DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 1/24/2025 for application number 18/989,806. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and claims.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
Examiner contends that the drawings filed 12/20/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,789. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are simple changes of a statutory category. Claim 1 of patent 12,222,789 include all the limitations of the instant claim 1 and therefore anticipates the instant claim. All features of instant dependent claims 2-10 are covered by claims 1-11 of patent 12,222,789 and are therefore rejected accordingly. The other independent claims 11 and 16 of the instant application and their corresponding dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale and are at least covered by claims 1-11 of patent 12,222,789. Comparisons of selected claims are shown in the following table.
Instant Application (18/989,806)
USPAT 12,222,789
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a plurality of central devices, information indicating, for each particular central device of the plurality of central devices, one or more of: an energy source of the particular central device, a signal strength of one or more signals between the particular central device and a peripheral device, a reliability of the particular central device, or computational resources of the particular central device; selecting, based on the information, a first central device to provide a service to determine a location of the peripheral device; and causing the first central device to: receive, from the peripheral device, an advertisement of the peripheral device; and determine a location of the peripheral device based on the advertisement.
1. A method comprising: comparing, by a computing device, a quantity of a plurality of central devices to a threshold quantity of central devices required to support a service usable to determine a location of a peripheral device; based on a determination that the quantity satisfies the threshold quantity, determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices and based on a type of an energy source of the central device, a priority rating; identifying, from the plurality of central devices and based on the priority ratings for the plurality of central devices, one or more central devices to provide the service to determine the location of the peripheral device; and causing the identified one or more central devices to: receive, from the peripheral device, a first message comprising: an advertisement of the peripheral device; receive, from the peripheral device and after receiving the first message, a second message comprising: a request for the one or more central devices to support one or more functions of the peripheral device, wherein at least one of the one or more functions is associated with the service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device; determine a first location of the peripheral device based on the second message; receive, from the peripheral device, after receiving the advertisement of the peripheral device, one or more third messages comprising communications for a different purpose than the advertisement of the peripheral device and the request for the one or more central devices to support the one or more functions of the peripheral device; and determine a second location of the peripheral device based on the one or more third messages.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising causing the first central device to support a service of the peripheral device, and wherein the service comprises one or more of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a second function of the peripheral device comprises at least one of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining an energy consumption required to locate the peripheral device.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining an energy consumption required to support the service.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining whether a signal strength corresponding to the first central device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining whether a level of signal strength of signals between the central device of the plurality of central devices and the peripheral device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: ranking, based on a priority rating for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the plurality of central devices.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the one or more central devices comprises: ranking, based on the priority rating for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the plurality of central devices; and identifying, based on the ranking, the one or more central devices.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing at least one central device, of the plurality of central devices and other than the one or more central devices, to suspend support of a service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing at least one central device, of the plurality of central devices and other than the one or more central devices, to suspend support of the service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the first central device to determine the location of the peripheral device comprises causing the first central device to determine one or more locations of the peripheral device at different times.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the identified one or more central devices to determine the first location comprises determining a first current location of the peripheral device at a first time; and wherein the causing the identified one or more central devices to determine the second location comprises determining a second current location of the peripheral device at a different time.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a central device of the plurality of central devices.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a central device of the plurality of central devices.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises: a server separate from the plurality of central devices and from the peripheral device; or the peripheral device.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises: a server separate from the plurality of central devices and from the peripheral device; or the peripheral device.
11. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: receive, from a plurality of central devices, information indicating, for each particular central device of the plurality of central devices, one or more of: an energy source of the particular central device, a signal strength of one or more signals between the particular central device and a peripheral device, a reliability of the particular central device, or computational resources of the particular central device; select, based on the information, a first central device to provide a service to determine a location of the peripheral device; and cause the first central device to: receive, from the peripheral device, an advertisement of the peripheral device; and determine a location of the peripheral device based on the advertisement.
1. A method comprising: comparing, by a computing device, a quantity of a plurality of central devices to a threshold quantity of central devices required to support a service usable to determine a location of a peripheral device; based on a determination that the quantity satisfies the threshold quantity, determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices and based on a type of an energy source of the central device, a priority rating; identifying, from the plurality of central devices and based on the priority ratings for the plurality of central devices, one or more central devices to provide the service to determine the location of the peripheral device; and causing the identified one or more central devices to: receive, from the peripheral device, a first message comprising: an advertisement of the peripheral device; receive, from the peripheral device and after receiving the first message, a second message comprising: a request for the one or more central devices to support one or more functions of the peripheral device, wherein at least one of the one or more functions is associated with the service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device; determine a first location of the peripheral device based on the second message; receive, from the peripheral device, after receiving the advertisement of the peripheral device, one or more third messages comprising communications for a different purpose than the advertisement of the peripheral device and the request for the one or more central devices to support the one or more functions of the peripheral device; and determine a second location of the peripheral device based on the one or more third messages.
12. The computing device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to cause the first central device to support a service of the peripheral device, and wherein the service comprises one or more of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a second function of the peripheral device comprises at least one of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
13. The computing device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first central device by causing the computing device to: determine an energy consumption required to locate the peripheral device.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining an energy consumption required to support the service.
14. The computing device of claim 11, wherein the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
15. The computing device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first central device by causing the computing device to: determine whether a signal strength corresponding to the first central device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining whether a level of signal strength of signals between the central device of the plurality of central devices and the peripheral device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
16. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause: receiving, by a computing device and from a plurality of central devices, information indicating, for each particular central device of the plurality of central devices, one or more of: an energy source of the particular central device, a signal strength of one or more signals between the particular central device and a peripheral device, a reliability of the particular central device, or computational resources of the particular central device; selecting, based on the information, a first central device to provide a service to determine a location of the peripheral device; and causing the first central device to: receive, from the peripheral device, an advertisement of the peripheral device; and determine a location of the peripheral device based on the advertisement.
1. A method comprising: comparing, by a computing device, a quantity of a plurality of central devices to a threshold quantity of central devices required to support a service usable to determine a location of a peripheral device; based on a determination that the quantity satisfies the threshold quantity, determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices and based on a type of an energy source of the central device, a priority rating; identifying, from the plurality of central devices and based on the priority ratings for the plurality of central devices, one or more central devices to provide the service to determine the location of the peripheral device; and causing the identified one or more central devices to: receive, from the peripheral device, a first message comprising: an advertisement of the peripheral device; receive, from the peripheral device and after receiving the first message, a second message comprising: a request for the one or more central devices to support one or more functions of the peripheral device, wherein at least one of the one or more functions is associated with the service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device; determine a first location of the peripheral device based on the second message; receive, from the peripheral device, after receiving the advertisement of the peripheral device, one or more third messages comprising communications for a different purpose than the advertisement of the peripheral device and the request for the one or more central devices to support the one or more functions of the peripheral device; and determine a second location of the peripheral device based on the one or more third messages.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the first central device to support a service of the peripheral device, and wherein the service comprises one or more of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a second function of the peripheral device comprises at least one of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the selecting the first central device by causing: determining an energy consumption required to locate the peripheral device.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining an energy consumption required to support the service.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger, a battery connected to a charger, or a power line.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the selecting the first central device by causing: determining whether a signal strength corresponding to the first central device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining, for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the priority rating comprises: determining whether a level of signal strength of signals between the central device of the plurality of central devices and the peripheral device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese1 PGPUB 2013/0120119, and further in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264.
As per claim 1, Calvarese teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device [FIG. 2 controller 112] and from a plurality of central devices [FIG. 2 RFID readers 100, 200], information indicating, for each particular central device of the plurality of central devices [0016: (RFID reader (central device) indicates information to the controller (computing device)], one or more of:
an energy source of the particular central device [0016: (information regarding its power source)],
a signal strength of one or more signals between the particular central device and a peripheral device [0016: (information about RFID reader’s antenna directivity ability)],
a reliability of the particular central device, or
computational resources of the particular central device;
selecting, based on the information, a first central device to provide a service to determine a location of the peripheral device [0018: (if the controller has information about the power sources of each reader, the controller can direct the reader with most depleted power source to reduce its power level; thus the RFID reader with the greater power available is selected to track the tags (peripheral device), and RFID technology is known for determining location of tags)];
Calvarese do not explicitly teach causing the first central device to: receive, from the peripheral device, an advertisement of the peripheral device; and determine a location of the peripheral device based on the advertisement. Calvarese does not provide details on how the RFID is read or tracked.
Eveland teaches tracking inventory through the use of RFID tags. Eveland is thus similar to Calvarese and are in the same field of endeavor. Eveland further teaches causing the first central device to: receive, from the peripheral device, an advertisement of the peripheral device [0004: (receiving device (central device) receives broadcast of stored information from an active RFID tag (considered advertisement of peripheral device because it’s advertising its presence)]; and determine a location of the peripheral device based on the advertisement [0004: (receiving device utilizes this information to identify the tag and to monitor the location associated with the tag for a particular item as a way to control inventory)]. Eveland thus teaches an RFID tag providing/advertising to RFID reader/receiver the tag information, and then the RFID reader/receiver tracking the location of the RFID tag based on the received tag information.
The combination of Calvarese with Eveland leads to the RFID reader tracking the location of the RFID tag based on the broadcasted information from the RFID tag upon selection of which RFID reader to use by the controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Eveland’s teachings of using received RFID tag advertised information and determining the location of the RFID tag based on the received information in Calvarese. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have an RFID reader in Calvarese receive advertised tag information and then track the location of the RFID tag because it allows for better inventory control and awareness of the location and positioning of tracked items.
As per claim 4, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1, wherein the energy source comprises one of: a battery without being connected to a charger [Calvarese 0018: (battery charge remaining)], a battery connected to a charger [Calvarese 0018: (battery supply)], or a power line [Calvarese 0018: (AC mains voltage)].
As per claim 7, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing at least one central device, of the plurality of central devices and other than the one or more central devices, to suspend support of a service usable to determine the location of the peripheral device [Calvarese 0017-0018 and 0022: (RFID reader with the most depleted power source (at least one central device other than the identified one or more central device) is controlled to no longer read the tag; thus support of the service to locate the tag is suspended)].
As per claim 10, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises: a server separate from the plurality of central devices and from the peripheral device [Calvarese 0012: controller 112 is an external backend device (server)]; or the peripheral device.
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Bhavani et al. (hereinafter as Bhavani) PGPUB 2009/0315735.
As per claim 2, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland does not explicitly teach further comprising causing the first central device to support a service of the peripheral device, and wherein the service comprises one or more of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection. Calvarese and Eveland does not mention the use of WiFi or camera.
Bhavani teaches tracking RFID tags using fixed RFID wireless detectors [0008]. Bhavani is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland because they pertain to tracking the location of RFID tags as they move around. Bhavani further teaches further comprising causing the first central device to support a service of the peripheral device, and wherein the service comprises one or more of: WiFi motion detection; or camera object detection [0028: (WI-FI detectors can also be used together with RFID detectors to track the motion of the RFID tags)]. Bhavani teaches tracking motion through Wi-Fi signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bhavani’s teachings of using Wi-Fi to detect the motion of the RFID tags in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the RFID detectors work with Wi-Fi detection of the RFID in Calvarese and Eveland because it provides a different source of location detection, thereby allowing for more accurate determinations of the location.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Deoalikar et al. (hereinafter as Deoalikar) 1 PGPUB 2008/0136639.
As per claim 3, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland do not teach wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining an energy consumption required to locate the peripheral device. Calvarese and Eveland do not explicitly describe determining an amount of power required to support a service.
Deoalikar teaches selecting which RFID readers to turn on from a plurality of RFID readers. Deoalikar is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland. Deoalikar further teaches wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining an energy consumption required to locate the peripheral device [0091-0092: (cost function is related to the amount of power needed to power on RFID readers and cost to detect event E (RFID tag); if there was no constraint, it would be best to power on as many RFID readers as possible, but in real-world situations, an optimizing technique to identify optimal RFID readers is used (prioritizing based on energy consumption of RFID reader to detect tag))]. Deoalikar teaches analyzing the power cost of an RFID reader, including the power required to detect an event associated with the tag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Deoalikar’s teachings of selecting RFID readers to activate based on estimating and optimizing power cost of RFID readers in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prioritize or select an RFID reader based on estimated power cost in Calvarese and Eveland because it would save power and improve efficiency.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Khojastepour et al. (hereinafter as Khojastepour)1 PGPUB 2018/0247092.
As per claim 5, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland do not teach wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining whether a signal strength corresponding to the first central device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength.
Khojastepour teaches the use of multiple RFID readers for different tags, and selecting which RFID readers to use. Khojastepour is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland because they teach selecting an RFID reader to use from among multiple RFID readers. Khojastepour further teaches wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: determining whether a signal strength corresponding to the first central device satisfies a threshold level of signal strength [0028 and 0030: (determines if signal strength is above a first predetermined threshold)]. Khojastepour teaches evaluating the signal strength and whether it is strong enough to determine whether the RFID reader should be selected to read the tag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Khojastepour’s teachings of evaluating the signal strength between RFID reader and RFID tag and whether it is strong enough when determining and prioritizing which RFID reader to select in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to factor in the signal strength into priority/selection of RFID reader in Calvarese and Eveland because higher signal strength indicates a closer proximity of the tag to the reader, which means it can determine the proximity with better accuracy and less resource usage.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Arteaga et al. (hereinafter as Arteaga)1 PGPUB 2009/0102675.
As per claim 6, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland do not teach wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: ranking, based on a priority rating for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the plurality of central devices. Calvarese and Eveland teaches determining which RFID reader should have a lower priority (the one with the most depleted power source) and consequently which RFID reader would have a higher priority, but Calvarese and Eveland does not explicitly describe ranking or ordering the central devices based on priority rating.
Arteaga teaches a control module that determines which RFID reader to use and prioritizing RFID readers. Arteaga is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland since they teach a controller directing which RFID reader to use. Arteaga further teaches wherein the selecting the first central device comprises: ranking, based on a priority rating for each central device of the plurality of central devices, the plurality of central devices [0033: (priorities are assigned to RFID readers using any criteria, and are ordered in terms of priority)]; and identifying, based on the ranking, the one or more central devices [0007 and 0036: (highest priority RFID reader is selected to read the tag and thereby determine the tag’s location)].
The combination of Calvarese and Eveland with Arteaga leads to each RFID reader in Calvarese and Eveland being assigned a priority based on its power source and the power source’s remaining power level, and choosing the RFID reader with the highest priority to read the tag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Arteaga’s teachings of assigning priorities to each RFID reader and choosing the highest RFID reader to read a tag in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to assign priorities to the RFID readers in Calvarese and Eveland because in situations where there are more than two RFID readers, ordering by priorities allow for faster determination of which RFID reader to use to read the lag, thereby allowing for faster tracking and better convenience.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Ulrich et al. (hereinafter as Ulrich)1 PGPUB 2009/0101712.
As per claim 8, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland do not explicitly teach wherein the causing the first central device to determine the location of the peripheral device comprises causing the first central device to determine one or more locations of the peripheral device at different times.
Ulrich teaches multiple RFID scanners for detecting tags and determining location of the tag using RFID signals. Ulrich is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland because they teach multiple RFID readers for tracking the location of a tag [0018-0019]. Ulrich further teaches wherein the causing the first central device to determine the location of the peripheral device comprises causing the first central device to determine one or more locations of the peripheral device at different times [Ulrich 0021-0022: (RFID scanners may read the locational and merchandise RFID tags at regular time interval to read its locations at different times; the first time in the regular time interval it reads the RFID tag is the first current location of the peripheral device at a first time, while the second time in the regular time interval it reads the RFID tag is the second current location of the peripheral device at a second time)].
The combination of Calvarese and Eveland with Ulrich leads to periodically scanning the RFID tags at regular intervals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ulrich’s teachings of regularly/periodically reading the RFID tag’s location over time in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to periodically read the RFID tag and its location in Calvarese and Eveland in order to track the movement of the RFID as a tagged item moves through an area, thereby providing greater accuracy on location of tagged items and ensuring the tagged item are where they should belong.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvarese PGPUB 2013/0120119 in view of Eveland PGPUB 2007/0229264, and further in view of Andresky et al. (hereinafter as Andresky)1 PGPUB 2007/0057057.
As per claim 9, Calvarese and Eveland teach the method of claim 1.
Calvarese and Eveland do not teach wherein the computing device comprises a central device of the plurality of central devices. Calvarese and Eveland utilizes a controller to coordinate between RFID readers and to control which RFID to utilize for reading tags. Calvarese and Eveland do not teach an RFID reader (first central device) causing another RFID reader (one or more additional central devices) to communicate with the RFID tag (electronic tracking device).
Andresky teaches an RFID system in which a coordinator coordinates RFID readers for tracking or determining the location of an RFID device. Andresky is thus similar to Calvarese and Eveland because they teach a central controller that controls the operations of the RFID readers. Andresky further teaches in another embodiment, wherein the computing device comprises a central device of the plurality of central devices [FIG. 3 and 0064: (master reader contains the functionality of an RFID reader coupled with the coordinator functionality to control which subordinate reader to activate and deactivate)]. Thus Andresky teaches that a master RFID reader may control which other RFID reader to scan the RFID tag and determine its location.
The combination of Calvarese and Eveland with Andresky leads to the functionality of Calvarese and Eveland’s controller being incorporated into one of the RFID readers to become the master RFID reader.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Andresky’s teachings of including the functionality of the coordinator/controller into a master RFID reader in Calvarese and Eveland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the functionality of the coordinator/controller into a master RFID reader in Calvarese and Eveland because it would reduce the number of components needed and simplify the structural arrangements, thereby improving convenience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Hsu et al. (PGPUB 2020/0039555) teaches RFID tag that communicates via WI-FI with RFID reader [0032].
Zhang et al. (PGPUB 2019/0020425) teaches moving object includes wi-fi signal receiving device or RFID reader.
Arteaga et al. (PGPUB 2009/0105950) teaches RFID reader may communication with location information system using WIFI [0042].
Tuttle (PGPUB 2008/0129485) teaches RFID readers with WIFI communications capability.
Piersol et al. (PGPUB 2008/0006696) teaches an RFID tag that can advertise its mode to an RFID reader.
Rantapuska et al. (PGPUB 2007/0019616) teaches advertising identifiers of RFID tag [0054].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 EST.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
1 Cited in IDS on 2/12/2025
Prosecution Insights