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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 04/08/2026, Claim 4 has been cancelled, claims 1-3, 5-6 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargo et al. 2017/0004334 in view of Schoening 2024/0086841.
Regarding claim 1, Vargo discloses a method of retrieving a specific RFID (items 14 with RFID tag 12) tagged movable item from a group of RFID tagged movable items comprising the steps of: scanning the group with a RFID reader (RFID reader 24) and an antenna carried by an operator [20] [FIG 1], when the RFID reader finds the specific RFID tagged movable item to be retrieved in a range of the reader, causing processing associated with the reader to save as recorded tags the tags of the group of RFID tagged movable items within the range of the reader and signaling the operator of such finding [25] [27], and allowing the operator to retrieve the specific RFID tagged movable item from the group of RFID tagged movable items and move away from the group of RFID tagged movable items with the specific RFID tagged movable item, the processing associated with the reader being programmed to detect movement of the operator associated with retrieval of the specific RFID tagged movable item by detecting that one or more of the recorded RFID tagged movable items is not read by the reader [07] [018-19] [025-34].
However, it is unclear as to whether Vargo discloses continuously scanning the group of RFID tagged movable items with a RFID reader, wherein the scanning occurs without the user input, continuing to scan the group of RFID tagged movable items while allowing the operator to retrieve the specific RFID tagged movable item, and continuously scanning with the RFID reader and determining that the operator has moved on.
Schoening discloses continuously scanning the group of RFID tagged movable items with a RFID reader, wherein the scanning occurs without the user input, continuing to scan the group of RFID tagged movable items while allowing the operator to retrieve the specific RFID tagged movable item, and continuously scanning with the RFID reader and determining that the operator has moved on [105-107]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Schoening discloses, “These techniques may, for example, enable navigation guidance for the operator of the forklift 18 as the forklift 18 moves through the facility.” [105].
Regarding claim 2, Vargo in view of Schoening discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vargo further discloses the processing associated with the reader is programmed to verify with the reader that the operator is carrying the correct item after movement is interpreted [025] [027] [37-38].
Claims 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargo et al. 2017/0004334 in view of Lee et al. 2010/0100997.
Regarding claim 3, Vargo discloses portable RFID tag reading system (RFID reader system 10) [018] [FIG 1] to be carried by an operator and including an antenna extending from a bottom of a coat garment worn by the operator to a shoulder of the operator and a reader with associated processing, the processing being programmed to record as recorded tags the identity of all of a group of RFID tagged movable items in the range of the RFID reader when the reader finds a specific RFID tag of a movable item and to detect movement of the operator after the specific RFID tag is found by detecting that one or more of the recorded tags from the group of RFID tagged movable items are not read by the reader [018-019] [025-038].
However, Vargo does not explicitly disclose a coat garment, a serpentine antenna, the serpentine antenna extending from a bottom of the coat garment worn by the operator to a shoulder of the operator and along a front of the coat garment.
Lee discloses a coat garment, a serpentine antenna, the serpentine antenna extending from a bottom of the coat garment worn by the operator to a shoulder of the operator and along a front of the coat garment [FIG 1D] [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Lee discloses, Worker is able to handle the objects normally without any extraneous movement or time since no additional or specific action by the worker is required to initiate interrogation and scanning. Direct pointing of RF antenna as items are processed is not required since RF antenna is positioned so that antenna is generally oriented toward the handled item during normal handling of tagged items.
Regarding claim 5, Vargo in view of Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Vargo further discloses the processing is programmed to verify when operator movement is detected that the operator is carrying the item bearing the specific RFID tag [025-31].
Regarding claim 6, Vargo in view of Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Vargo further discloses associated processing is provided by a small board computer(device 22) [020-26] [FIG 1].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant has amended claims 1-3, 5-6 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. However upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has provided a new U.S.C. 103 in view of Schoening for the method claims 1-2, and in view of Lee for the Apparatus claims of 3, 5-6. Thus all pending claims are rejected.
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 ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights