag of the plurality of tags with a highest value, as specified in independent claims 1, 11 and 18.
Claims 3-10, 13-17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights