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 .
Election/Restrictions
In view of applicant amendment filed 06/18/2026, the restriction and election of the applicant are moot.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 06/18/2026.
Claims 8-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-33 are new
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending for examination.
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) 1-2, 4-6 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruickshanks et al. (US 2016/0307087) in view of Shmulevich et al. (US 10,565,410).
Regarding claim 1: Cruickshanks disclose a method implemented in a radio frequency identification (RFID) system for identifying neighboring readers and antennas in the RFID system through reader coordination (Fig. 4, ¶0036), the method comprising:
coordinating, by a reader coordinator application at a computer system, operations of a plurality of readers (Fig. 2-3, items 21, 24 & 27, ¶0024), each coupled to one or more of a plurality of antennas (Fig. 2-3, items 23a-d, ¶0024), wherein the coordinating comprises:
transmitting, to a first reader of the plurality of readers, a first command to configure a first antenna of the plurality of antennas coupled to the first reader to perform tag read operations using a first communication session in a read cycle (Fig. 4, step 41, ¶0036); and
transmitting, to a second reader of the plurality of readers, a second command to configure a second antenna of the plurality of antennas coupled to the second reader to perform tag read operations using a second communication session different than the first communication session in the read cycle (Fig. 4, step 42, ¶0036);
receiving, by the reader coordinator application, from the first reader, first tag data comprising an indication of one or more first tags read via the first antenna in the first communication session (Fig. 4, step 45, ¶0036);
receiving, by the reader coordinator application, from the second reader, second tag data comprising an indication of one or more second tags read via the second antenna in the second communication session Fig. 4, step 45, ¶0036); and
configuring, by the reader coordinator application, based on the first antenna and the second antenna being neighboring antennas with the at least partially overlapped RF coverages, at least one of a first tag read configuration for the first antenna or a second tag read configuration for the second antenna for performing subsequent tag read operations (Fig. 4, step 44, ¶0036).
Cruickshanks does not explicitly disclose determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a comparison of the first tag data and the second tag data, that there is at least one common tag between the one or more first tags read via the first antenna and the one or more second tags read via the second antenna;
determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a presence of the at least one common tag, that the first antenna and the second antenna are neighboring antennas with at least partially overlapped radio frequency (RF) coverages.
In analogous art regarding overlapping antennas, Shmulevich disclose determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a comparison of the first tag data and the second tag data, that there is at least one common tag between the one or more first tags read via the first antenna and the one or more second tags read via the second antenna;
determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a presence of the at least one common tag, that the first antenna and the second antenna are neighboring antennas with at least partially overlapped radio frequency (RF) coverages (Col. 7, Line 57-Col. 8, Line 65).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a comparison of the first tag data and the second tag data, that there is at least one common tag between the one or more first tags read via the first antenna and the one or more second tags read via the second antenna and determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on a presence of the at least one common tag, that the first antenna and the second antenna are neighboring antennas with at least partially overlapped radio frequency (RF) coverages, as disclose by Shmulevich, to the system of Cruickshanks. The motivation is to make the location more accurate.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Cruickshanks and Shmulevich disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the configuring the at least one of the first tag read configuration for the first antenna or the second tag read configuration for the second antenna comprises: transmitting, by the reader coordinator application, to the first reader, a third command to configure the first antenna to perform the subsequent tag read operations using a third communication session in a subsequent read cycle; and transmitting, by the reader coordinator application, to the second reader, a fourth command to configure the second antenna to perform the subsequent tag read operations using a fourth communication session different than the third communication session in the subsequent read cycle (Cruickshanks: Fig. 4, step 41, ¶0036).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Cruickshanks and Shmulevich disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: the first tag data comprises one or more first tag identifiers, each identifying a respective one of the one or more first tags, the second tag data comprises one or more second tag identifiers, each identifying a respective one of the one or more second tags, and the determining that there is the at least one common tag between the one or more first tags read via the first antenna and the one or more second tags read via the second antenna is based on a tag identifier of the one or more first tag identifiers being identical to a tag identifier of the one or more second tag identifiers (Shmulevich: Col. 7, Lines 4-29).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Cruickshanks and Shmulevich disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first reader is different than the second reader (Cruickshanks: Fig. 2-3, items 21, 24 & 27, ¶0024).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Cruickshanks and Shmulevich disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first reader and the second reader correspond to the same reader. (Cruickshanks: Fig. 2-3, items 21, 24 & 27, ¶0024. Notice each reader ha multiple antennas, therefore, the reader get reader from different antenna since turning first reader and the second reader correspond to the same reader).
Regarding claim 28: The combination of Cruickshanks and Shmulevich disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the reader coordinator application, based on the first tag data and the second tag data, location information associated with the at least one common tag (Shmulevich: Col. 7, Line 57-Col. 8, Line 65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 21-27 & 29-33 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights