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 .
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, 5-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (US 2008/0202407) in view of ReMine et al. (Patent No. 4,888,579).
Claim 1, Jorgensen teaches a method of triggering a security tag attached to an article for deterring theft of said article (abstract: tag attached to article 3), the method comprising:
emitting a first trigger signal in a first defined area (par. 14: whereby the device is detected through mutual communication between the tag and an interrogator); and
providing a security tag including an activation sensor configured to detect the first and control circuitry configured to trigger a theft deterrent module of the security tag upon detection of a trigger signal (par. 14: causes to release of a deterrent substance from receiving an electronic signal).
Jorgensen does not teach:
emitting a second trigger signal in a second defined area, the second trigger signal being different from the first trigger signal; and
an activation sensor configured to detect the first and second trigger signals and the control circuitry configured to trigger a theft deterrent module of the security tag upon detection of a trigger signal sequence comprising detection of the second trigger signal within a predefined time period after detection of the first trigger signal.
In the field of endeavor, ReMine teaches an electronic article surveillance system, a signal produced by a marker has a waveform of a first character when the marker is within a first portion of an interrogation zone, and a waveform of a second, opposite character when the marker is within a second portion of the zone. Thus, when a marker sequentially passes through the two portions, signals with the two different waveform characters are produced. Thus, sensing at least two signals of opposite character waveforms in a sequence within a period of time, and initiating an alarm only upon the sensing of two such signals (col. 3, ln 4-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jorgensen’s system by enabling detection of two signals within predetermined period before issuing an alarm as taught by ReMine for the purpose of preventing false activating of an alarm, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5, the combination does not teach wherein the frequency of the first trigger signal is different to the frequency of the second trigger signal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ReMine’s interrogation signals to produces signals of different frequencies, since it been held that choosing frequency to produce by a device without producing any new and unexpected result involves routine skill in the art.
Claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the first and second trigger signals are at the same frequency but include a different identifier (ReMine col. 4, ln 64-66: a system of interrogation and detection antennas which produces signals of opposite character).
Claim 7, the combination teaches wherein at least a part of the first and second defined areas are on opposite sides of an exit of a retail store (ReMine Fig. 3 shows zone portions 61 and 61).
Claim 8, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first defined area overlaps the second defined area. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ReMine’s interrogation antennas 16 placement in such a way to create overlapping field, since it since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the theft deterrent module comprises a benefit denial module (Jorgensen abstract).
Claim 12, the combination teaches wherein each of the first and second trigger signals is one of an RF signal, an acousto-magnetic signal or an electromagnetic signal (ReMine abstract: electromagnetic surveillance system).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (US 2008/0202407) in view of ReMine et al. (Patent No. 4,888,579), and further in view of Niederhuefner (US 2012/0176244).
Claim 9, the combination does not teach wherein the theft deterrent module comprises an alarm module.
In the field of endeavor, Niederhuefner teaches an electronic device attached to a packaging material and configured to activate an internal alarm up detection of signal indicating removal of the packaging material from building (par. 10&12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination security tag’s to include an alarm module as taught by Niederhuefner in order to notifying personnel that a possible theft of a merchandise.
Claim 11, the combination does not teach wherein the security tag further comprises an alarm module, and the control circuitry is configured to trigger the alarm module immediately after detection of the first or second trigger signals by the activation sensor.
In the field of endeavor, Niederhuefner teaches an electronic device attached to a packaging material and configured to activate an internal alarm up detection of signal indicating removal of the packaging material from building (par. 10&12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination security tag’s to include an alarm module as taught by Niederhuefner in order to notifying personnel that a possible theft of a merchandise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
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 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights