Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/982,559

Querying RFID Tags Based on Tag Motion

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Examiner
WANG, JACK K
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Automaton, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
449 granted / 733 resolved
-0.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
753
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 733 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Moretti et al. (Pub # US 2006/0187031 A1). Consider claim 8, Moretti et al. clearly shows and disclose a method of scanning for a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, the method comprising: detecting movement of the RFID tag; in response to detecting movement of the RFID tag, changing a bit in a memory of the RFID tag from a first value to a second value indicating that the RFID tag has moved since last being queried; receiving, by the RFID tag, a query for RFID tags with the bit set to the second value [0091]; transmitting, by the RFID tag, a response to the query; and setting the bit in the memory of the RFID tag from the second value to the first value indicating that the RFID tag has not moved since last being queried [0133-0134]. Consider claim 9, Moretti et al. clearly shows and disclose the method of claim 8, wherein detecting movement of the RFID tag comprises sensing acceleration of the RFID tag with an accelerometer in or coupled to the RFID tag [0062]. Consider claim 10, Moretti et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the query is directed to only RFID tags that have moved since last being queried [0148]. Consider claim 11, Moretti et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein setting the bit in the memory of the RFID tag from the second value to the first value occurs in response to the query [0139]. Consider claim 14, Moretti et al. clearly show and disclose a method of identifying and locating radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, the method comprising: transmitting, by an RFID tag reader, a query to a plurality of RFID tags, the query requesting information from RFID tags in the plurality of RFID tags that have moved since a previous query [0148]; receiving, by the RFID tag reader, a response to the query from a first RFID tag in the plurality of RFID tags, the response indicating that the first RFID tag has moved since receiving the previous query [0041]; and in response to receiving the response indicating that the first RFID tag has moved since receiving the previous query, estimating a current location of the first RFID tag and/or a change in location of the first RFID tag based at least in part on the response to query from the first RFID tag [0091]. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Trivelpiece et al. (Pub # US 2021/0097826 A1). Consider claim 16, Travelpiece et al. clearly shows and disclose a method of locating radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags that have moved since last queried, the method comprising: acquiring at least one image of an object [0047]; determining, based on the at least one image, that the object and an RFID tag attached to the object have moved since the RFID tag was last queried [0049]; identifying, based on the at least one image, a region to which the RFID tag has been moved; transmitting, by an RFID tag reader, a query to the region to which the RFID tag has been moved [0051]; detecting, by the RFID tag reader, a response from the RFID tag to the query; and estimating a location of the RFID tag based on the response [0051]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humes et al. (Pub # US 2005/0280505 A1), and further in view of Moretti et al. (Pub # US 2006/0187031 A1) and Smith et al. (Pub # US 2007/0182578 A1). Consider claim 1, Humes et al. teaches a method of operating an RFID reader to detect at least one RFID tag that is in motion or has undergone motion in a population of RFID tags during a period of time, the method comprising: selecting a first value for a first Q parameter, wherein the first Q parameter determines a number of time slots that each tag in the population of RFID tags can select from to respond to the RFID reader and wherein the first value is selected based on a total number of RFID tags in the population of tags [0132]; issuing, by the RFID reader, a first query command using the first value at least once; learning first identities of RFID tags in the population of RFID tags that are within range of the RFID reader and that respond to the first query command [0279-0280]. Humes et al. does not teach selecting a second value for a second Q parameter that is less than the first value for the first Q parameter, wherein the second value is based on a number of RFID tags in the population of RFID tags that are expected to move during the period of time; issuing a select command that includes a digital mask having at least one bit to solicit a response from only the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags, wherein the at least one bit is selective to identify motion detected by the at least one RFID tag; issuing, by the RFID reader, a second query command using the second value for the second Q parameter at least once; receiving responses to the second query command from only the at least one RFID tag that is in motion or has undergone motion in a population of RFID tags during the period of time; and learning, from the responses, second identities of the at least one RFID tag. In the same field of endeavor, Moretti et al. teaches selecting a second value for a second Q parameter that is less than the first value for the first Q parameter, wherein the second value is based on a number of RFID tags in the population of RFID tags that are expected (estimate) to move during the period of time; issuing a select command that includes a digital mask having at least one bit to solicit a response from only the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags, wherein the at least one bit is selective to identify motion detected by the at least one RFID tag [0117-0118] for the benefit of predict the results from the selected value. Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Smith et al. teaches receiving responses to the second query command from only the at least one RFID tag that is in motion or has undergone motion in a population of RFID tags during the period of time; and learning, from the responses, second identities of the at least one RFID tag [0028] for the benefit of determining object motion and orientation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include selecting a second value for a second Q parameter that is less than the first value for the first Q parameter, wherein the second value is based on a number of RFID tags in the population of RFID tags that are expected to move during the period of time; issuing a select command that includes a digital mask having at least one bit to solicit a response from only the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags, wherein the at least one bit is selective to identify motion detected by the at least one RFID tag; issuing, by the RFID reader, a second query command using the second value for the second Q parameter at least once; receiving responses to the second query command from only the at least one RFID tag that is in motion or has undergone motion in a population of RFID tags during the period of time; and learning, from the responses, second identities of the at least one RFID tag as shown in Moretti et al. and Smith et al., in Humes et al. method for the benefit of predict the results from the selected value and determining object motion and orientation. Consider claim 2, Humes et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the population of RFID tags includes passive RFID tags and for at least a portion of the period of time the RFID reader emits no RF wave [0067-0068]. Consider claim 3, Humes et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the population of RFID tags includes a passive RFID tag and for at least a portion of the period of time a power of the passive RFID tag depletes to an off state [0105]. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humes et al. (Pub # US 2005/0280505 A1) in view (Pub # US 2006/0187031 A1) and Smith et al. (Pub # US 2007/0182578 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rehman (Pub # US 2008/0224867 A1). Consider claim 4, the combined references teach the similar invention. The combined references does not teach the method, further comprising: determining first locations for each RFID tag in the population of tags before the period of time; providing the first identities and the first locations of each RFID tag in the population of RFID tags for an inventory record of the population of RFID tags; after the period of time, determining at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags; and providing the at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags to update the inventory record of the population of tags. In the same field of endeavor, Rehman teaches determining first locations for each RFID tag in the population of tags before the period of time; providing the first identities and the first locations of each RFID tag in the population of RFID tags for an inventory record of the population of RFID tags; after the period of time, determining at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags; and providing the at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags to update the inventory record of the population of tags (Claim 12) for the benefit of tracking the object and update the location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include determining first locations for each RFID tag in the population of tags before the period of time; providing the first identities and the first locations of each RFID tag in the population of RFID tags for an inventory record of the population of RFID tags; after the period of time, determining at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags; and providing the at least one second location for the at least one RFID tag in the population of RFID tags to update the inventory record of the population of tags as shown in Rehman, in the combined method for the benefit of tracking the object and update the location. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl (Pub # US 2014/0061303 A1), and further in view of Moretti et al. (Pub # US 2006/01887031 A1). Consider claim 5, Brandl teaches a method of detecting motion by a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, the method comprising: receiving, by the RFID tag,; determining, by the RFID tag, that fluctuations in the power during the period of time that indicate the RFID tag is moving; in response to determining that the fluctuations in the power indicate the RFID tag is moving, setting a motion-detection bit in a memory of the RFID tag to a first value; receiving, by the RFID tag, a query addressed to only those RFID tags with motion-detection bits having values equal to the first value; and transmitting, by the RFID tag, a reply to the query [0056]. Brandl does not teach a continuous-wave (CW) signal from an RFID tag reader, the CW signal providing power to a resonant circuit in the RFID tag over a period of time. In the same field of endeavor, Moretti et al. teaches a continuous-wave (CW) signal from an RFID tag reader, the CW signal providing power to a resonant circuit in the RFID tag over a period of time [0054] for the benefit of harvesting power for the RFID tag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include a continuous-wave (CW) signal from an RFID tag reader, the CW signal providing power to a resonant circuit in the RFID tag over a period of time as shown in Moretti et al., in Brandl for the benefit of harvesting power for the RFID tag. Consider claim 6, Brandl clearly shows and disclose the method further comprising: transmitting, by the RFID tag reader, a command to the RFID tag enabling a motion detection circuit of the RFID tag, wherein detecting the fluctuations in power comprises detecting different fluctuations in power between a first polarization component of the CW signal and a second polarization component of the CW signal [0048]. Consider claim 7, Brandl teaches similar invention. Brandl does not teach the method, wherein the determining comprises: determining, by the RFID tag, that the fluctuations in power last for more than a threshold amount of time. In the same field of endeavor, Moretti et al. teaches wherein the determining comprises: determining, by the RFID tag, that the fluctuations in power last for more than a threshold amount of time [0141] for the benefit of providing continuous signal to the tag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include wherein the determining comprises: determining, by the RFID tag, that the fluctuations in power last for more than a threshold amount of time as shown in Moretti et al. in Brandl method for the benefit of providing continuous signal to the tag. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti et al. (Pub # US 2006/0187031 A1), and further in view of Trivelpiece et al. (pub # US 2019/0236323 A1). Consider claim 12, Moretti et al. teaches a method of identifying and locating radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags that have moved since a first query, the method comprising: a first query to a plurality of RFID tags in a region, wherein the first query uses a first value for a first Q parameter that is based on a total number of the plurality of RFID tags, the first Q parameter determining a number of time slots in which the plurality of RFID tags can respond to the first query;, a second query to a plurality of RFID tags in the region, wherein the second query uses a second value for a second Q parameter that is smaller than the first value and is based on a number of the plurality of RFID tags that are expected to move during the period of time and wherein the second query is selective to only RFID tags in the plurality of RFID tags that have moved during the period of time; receiving, by the RFID tag reader, a response to the second query from an RFID tag of the plurality of RFID tags that has moved since receiving the first query; and estimating, based on the response, a location of the RFID tag [0051]. Moretti et al. does not teach broadcasting, by an RFID tag reader, broadcasting and by the RFID tag reader a period of time. In the same field of endeavor, Trivelpiece et al. teaches broadcasting, by an RFID tag reader, broadcasting and by the RFID tag reader a period of time [0003] for the benefit of transmitting the signal to all available tag in the region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include broadcasting, by an RFID tag reader, broadcasting and by the RFID tag reader a period of time as shown in Trivelpiece et al., in Moretti et al. method for the benefit of transmitting the signal to all available tag in the region. Consider claim 13, Moretti et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the RFID tag reader is a first RFID tag reader, and further comprising: receiving, by a second RFID tag reader, the second query and the response to the second query [0044]. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti et al. (Pub # US 2006/0187031 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dhar et al. (Pub # US 2024/0386375 A1). Consider claim 15, Moretti et al. teaches similar invention. Moretti et al. does not teach the method, further comprising: receiving, by the RFID tag reader, a response to the query from a second RFID tag in the plurality of RFID tags, the response indicating that the second RFID tag has moved since receiving the previous query; and transmitting, by the RFID tag reader, instructions to the second RFID tag to stop transmitting. In the same field of endeavor, Dhar et al. teaches receiving, by the RFID tag reader, a response to the query from a second RFID tag in the plurality of RFID tags, the response indicating that the second RFID tag has moved since receiving the previous query; and transmitting, by the RFID tag reader, instructions to the second RFID tag to stop transmitting [0073] for the benefit of indicating the RFID status change. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include receiving, by the RFID tag reader, a response to the query from a second RFID tag in the plurality of RFID tags, the response indicating that the second RFID tag has moved since receiving the previous query; and transmitting, by the RFID tag reader, instructions to the second RFID tag to stop transmitting as shown in Dhar et al., in Moretti et al. method for the benefit of indicating the RFID status change. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM. 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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. /JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 21, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12548418
SENSOR POWERED BY ITEM OF MERCHANDISE FOR RETAIL SECURITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12518125
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A RFID ENABLED METAL LICENSE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12515679
Apparatuses, Systems and Methods for Determining Distracted Drivers Associated With Vehicle Driving Routes
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12508187
HAPTIC GUIDING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12499768
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO VALIDATE DATA COMMUNICATED BY A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 733 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month