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 .
Acknowledgment
This Office Action is responsive to amendment filed on 08/19/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-19, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Haire (US 8,994,501, previously cited) in view of Ho et al. (US 8,717,145, previously cited) and Powell (US 2007/0075838).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, O’Haire teaches an apparatus and method for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (col. 10, line 60 to col. 11, line 5) ; and at least one processor (col. 10, line 35 to col. 11, line 5) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: transmit, at a first transmission power level (power at lower level) of a short range device (SRD) (RFID reader 210), a first sequence of commands to a first plurality of tags (RFID tags 220); adjust the first transmission power level of the SRD to a second transmission power level (power at medium level); and transmit, at the second transmission power level of the SRD, a second sequence of commands to a second plurality of tags (RFID tags 230) (figs 1-3; col. 3, line 24 to col. 7, line 27).
O’Haire is silent to the system being used for inventory purpose and detect a completion of an inventorying of each tag of the first plurality tags and adjust the first transmission power level of the SRD to a second transmission power level based on the completion of an inventorying; and a slot counter of the SRD reaching a predetermined level as claimed.
However, as mentions in col. 7, lines 1-27, O’Haire teaches once all tags at the lowest power level have been read, the reader increases transmission power level to read more tags. This indicates that once the reader has completed reading at the first power level, the reader will increase or adjust its transmission power level (detect a completion of an inventorying of each tag of the first plurality tags and adjust the first transmission power level of the SRD to a second transmission power level based on the completion of an inventorying). Moreover, Ho teaches inventory system and method that reading tags at different operating range (figs. 1-3 and col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 37). Furthermore, Powell teaches method and apparatus for obtaining data from RFID tags comprising detecting, based on a slot counter of the SRD (reader) reaching a predetermined value (figs. 2-3 and [0033]-[0040]).
In view of Ho’s and Powell’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of O’Haire by incorporating the teaching as taught by Ho in order to arrive at the claimed invention; and by incorporating the teaching as taught by Powell so as to allow the interrogation to be performed more efficiently (see Powell: [0038] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both O’Haire and Ho further teach wherein the first sequence of commands includes inventorying commands to inventory the first plurality of tags and the second sequence of commands includes inventorying commands to inventory the second plurality of tags (O’Haire: fig. 5. Ho: col. 4, line 6 to col. 5, line 37).
Regarding claim 3, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. O’Haire further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the second transmission power level of the SRD to a third transmission power level (highest power level), wherein the third transmission power level is associated with a predetermined maximum transmission power level of the SRD; transmit, at the third transmission power level of the SRD, a third sequence of commands to a third plurality of tags to inventory the third plurality of tags; and determine to terminate inventorying operations of the SRD based on the SRD not detecting additional tags to be inventoried (fig. 5, col. 4, lines 39-67; col. 8, line 16 to col. 9, line 56).
Regarding claim 4, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powell further teach wherein the slot counter value set to prompt reply by tags remaining to be inventoried (figs. 6-7 and [0051]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 5, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. O’Haire, Ho and Powell further teach wherein the first sequence of commands and the second sequence of commands include a query, and an acknowledgement command (ACK) generated in response to reception of a reply by a tag (O’Haire: col. 8, lines 1-60. Ho: col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 37. Powell: figs. 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 6, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powell further teaches wherein the reply by the tag is 16 digit random number (RN16) reply ([0046] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. O’Haire, Ho further and Powell teach wherein the first sequence of commands and the second sequence of commands include a select command to select a plurality of tags to inventory (O’Haire: col. 8, lines 36-60. Ho: col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 37. Powell: [0075] and [0076]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both O’Haire and Ho further teach wherein the second transmission power level is greater than the first transmission power level and further limitations as claimed (O’Haire: figs. 3-5 and col. 4, lines 44-58. Ho: fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 40-56).
Regarding claim 16, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both O’Haire and Ho further teach wherein the first transmission power level is associated with a predetermined maximum transmission power level of the SRD, the first sequence of commands includes a select inventorying command and a query inventorying command, and the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the first sequence of commands periodically to detect additional tags to be inventoried; and terminate inventorying operations of the SRD based on the SRD not detecting any additional tags to be inventoried (O’Haire: fig. 5 and col. 8, line 35 to col. 9, line 56. Ho: fig. 3 and col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 37).
Regarding claim 17, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both O’Haire and Ho further teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine, based on an additional change in position of the SRD, to transmit a third sequence of commands to inventory a third plurality of tags (O’Haire: fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 1-45. Ho: fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 49 to col. 5, line 37).
Regarding claim 18, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. O’Haire, Ho and Powell further teach wherein the SRD is a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader, and wherein the first plurality of tags include a plurality of RFID tags (O’Haire: the abstract. Ho: the abstract. Powell: [0027]).
Regarding claim 22, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powell further teaches wherein to detect the completion of the inventorying, the at least one processor is further configured to determine that no response is received after a threshold amount of time has elapsed (fig. 6B and [0051]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 23, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powell further teaches wherein the second transmission power level represents a maximum power level of the SRD, wherein the second sequence of commands comprises a select inventory command without a filter and a query inventory command specifying a slot counter of zero, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine to terminate inventory operation of the SRD based on the SRD not detecting additional tags to be inventoried during a single response slot ([0050]-[0056]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Haire as modified by Ho and Power as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2011/0181398, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for command to write and kill as claimed.
However, Li teaches command to write and kill as claimed ([0032]).
In view of Li’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of O’Haire, Ho and Powell by incorporating the teaching as taught by Li in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heo (US 2015/0358778, previously cited).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 14, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for determine an additional change in position and further limitations as claimed. However, Heo teaches method and apparatus for providing location information comprising at least one processor is configured to: determine an additional change in position of the SRD; and adjust, based on the additional change in the position of the SRD exceeding an additional threshold, the second transmission power level of the SRD to the first transmission power level and further limitations as claimed (figs. 5A-6; claim 18, [0040] and [0106]-[0115]).
In view of Heo’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of O’Haire, Ho and Powell by incorporating the teaching as taught by Heo so as to accommodate communications with all the tags with different positions.
Regarding claim 21, O’Haire as modified by Ho and Powell teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for identify, based on a distance traveled by the SRD, a change in position of the SRD from a first position to a second position; and determine that the change in position exceeds a threshold, wherein adjusting the first transmission power level of the SRD to the second transmission power level is further based on the identified change in position.
However, Heo teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (330); and at least one processor (320) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: transmit, at a first transmission power level of a short range device (SRD) (503), a first sequence of commands to a first plurality of tags to inventory the first plurality of tags; identify, based on a distance traveled by the SRD, a change in position of the SRD from a first position to a second position; and determine that the change in position exceeds a threshold, wherein adjusting the first transmission power level of the SRD to the second transmission power level is further based on the identified change in position (figs. 3, 5A, 5B, [0107]-[0113]).
In view of Heo’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations of O’Haire, Ho and Powell by incorporating the teaching as taught by Heo so as to accommodate communications with all the tags with different positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, 14-19 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O’Haire, Ho, Powell, Li and Heo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
