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 .
Per the 2019 (PEG) guidance, claim(s) 1-15 were reviewed for abstract idea. Claim(s) 1-15 can be streamlined to determine the subject matter eligibility, and the eligibility of the claims is “self-evident.”
This communication is in response to amendments filed on 06/30/2026.
In the application claims 1-15 are pending.
Double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 06/30/2026
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections were fully considered; however, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Hempstead Does Not Teach Sequential Location Determinations Where an Earlier… Hempstead's monitoring zones are physically separated, non-overlapping regions that serve entirely different functional purposes… Hempstead's system never faces the problem of determining which zone an animal is in when the same tag is read by readers in multiple zones. Each zone independently identifies which animals are present in that particular area. There is no cross-zone competition or ambiguity. The zones do not overlap, and the system does not perform any comparative analysis to resolve competing reads from different zones… subsequent monitoring in the feedlot pen does not constitute a "determination of within which read zone the animal is located," as claimed… At no point does Hempstead's system use the result of a prior zone identification as an input to a subsequent zone determination. Accordingly, Hempstead does not teach or suggest making a first determination of within which read zone an animal is located, and then, at a later time, making a second determination that is based, at least in part, on a combination of RSSI and the read zone of the first determination.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are based on language that is beyond the scope of the claimed limitations. Examiner was unable to find the limitation with respect to zone being overlapped. Nonetheless, with respect to the argued limitation, “a first determination of within which read zone an animal is located… at a later time… making a second determination… is based, at least in part, on a combination of RSSI and the read zone of the first determination.” Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208. As depicted in FIG. 5, each such monitoring zone will include at least one RFID interrogator 230 and will include at least one, and preferably multiple antennas 222A-D to establish a zone of coverage in which tags will be read.” See ¶ 0051, Hempstead teaches, “interrogators may be placed to establish a first monitoring zone 214 at the head of the loading dock to read tags on animals immediately as they leave the shipping truck.” See ¶ 0052, Therefore, upon arrival Hempstead would make a first determination of within which read zone an animal is located, the answer would be, “a first monitoring zone 214” See ¶ 0052. Hempstead teaches, “After intake processing, livestock are sent to appropriate pens, as identified in reference to FIG. 2... FIG. 4 depicts an example feedlot pen 411 in which multiple monitoring areas will be established” See ¶ 0069, Hempstead would make “a second determination of within which read zone the animal... is located” and the answer would be “feedlot pen 411” See ¶ 0069.
With respect to, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for each of the plurality of readings, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogator can indicate such as through an audible signal, a visual signal or signal strength received only from the tag on the desired animal.” Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Yajima teaches, “[i]f information about signal strength when received by one or more communication apparatuses 2 positioned in the target region is added to the individual identification signal transmitted from the transmission apparatus 1, this first condition may include a condition that the signal strength of the individual identification signal belongs to a first strength range. Alternatively, in (1), it may include (1a) a condition that the signal strength of the individual identification signal is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold. In (1), the position determination unit 103 is capable of performing determination processing as to the first condition by using received signal strength (RSSI: Received Signal Strength Indication) of the individual identification signal.” See ¶ 0153. With respect to, wherein the second determination is based, at least in part, on a combination of the calculated received signal strength indicator and the read zone of the first determination, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogator may be configured to be capable of sending a signal which will be received by, and acknowledged by only the single tag of interest. In another known RFID protocol, the interrogator may send a signal polling for all tags within range, and sending signals to tags other than the one desired to go inactive for a selected period of time.” See ¶ 0073, Hempstead teaches, “providing a first location having at least one RFBD interrogator and a display device associated with the location, said display device operatively coupled to a database; when a first animal enters the first location” claim 18, Hempstead teaches, “selectively identifying the location of an animal proximate an additional interrogator system associated with another monitoring regions in the plurality of monitoring regions, through communications with said additional interrogator system; and creating at least one record of said identified location of said animal.” See claim 24. Yajima teaches, “the communication apparatus 2a is installed in the entrance of the region R1 and the communication apparatus 2b is installed in the entrance of the region R2.” See ¶ 0185, Yajima teaches, “the signal strength and the communication distance are correlated to each other. Therefore, for example, if each of the communication apparatuses 2a, 2b acquires the information about the signal strength regarding the individual identification signal from the transmission apparatus 1a worn by the livestock animal A1, distances L1, L2 between the transmission apparatus 1a and the respective communication apparatuses 2a, 2b can be respectively calculated. With this, it is possible to calculate the position of the transmission apparatus 1a, i.e., the position of the livestock animal A1 by using triangulation.” See ¶ 0238 and Fig. 10. Therefore, each of the determination made by Hempstead to locate the animal would be based on calculated received signal strength indicator as suggested by Yajima ¶ 0238, and the read zone of the first determination.
Applicant further argues, “Yajima Does Not Teach Using RSSI to Determine Which of Several Competing… Yajima disclosure reveals that its RSSI usage is fundamentally different from the claimed invention… Yajima uses RSSI as a proximity threshold or filter - not for comparative location determination across competing read zones… This is a binary proximity determination for a single, known target region - not a comparative analysis to resolve which of multiple competing read zones an animal is in… the triangulation serves to verify that an animal is deep inside a region that has already been identified as the target region - not to distinguish between competing regions… Yajima's system architecture employs a layered, contemporaneous determination - not a temporally sequential one… There is no disclosure in Yajima of a system that makes a first determination of which read zone an animal is in, and then uses that result as an input to a second, later determination… Accordingly, even in combination with Hempstead, Yajima does not supply the missing claim limitation. Neither reference teaches the core claimed architecture: a temporally linked system where the read zone result of a first determination is combined with RSSI as inputs to a second determination at a later time.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It seems Applicant is referring to the previously argued limitation. First, Examiner was unable to find the limitation that animal was determined to be in “multiple competing read zones.” Claimed limitations are too broad to suggest that animal was moving between different zones in from the claimed “first determination” and “second determination.” All the claimed limitations are determining is the location of animal at different times. Hempstead teaches, “the interrogators will poll the available tags at fairly frequent intervals to identify animals that are present. This polling time may be a short as a few seconds, and that information will be communicated back to livestock processing system 207.” See ¶ 0070, Hempstead teaches, “a deviation in time spent at a feed bunk may indicate that an animal is ill. As will be discussed in more detail later herein, the present invention contemplates in some examples, the monitoring of the time an animal spends in certain areas, as determined by RFID interrogator zones of coverage.” See ¶ 0043. Therefore, Hempstead teaches, “polling time may be a short as a few seconds” and the animal can determined to be in the same or different place based on the polling in view of ¶ 0043.
Applicant further argues, “The Proposed Motivation to Combine Hempstead and Yajima Is Based on Impermissible Hindsight Reconstruction… The Office Action's stated motivation to combine Hempstead and Yajima is "accurately estimating the location of the livestock based on multiple RSSI signals." See Office Action at p. 10. Applicant respectfully submits that this motivation is impermissible hindsight reconstruction, unsupported by the teachings of either reference… Neither Hempstead nor Yajima Recognizes or Addresses the Cross-Read Problem…A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine the References to Arrive at the Claimed Invention…” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempstead (US 2008/0314325 A1) and further in view of Yajima (US 2018/0295809 A1).
Consider claim 1, Hempstead teaches, an electronic tag reading system for a plurality of animals in a plurality of locations, Hempstead teaches, “automated monitoring and managing of livestock, and more particularly relates to methods and apparatus for performing such monitoring and/or managing through use of electronic tags associated with individual animals” See ¶ 0001, comprising:
at least one electronic animal identification tag attached to each of the plurality of animals, Hempstead teaches, “machine-readable radio frequency identification ("RFID") tags associated with an individual animal. In conventional RFID tagging systems for animals, a tag carrying a single data field of machine-readable data, in the form of a unique identifier, is attached to the animal, to enable identification of the animal.” See ¶ 0007, Hempstead teaches, “the tags 1003 are attached to the ears of the animals” See ¶ 0051 and Fig. 1;
a plurality of electronic tag readers wherein a given electronic tag reader of the plurality of electronic tag readers is allocated to a given location comprising a read zone, Hempstead teaches, “interrogators will be used to establish various monitoring zones, within which each of the interrogators defining that zone will be able to communicate with tags on livestock within that zone.” See ¶0033, Hempstead teaches, “FIG. 2, interrogators may be placed to establish a first monitoring zone 214 at the head of the loading dock to read tags on animals immediately as they leave the shipping truck.” See ¶ 0052; and
a controller communicatively connected to the plurality of electronic tag readers, Hempstead teaches, “[t]he interrogators 105 communicate data read from readable/writeable tag 101 to a livestock processing system 107. Similarly, livestock processing system 107 communicates data to the interrogators 105, which is then written to readable/writeable tag 101” See ¶ 0033. Hempstead teaches, “[l]ivestock processing system 107 operates programs which enable the data handling as discussed herein through control of and/or communication with the interrogators 105, providing the interface to tags 103.” See ¶ 0034;
wherein the system is configured to perform a method comprising:
receiving, from the plurality of electronic tag readers, a plurality of readings of electronic animal identification tags attached to the plurality of animals, Hempstead teaches, “the read/write capability of the tags, it is preferred that some protections be provided to avoid the alteration of the unique identifier in each tag that will be used to identify the animal.” See ¶ 0032, Hempstead teaches, “the tag may be pre-coded with the unique identifier which will be associated with the animal through the database.” See ¶ 0062, Hempstead teaches, “[t]his monitoring region 403 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the feeding area, and the length of time each animal spends at the feed bunk 412” See ¶ 0070; Hempstead teaches, “monitoring region 416 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the watering area, and the length of time each animal spends at the water trough 419” See ¶ 0071;
making a first determination of within which read zone the animal attached to a given electronic animal identification tag is located, Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208. As depicted in FIG. 5, each such monitoring zone will include at least one RFID interrogator 230 and will include at least one, and preferably multiple antennas 222A-D to establish a zone of coverage in which tags will be read.” See ¶ 0051, Hempstead teaches, “interrogators may be placed to establish a first monitoring zone 214 at the head of the loading dock to read tags on animals immediately as they leave the shipping truck.” See ¶ 0052, and;
at a time later than said first determination, making a second determination of within which read zone the animal attached to said given electronic animal identification tag is located, Hempstead teaches, “After intake processing, livestock are sent to appropriate pens, as identified in reference to FIG. 2... FIG. 4 depicts an example feedlot pen 411 in which multiple monitoring areas will be established” See ¶ 0069,
Hempstead teaches, “pen 411 includes a first monitoring area covering essentially the whole pen, established by a number of medium-ranged fixed interrogators 405A-405H. The medium-ranged fixed interrogators surround the area that contains livestock 407A-407I. The interrogators will be arranged and configured such that the established zone of coverage extends only within pen 411… [t]his monitoring region 403 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the feeding area, and the length of time each animal spends at the feed bunk 412.. pen 411 also includes a watering area monitoring region 416 established through one or more short-range interrogators 417. The short-range interrogator 417 is located on or near the watering area 416, and is configured to monitor the livestock 407A-407I only when they drink.” See ¶ 0070 Hempstead teaches, “monitoring region 416 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the watering area, and the length of time each animal spends at the water trough 419” See ¶ 0071;
With respect to, calculating a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for each of the plurality of readings, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogator can indicate such as through an audible signal, a visual signal or signal strength received only from the tag on the desired animal.” Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Yajima teaches, “[a] plurality of signal transmission units 101 each transmit an individual identification signal including an individual identifier made corresponding to a livestock animal. Then, the signal reception unit 102 of the communication apparatus 2 receives these individual identification signals.” See ¶ 0151, Yajima teaches, “an individual identifier specific to the transmission apparatus 1, which is assigned in advance, is used as the individual identifier. With this, the individual identifier corresponds to a livestock animal wearing the transmission apparatus 1” See ¶ 0112, Yajima teaches, “proximity wireless communication refers to,… RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) ” See ¶ 0115, Yajima teaches, “[i]f information about signal strength when received by one or more communication apparatuses 2 positioned in the target region is added to the individual identification signal transmitted from the transmission apparatus 1, this first condition may include a condition that the signal strength of the individual identification signal belongs to a first strength range. Alternatively, in (1), it may include (1a) a condition that the signal strength of the individual identification signal is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold. In (1), the position determination unit 103 is capable of performing determination processing as to the first condition by using received signal strength (RSSI: Received Signal Strength Indication) of the individual identification signal.” See ¶ 0153.
wherein the second determination is based, at least in part, on a combination of the calculated received signal strength indicator and the read zone of the first determination, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogator may be configured to be capable of sending a signal which will be received by, and acknowledged by only the single tag of interest. In another known RFID protocol, the interrogator may send a signal polling for all tags within range, and sending signals to tags other than the one desired to go inactive for a selected period of time.” See ¶ 0073, “providing a first location having at least one RFBD interrogator and a display device associated with the location, said display device operatively coupled to a database; when a first animal enters the first location” claim 18, “selectively identifying the location of an animal proximate an additional interrogator system associated with another monitoring regions in the plurality of monitoring regions, through communications with said additional interrogator system; and creating at least one record of said identified location of said animal.” See claim 24. Yajima teaches, “the communication apparatus 2a is installed in the entrance of the region R1 and the communication apparatus 2b is installed in the entrance of the region R2.” See ¶ 0185, Yajima teaches, “the signal strength and the communication distance are correlated to each other. Therefore, for example, if each of the communication apparatuses 2a, 2b acquires the information about the signal strength regarding the individual identification signal from the transmission apparatus 1a worn by the livestock animal A1, distances L1, L2 between the transmission apparatus 1a and the respective communication apparatuses 2a, 2b can be respectively calculated. With this, it is possible to calculate the position of the transmission apparatus 1a, i.e., the position of the livestock animal A1 by using triangulation.” See ¶ 0238 and Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Hempstead wherein the location determination is based on a combination of the calculated received signal strength indicator, as suggested by Yajima (Yajima teaches, “the position determination unit 103 is capable of performing determination processing as to the first condition by using received signal strength (RSSI: Received Signal Strength Indication) of the individual identification signal.” See ¶ 0153) from the first zone and the second zone, as suggested by Yajima, (“interrogators will be used to establish various monitoring zones, within which each of the interrogators defining that zone will be able to communicate with tags on livestock within that zone.” See ¶ 0033) thereby accurately estimating the location of the livestock based on multiple RSSI signals, “the server apparatus 3 is capable of also making use of sensor data of an individual identification signal having low signal strength (RSSI). In addition, position determination can also be precisely performed.”.
Consider claim 2, a method, comprising:
(a) receiving, from a plurality of electronic tag readers, a plurality of readings of electronic animal identification tags attached to animals, wherein a given electronic tag reader of the plurality of electronic tag readers is allocated to a given location comprising a read zone,
(b) calculating a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for each of the plurality of readings;
(c) making a first determination of within which read zone the animal attached to a given electronic animal identification tag is located and;
(d) at a time later than said first determination, making a second determination of within which read zone the animal attached to said given electronic animal identification tag is located;
wherein the second determination is based, at least in part, on a combination of the calculated received signal strength indicator and the read zone of the first determination, See rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second determinations are used, in part, to determine the path through the electronic tag reading system of at least one of the plurality of animals, Hempstead teaches, “the invention contemplates using the tags to track animals through movements within the feedlot, to assure that each animal which is to travel a certain path to arrive at a given destination, does in fact do so.” See ¶ 0042, Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208.” See ¶ 0051, It would have been obvious for Hempstead to utilize first and second determinations RSSI suggested by Yajima to determine the path through the electronic tag reading system of at least one of the plurality of animals.
Consider claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second determinations are used, in part, to determine how at least one of the plurality of animals has been routed through the electronic tag reading system, Hempstead teaches, “the invention contemplates using the tags to track animals through movements within the feedlot, to assure that each animal which is to travel a certain path to arrive at a given destination, does in fact do so.” See ¶ 0042, Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208.” See ¶ 0051, It would have been obvious for Hempstead to utilize first and second determinations RSSI suggested by Yajima to determine the animal routed through the electronic tag reading system.
Consider claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein a previous read zone determination of the tag is used to influence the first or second determination, Yajima teaches, “the signal strength and the communication distance are correlated to each other. Therefore, for example, if each of the communication apparatuses 2a, 2b acquires the information about the signal strength regarding the individual identification signal from the transmission apparatus 1a worn by the livestock animal A1, distances L1, L2 between the transmission apparatus 1a and the respective communication apparatuses 2a, 2b can be respectively calculated. With this, it is possible to calculate the position of the transmission apparatus 1a, i.e., the position of the livestock animal A1 by using triangulation.” See ¶ 0238 and Fig. 10. Yajima teaches, “Using this calculation method, for example, a condition that the position of the transmission apparatus 1a, which is calculated by the plurality of communication apparatuses 2a, 2b, is a region R11 spaced away from the entrance within the region R1 can be applied as the condition (2e). For example, the region R11 may be a region spaced away by a predetermined distance or more from each of the communication apparatuses 2a, 2b arranged in the entrance of the region R1 or may be a region spaced away by the predetermined distance or more from the entrance of the region R1. With this, it is possible to reliably determine that the livestock animal A1 is staying inside the region R1.” See ¶ 0239.
Consider claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein a time between the first determination (via communication apparatuses 2a) and the second determination (via communication apparatuses 2b) is used to influence the first or second determination, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogators will poll the available tags at fairly frequent intervals to identify animals that are present. This polling time may be a short as a few seconds, and that information will be communicated back to livestock processing system 207. Livestock processing system 207 will then compile the received data as needed. In a preferred example of the system, the data will be compiled to indicate any animals that did not feed with a selected time frame, and also to establish a comparison of time spent at the feed bunk for those animals that did visit the bunk… representing animals that spent either an exceptionally long or an exceptionally short time at the trough” See ¶ 0070. Yajima teaches, “second condition used in the determination of the stay determination unit 105 includes at least (1) the condition regarding the reception time of each of the plurality of individual identification signals.” See ¶ 0244. Yajima ¶ 0238 and 0239. Nonetheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to determine the time different between the first and second response for the purpose of triangulation.
Consider claim 7, the system of claim 1, further comprising wherein the second determination is based, at least in part, on the rate of movement, i.e. speed, of the animal, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogators will poll the available tags at fairly frequent intervals to identify animals that are present. This polling time may be a short as a few seconds, and that information will be communicated back to livestock processing system 207. Livestock processing system 207 will then compile the received data as needed. In a preferred example of the system, the data will be compiled to indicate any animals that did not feed with a selected time frame, and also to establish a comparison of time spent at the feed bunk for those animals that did visit the bunk… representing animals that spent either an exceptionally long or an exceptionally short time at the trough” See ¶ 0070, Hempstead teaches, “representing animals that have spent either an exceptionally long period of time, an exceptionally short period of time, or no time at the water trough” See ¶ 0071. Hempstead would know based on the lack of movement from the feed bunk that animals that spent an exceptionally long time at the feed bunk. Nonetheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to determine the location based on the speed of the animal.
Consider claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein the readings are analysed after some delay and the first and second determinations are made are said delay, Nonetheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to determine the time different with a delay between the first and second response for the purpose of triangulation.
Consider claim 14, the system of claim 1 wherein the first determination is further based on one or more of:
a configuration (i.e. communication protocol used) of the electronic tag readers, Hempstead teaches, “[d]epending upon the RFID protocols used, several techniques for performing this location may be used. As one example, the interrogator may be configured to be capable of sending a signal which will be received by, and acknowledged by only the single tag of interest. In another known RFID protocol, the interrogator may send a signal polling for all tags within range, and sending signals to tags other than the one desired to go inactive for a selected period of time. In such a way, the interrogator can indicate such as through an audible signal, a visual signal or signal strength received only from the tag on the desired animal. By moving through the pen with the interrogator, the operator will be able to localize the signal and thus identify the animal of interest, animal 407H. The mobile interrogator 413 may suppress the tags of all livestock except the one of interest.” See ¶ 0073;
a configuration of other infrastructure, other than the electronic tag readers;
the output of one or more physical sensors, Yajima teaches, “the sensor unit 14 may include an activity amount sensor such as a vibration sensor and an acceleration sensor” See ¶ 0271;
a previous location of the electronic animal identification tag, Hempstead teaches, “the invention contemplates using the tags to track animals through movements within the feedlot, to assure that each animal which is to travel a certain path to arrive at a given destination, does in fact do so.” See ¶ 0042; or
a time since a last determination of the location of the animal, Hempstead teaches, “the interrogators will poll the available tags at fairly frequent intervals to identify animals that are present. This polling time may be a short as a few seconds, and that information will be communicated back to livestock processing system 207. Livestock processing system 207 will then compile the received data as needed. In a preferred example of the system, the data will be compiled to indicate any animals that did not feed with a selected time frame, and also to establish a comparison of time spent at the feed bunk for those animals that did visit the bunk.” See ¶ 0070.
Consider claim 15, the system of claim 1, wherein the second determination is further based on one or more of:
a configuration of the electronic tag readers;
a configuration of other infrastructure, other than the electronic tag readers;
the output of one or more physical sensors;
a previous location of the electronic animal identification tag; or
a time since a last determination of the location of the animal, See rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempstead (US 2008/0314325 A1), in view of Yajima (US 2018/0295809 A1), and further in view of Calvarese (US 2009/0021376 A1).
Consider claim 8, the system of claim 1, further comprising;
calculating a curve of RSSI over time for a first electronic identification tag, in an analogous art, Calvarese teaches, “[a] identifying one or more RFID tags that may be moving along with a mobile reader. For example, an RFID tag affixed to a pallet of goods in a warehouse may be moved by a forklift operator carrying or wearing a reader. Using the techniques described herein, the pallet in motion can easily be distinguished from those that remain stationary or a moving other than with the reader.” See ¶ 0007. Calvarese teaches, “In step 1220, the RFID reader 104 receives signals back from any RFID tags 102 within range. In step 1225, RFID reader 104, or a processor, computer, or server associated with the reader 104, stores pertinent data. The pertinent data includes the IDs of RFID tag 102s which send back signals, the times the signals are received for each tag 102, and an indication of the signal strength (such as the RSSI) of each received signal at each time for each tag 102.” See ¶ 0124, See Fig. 5A, and Fig. 11 Tag T1, “FIG. 5A is an exemplary plot of the energy returned to the exemplary RFID reader of FIG. 4A by the first RFID tag in synchronous motion with the RFID reader.” See ¶ 0016 ;
calculating a curve of RSSI over time for a second electronic identification tag, Calvarese teaches “FIG. 11 is a plot of the visibility over time of the exemplary RFID tags of FIG. 10” See ¶ 0023, and Tag 2, “FIG. 5B is an exemplary plot of the energy returned to the exemplary RFID reader of FIG. 4A by the second and third RFID tags not in synchronous motion with the RFID reader.” See ¶ 0017; and
comparing the curve of RSSI over time of the first electronic identification tag with the curve of RSSI over time of the second electronic identification tag, Calvarese teaches, “RFID reader 104, associated antenna 202 and Tag1 102a all remain in a fixed relationship with the vehicle 405. Therefore, over time, the distance D1 remains constant as long as container 410 is being carried by vehicle 405.” See ¶ 0057, and Fig. 11, “FIG. 4A and FIG. 4C is that both Tag2 102b and Tag3 102c are shown as being in motion over time relative to RFID reader 104 and RFID reader antenna 202.” See ¶ 0066, Calvarese teaches, “the determinations made in steps 1045, 1255, and 1265 are combined to give a determination which may be more complete as to the likelihood that a given tag 102 is moving coherently with the reader 104. T” See ¶ 0134.
wherein the comparison is used in making the first determination and/or the second determination, Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208.” See ¶ 0051, It would have been obvious for Hempstead to utilize the plots of RSSI over time as suggested by Calvarese to determine the animal path through the electronic tag reading system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Hempstead-Yajima and plot the curve of signal strength received from each of the plurality of tags and determine the location of the tag based on the combined determination, in an effort to accurately triangulate the location of the animal.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempstead (US 2008/0314325 A1), in view of Yajima (US 2018/0295809 A1), and further in view of Bolen (US 2019/0159428 A1).
Consider claim 9, the system of claim 1, wherein, after a plurality of animals have passed through the electronic tag reading system, Hempstead teaches, “monitoring region 403 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the feeding area, and the length of time each animal spends at the feed bunk 412.” See ¶ 0070, Hempstead teaches, “monitoring region 416 may be used to collect data indicating when each animal is at the watering area, and the length of time each animal spends at the water trough 419” See ¶ 0071
the readings are analysed to determine the path through which the plurality of animals passed, Hempstead teaches, “the invention contemplates using the tags to track animals through movements within the feedlot, to assure that each animal which is to travel a certain path to arrive at a given destination” See ¶ 0042, Hempstead teaches, “One or more monitoring zones 214, 216, 227, 229 may be established at desired locations along this path, through interrogators or interrogator systems 209A-C and 208.” See ¶ 0051. In an analogous art, Bolen teaches, “[w]hen the horse 102 leaves the stable 206, it will pass the second stable reader 308 (step 612) and record the horse 102 has left the stable 206 (step 614) and update the database (step 616)…. The horse 102 enters the gate 310 (step 618), where a gate reader 312 is available for each chute. Once the horse 102 enters the gate 310, the gate reader 312 receives the information (step 620) and updates the database (step 622).” See ¶ 0032. Bolen teaches, “the racetrack readers 204 would be able to determine the time the horse 102 was at the location of the racetrack reader 204” See ¶ 0036.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Hempstead-Yajima and have individual readers for each stall and gate chute and be able to track the location of the horse/livestock with in the facility based on the reader associated with the stall and gate chute reading the tag attached to the animal as taught by Bolen, in an effort to effectively and quickly locate the animal owner needs to see.
Claim(s) 11-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempstead (US 2008/0314325 A1), in view of Yajima (US 2018/0295809 A1), and further in view of Stewart (US 2006/0279406 A1).
Consider claim 11, the system of claim 1, wherein the readings of at least one electronic tag reader of the plurality of electronic tag readers is provided with a weight based on the electronic tag reader's reliability, in an analogous art, Stewart teaches, “[w]hen more than one interrogator is present within a vicinity, or when more than one interrogator is used to read a single transponder, synchronization of all interrogators' activation signals is required. Several interrogators may be located nearby one another in order to read different transponders at different stations, or two or more interrogators may be positioned at a single station with the intention of reading a single transponder with greater reliability and/or redundancy.” See ¶ 0018; Stewart teaches, “a system and method by which the adaptive timing requirements of ISO Standard 11785 and the synchronization requirements of multiple interrogators are integrated in an efficient and effective manner. The invention uses an architecture in which one interrogator is designated as a "master". The master interrogator produces a synchronization signal containing frequency, phase, and cadence timing information. All other interrogators, which require synchronization, are designated as "slave" interrogators. All slaves receive the synchronization signal from the master and use it as their activation signal. Slave interrogators return status signals to the master, indicative of transponder detection status, and the master alters the adaptive timing of the synchronization signal accordingly. In this way, the timing of the entire system is adjusted to suit the requirements of all interrogators, and all interrogators emit activation signals that are frequency, phase, and cadence synchronized.” See ¶ 0022, Stewart teaches, “defining a hierarchy of master interrogators. In the event of failure of the primary designated master interrogator, the slave interrogators can sense the loss of the synchronization signal and a designated slave can automatically reconfigure itself to become the system master and to provide the synchronization signal to the remaining slave interrogators.” See ¶ 0023.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Hempstead-Yajima and have a status signal dictate the hierarchy in term reliability of one of the plurality of the readers and weight the reading from the automatically selected master reader, as suggested by Stewart in an effort to provide reliable data with respect to the location of the RFID tag
Consider claim 12, the system of claim 11, wherein the reliability of a given reader is determined based on technical or structural differences between the plurality of electronic tag readers, Stewart teaches, “FIGS. 1(a)-1(d) depict an interrogator's activation signal, which is derived from a digital logic signal having similar characteristics. The digital logic signal typically comprises a unipolar (0 to 5 volt) square-wave shaped signal, while the activation signal is typically a bipolar high-voltage level sinusoid shaped signal, suitable for driving an antenna coil in order to produce a magnetic field. Despite these differences in voltage and wave shape, the activation signal and the digital logic signal have identical frequency, phase, and cadence (i.e., on/off interval timing) characteristics. The master interrogator's synchronization signal, which is distributed to the slave interrogators, is also derived from this same digital logic signal. Thus, the synchronization signal's frequency, phase, and cadence are accurately represented by FIGS. 1(a)-1(d) as well.” See ¶ 0035.
Consider claim 13, the system of claim 11, wherein the weight is independent of the RSSI, Stewart teaches, “[e]Each interrogator outputs transponder detection status information onto the adaptive timing control signal bus. The adaptive control timing signal bus is input to the synchronization control function, and the timing of the synchronization signal is adjusted in accordance with the detection state of the interrogators. In this way, the timing of the entire system adjusts to the requirements of each and all of the interrogators.” See ¶ 0036, therefore, independent of RSSI.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm 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, Brian A. 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.
/Omer S Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights