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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingler et al, US Pub. 2019/0325173.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Tingler et al disclose a system for reading RFID tag associated with retail products comprising: receiving, by computing hardware, a request for a predicted area of an apparatus, wherein the request includes an apparatus identifier for the apparatus and a area identifier for the predicted area ("a transition area 202 may be identified proximate exit doors 204 of the shopping facility based on the quantities of different items passing through that area and/or based on the correlation of products passing through that area and products sold during sales transactions", paragraph [0042]; identifying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the apparatus identifier and the area identifier, a reader device identifier and a tag identifier associated with the apparatus ("one or more rules may specify a threshold quantity of products being moved through an area of the shopping facility and detected by one or more RFID readers associated with that area", paragraph [0041 ]); querying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the reader device identifier and the tag identifier, tag read data, wherein the tag read data involves a reader device associated with the reader device identifier at least one of reading or not reading a tag associated with the tag identifier during a certain period of time ("identify a threshold number of unique RFID tags corresponding to a threshold number of different types of products within a threshold time period', paragraph [0046]); identifying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the state identifier, a set of rules, wherein the set of rules defines one or more predefined read characteristics associated with the reader device at least one of reading or not reading the tag that correspond to expected behavior for the apparatus; ( "a third set of rules to identify a length of a null area is obtained ... to identify over time a desired length of the null area as a function of determined periods of time between when RFID tags are no longer being detected by a first RFID reader of the second set of at least one RFID readers and when the RFID tags are detected by a first RFID reader of the first set of at least one RFID", paragraph [0047]); generating, by the computing hardware processing the tag read data using the set of rules, the predicted area of the apparatus ("A null area 206 may be limited to less than the entire length and/or area of that hallway, which allows for a detection of when products start moving relative to that transition area. RFID tag readers can be configured to steer respective interrogation zones to create the null area 206 in, for example, a middle of the length of the hallway, with as transition area 202 on one or both sides of the null area", paragraph [0047]; and communicating, by the computing hardware, the predicted state to at least one of a user computing device or a production computing system (" The evaluation control circuit can further initiate the adjustments relative to the second set of RFID readers to increase a length 212 of the null area", paragraph [0037]).
Tingler et al fail to specifically disclose a predicted status of an apparatus, but disclose a predicted area. However, the effect that the distinguishing feature has is that it is possible to verify the state of an apparatus, such as a door being open or closed (paragraph [0011]) by means of RFID readings with a simple installation that does not require additional sensors. This effect can be deduced from the disclosure of paragraphs [0011] and [0017] of the description.
If the person skilled in the art is posed with the task of verifying the state of an apparatus the door by means of RFID readings, the solution is trivial in the disclosed system, see paragraph [0019]. The transition area 202 is adjacent to the door and RFID readers 104a-d can verify whether there is flow of items with RFID tags moving through the doors: "step 506, the first set of rules are applied and at least a first transition area is identified within the retail shopping facility based on the received RFID tag information and the applied one or more rules of the first set. For example, a transition area 202 may be identified proximate exit doors 204 of the shopping facility based on the quantities of different items passing through that area and/or based on the correlation of products passing through that area and products sold during sales transactions", paragraph [0042] and figure 2. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as thought by the prior art.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Tingler et al disclose identifying over time a desired length of the null area as a function of determined periods of time between when RFID tags are no longer being detected by a first RFID reader of the second set of at least one RFID readers and when the RFID tags are detected by a first RFID reader of the first set of at least one RFID', paragraph [0047].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, "define and/or adjust the null and/or transition areas based on evaluations of RFID tag information (e.g., read rates, received signal strength indication (ROSSI), which one or more antennas of an RFID reader are detecting the RFID tag signal, angle of reception, communicated information such as tag identifier information, and/or other such RFID tag information) from various RFID readers", paragraph [0044].
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, the prior art does not disclose directly changing the state of the apparatus (e.g. closing or opening the door). However, triggering automatic actions after reading RFID information is well known and does not involve an inventive step. Therefore, it would have been obvious as thought by the prior art.
Regarding claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 add a second tag identifier associated with the apparatus an analogous manner to the first tag information to define further rules. The prior art discloses multiple RFID readers and multiple tags linked to different thresholds (paragraph [0046]). The differences in claims 5-7, 10-12 and 15 over the disclosure of the prior art define trivial implementation details that the person skilled in the art would adopt if it is established that the rules should involve reading information of further tags without the need of an inventive step. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,945 (hereinafter ‘945 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claimed invention is similar broader recitation of the ‘945 Patent. For instance, in claim 1 of the current application and in the ‘945 Patent, the applicant claims:
Application No. 19/228,570
Patent No. 12/353,945
A method comprising: receiving, by computing hardware, a request for a predicted state of an apparatus, wherein the request includes an apparatus identifier for the apparatus and a state identifier for the predicted state; identifying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the apparatus identifier, a reader device identifier and a tag identifier associated with the apparatus; querying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the reader device identifier and the tag identifier, tag read data, wherein the tag read data involves a reader device associated with the reader device identifier at least one of reading or not reading a tag associated with the tag identifier during a certain period of time; at least one of converting or encoding, by the computing hardware, at least a portion of the tag read data into a feature vector processing, by the computing hardware, the feature vector using a machine learning model to generate the predicted state of the apparatus, wherein the machine learning model is configured to determine a distance to a nearest vector corresponding to the predicted state is in a vector space to the feature vector, and the vector space is comprised a set of vectors representing one or more read characteristics associated with the reader device at least one of reading or not reading the tag that correspond to expected behavior for the apparatus; and communicating, by the computing hardware, the predicted state to at least one of a user computing device or a production computing system.
A method comprising: receiving, by computing hardware, a request for a predicted state of an apparatus, wherein the request includes an apparatus identifier for the apparatus and a state identifier for the predicted state; identifying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the apparatus identifier and the state identifier, a reader device identifier and a tag identifier associated with the apparatus; querying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the reader device identifier and the tag identifier, tag read data, wherein the tag read data involves a reader device associated with the reader device identifier at least one of reading or not reading a tag associated with the tag identifier during a certain period of time; identifying, by the computing hardware and based at least in part on the state identifier, a set of rules, wherein the set of rules defines one or more predefined read characteristics associated with the reader device at least one of reading or not reading the tag that correspond to expected behavior for the apparatus; generating, by the computing hardware processing the tag read data using the set of rules, the predicted state of the apparatus; and communicating, by the computing hardware, the predicted state to at least one of a user computing device or a production computing system.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1-20 of the ‘945 Patent as a general teaching for a method to perform the same function as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the ‘945 Patent and differ only in terminology. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of ‘945 Patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims in a first paten. IN re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. & 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on this ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 C>FR> &1.78(d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wohl et al, US Pub. 2014/0365640, disclose a method and an apparatus, and computer program product for performance analysis. Tsukamoto, US Pub. 2007/0143853, discloses a privacy protection method and device for transmitting identifier for privacy protection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached on 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876