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 .
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.
The claims of the present invention have been examined in view of the claims of co-pending and parent Application 18/036826, which has been patented but not published. The claims of the co-pending application relate to the claims of the present invention by also claiming the step of specifying a flow line of movement of an object in a predetermined area near a gate and determining whether or not an article has passed through the gate based on the specified flow line. The co-pending application, however, further acquires RSSI of a signal transmitted from an RFID tag and uses the RSSI with the specified flow line for determining if the article has passed through the gate. The present application does not utilize the RSSI of the RFID tag, and instead claims the process of determining that an object has once passed through the gate but turns back, and determining that the article has not passed through the gate. Therefore, the claims are not obvious variants of each other. The Examiner notes, however, should the Applicant add claim limitations from the co-pending application, a non-statutory double patenting rejection may be required, or a timely filed terminal disclaimer may be required to overcome a double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of specifying a flow line, determining whether an RFID tag has passed through a gate, and determining that the RFID tag has not passed through the gate, which are all processes that may be performed mentally. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claims require an RFID tag and a gate, the steps of the method are drawn to observations and determinations that may be made by a human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the gathering of information from an RFID tag is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the determination steps are not subsequently transformed or cause a material change, but instead only conclude at a subsequent determination step. Claims 13-17 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 12 by further claiming additional determination steps without significantly more, and are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near” in claims 1, 4-5, 9-12, 15-16, 18, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the term “near”. What is near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be near to another of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, the term “vicinity” in claims 10-11 is indefinite for the same reasons as “near”.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the limitation "the RFID tag". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependencies on claims 1, 12, or 18, respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami (JP 2009276939A, see the machine translation provided herewith) in view of Nixon (WO 2007/023274 A2).
Claim 1, Mikami teaches:
An information processing apparatus (Mikami, Figs. 2-5) comprising:
at least one memory (Mikami, Fig. 3: 18, 19, 1A); and
a computer program executed by a CPU constituting the reader/writer control device (Mikami, Paragraph [0064]) at least one at least one reader/writer control device (Mikami, Figs. 2-5: 10) to:
specify a flow line of a movement of an object in a predetermined area near a gate (Mikami, Paragraph [0035], When the sensors 33 and 43 detect a trailer entrance, the system activates the reader/writer. The entering of the trailer represents a flow line of a movement of the trailer through one of the gates.); and
determine whether or not the RFID tag has passed through the gate based on the specified flow line (Mikami, Paragraphs [0044-0045], Based on an analysis of the signal strength peaks, the system is able to determine whether the wireless tag has passed through the gate normally or if the wireless tag is moving irregularly around the gate. Articles with wireless ID tags attached thereto are loaded onto a trailer and pass through the gate (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]).).
Mikami does not specifically teach:
The memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory; and
an article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag;
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, determine that the article has not passed through the gate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to store the computer program executed by a CPU constituting the reader/writer control device in a memory. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would thus yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of an article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag, Mikami teaches that ID information is read from tags to provide inventory management of goods (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the read ID information from the tags to be functionally equivalent to an identification information corresponding to an attached article for purposes of tracking whether the article, which includes an attached tag, has passed through a gate. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Nixon teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, determine that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When an item moves from region 22A to 22B, the item passes a door 62, i.e. passes a “gate”, if the item then leaves region 22B but does not re-enter region 22A, the item is determined to be placed inside the vehicle 60, and the record 46 reflects this aspect. This situation is interpreted as “the article passed through the gate”, because the article is assumed to be placed within the truck 60 as intended. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system in Nixon to be capable of sensing whether the item, which previously moved from region 22A to 22B, to subsequently move back to region 22A and then out of region 22A. This situation could be indicative of an attempted theft of the item (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-26) in which the system would be capable of detecting the removal of said item, despite previously passing through the door 62, i.e. sensed in region 22B. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation defines that the article has once passed through the gate, but that the determination step is that the article has not passed through the gate. Furthermore, the determination step ends the claim without any corresponding action. Therefore, “the article has not passed through the gate” is interpreted as the processor determining the article has not stayed passed the gate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Mikami by integrating the teaching of an RFIP portal, as taught by Nixon.
The motivation would be to reduce the likelihood of theft of items (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-27).
Claim 2, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate, determine that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to approaching the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 3, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate without passing through the gate, determine that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to approaching the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 4, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near an entrance of the gate, determine that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to staying near the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article stays in or leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 5, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near the entrance of the gate for a predetermined time or longer, determine that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to staying near the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article stays in or leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62. An example predetermined time is any time greater than 0.).
Claim 6, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object approaching the gate, start reading the RFID tag of the object (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When the article enters region 22A, i.e. the article is approaching door 62, the RFID tag is read.).
Claim 7, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, end reading the RFID tag of the object (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article leaves regions 22B and 22A, the RFID tag is no longer within range of the vehicle 60, and the RFID cannot subsequently be read by the vehicle 60.).
Claim 8, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate, end reading the RFID tag of the object (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article leaves region 22A after previously approaching vehicle 60, the RFID tag is no longer within range of the vehicle 60, and the RFID cannot subsequently be read by the vehicle 60.).
Claim 9, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near an entrance of the gate, end reading the RFID tag of the object (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article leaves region 22A after previously approaching vehicle 60, the RFID tag is no longer within range of the vehicle 60, and the RFID cannot subsequently be read by the vehicle 60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the area outside of the region 22A to be interpretable as being “near” the door 62. Therefore, if the article stays in an area just outside of region 22A after previously being in region 22A, then the RFID tag will not be read.).
Claim 10, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates that the object moves away from a vicinity of an exit of the gate after approaching a predetermined position near an entrance of the gate, determine that the article has passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When an article passes through region 22A, i.e. approaching an entrance of door 62, then passes through region 22B (but not back through region 22A), i.e. away from the ”exit” of the door, the article is assumed to be loaded onto vehicle 60.).
Claim 11, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, if the specified flow line indicates that the object moves away from a vicinity of an exit of the gate after approaching a predetermined position near an entrance of the gate, determine whether or not the article has passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When an article passes through region 22A, i.e. approaching an entrance of door 62, then passes through region 22B (but not back through region 22A), i.e. away from the ”exit” of the door, the article is assumed to be loaded onto vehicle 60.) based on an RSSI of a signal transmitted from the RFID tag during a period during which the specified flow line has been generated (Mikami, Paragraphs [0044-0046], The changes in signal strength represent a transition of the RSSI, and the peaks in signal strength are compared to a reference value, which represents a change pattern that is determined in advance. Based on the peaks of the signal strength, the system is able to identify whether or not the tag, which corresponds to an article (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]), has moved relative to the gate.).
Claim 12, Mikami teaches:
An information processing method (Mikami, Figs. 2-5) comprising:
specifying a flow line of a movement of an object in a predetermined area near a gate (Mikami, Paragraph [0035], When the sensors 33 and 43 detect a trailer entrance, the system activates the reader/writer. The entering of the trailer represents a flow line of a movement of the trailer through one of the gates.); and
determining whether or not the RFID tag has passed through the gate based on the specified flow line (Mikami, Paragraphs [0044-0045], Based on an analysis of the signal strength peaks, the system is able to determine whether the wireless tag has passed through the gate normally or if the wireless tag is moving irregularly around the gate. Articles with wireless ID tags attached thereto are loaded onto a trailer and pass through the gate (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]).).
Mikami does not specifically teach:
An article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag; and
wherein if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate.
As per the limitation of an article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag, Mikami teaches that ID information is read from tags to provide inventory management of goods (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the read ID information from the tags to be functionally equivalent to an identification information corresponding to an attached article for purposes of tracking whether the article, which includes an attached tag, has passed through a gate. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Nixon teaches:
Wherein if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When an item moves from region 22A to 22B, the item passes a door 62, i.e. passes a “gate”, if the item then leaves region 22B but does not re-enter region 22A, the item is determined to be placed inside the vehicle 60, and the record 46 reflects this aspect. This situation is interpreted as “the article passed through the gate”, because the article is assumed to be placed within the truck 60 as intended. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system in Nixon to be capable of sensing whether the item, which previously moved from region 22A to 22B, to subsequently move back to region 22A and then out of region 22A. This situation could be indicative of an attempted theft of the item (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-26) in which the system would be capable of detecting the removal of said item, despite previously passing through the door 62, i.e. sensed in region 22B. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation defines that the article has once passed through the gate, but that the determination step is that the article has not passed through the gate. Furthermore, the determination step ends the claim without any corresponding action. Therefore, “the article has not passed through the gate” is interpreted as the processor determining the article has not stayed passed the gate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Mikami by integrating the teaching of an RFIP portal, as taught by Nixon.
The motivation would be to reduce the likelihood of theft of items (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-27).
Claim 13, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 12, wherein if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to approaching the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 14, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 13, wherein if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate without passing through the gate, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to approaching the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 15, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 12, wherein if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near an entrance of the gate, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to staying near the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article stays in or leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 16, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 15, wherein if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near the entrance of the gate for a predetermined time or longer, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to staying near the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article stays in or leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62. An example predetermined time is any time greater than 0.).
Claim 17, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 12, wherein the information processing method further comprises starting reading the RFID tag of the object if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object approaching the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When the article enters region 22A, i.e. the article is approaching door 62, the RFID tag is read.).
Claim 18, Mikami teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer (Mikami, Paragraph [0064]) to perform:
a flow line specification step of specifying a flow line of a movement of an object in a predetermined area near a gate (Mikami, Paragraph [0035], When the sensors 33 and 43 detect a trailer entrance, the system activates the reader/writer. The entering of the trailer represents a flow line of a movement of the trailer through one of the gates.); and
a passage determination step of determining whether or not the RFID tag has passed through the gate based on the specified flow line (Mikami, Paragraphs [0044-0045], Based on an analysis of the signal strength peaks, the system is able to determine whether the wireless tag has passed through the gate normally or if the wireless tag is moving irregularly around the gate. Articles with wireless ID tags attached thereto are loaded onto a trailer and pass through the gate (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]).).
Mikami does not specifically teach:
An article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag; and
wherein in the passage determination step, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate.
As per the limitation of an article specified by identification information read from the RFID tag, Mikami teaches that ID information is read from tags to provide inventory management of goods (see Mikami, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the read ID information from the tags to be functionally equivalent to an identification information corresponding to an attached article for purposes of tracking whether the article, which includes an attached tag, has passed through a gate. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Nixon teaches:
Wherein in the passage determination step, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object that has once passed through the gate but turns back, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, When an item moves from region 22A to 22B, the item passes a door 62, i.e. passes a “gate”, if the item then leaves region 22B but does not re-enter region 22A, the item is determined to be placed inside the vehicle 60, and the record 46 reflects this aspect. This situation is interpreted as “the article passed through the gate”, because the article is assumed to be placed within the truck 60 as intended. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system in Nixon to be capable of sensing whether the item, which previously moved from region 22A to 22B, to subsequently move back to region 22A and then out of region 22A. This situation could be indicative of an attempted theft of the item (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-26) in which the system would be capable of detecting the removal of said item, despite previously passing through the door 62, i.e. sensed in region 22B. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation defines that the article has once passed through the gate, but that the determination step is that the article has not passed through the gate. Furthermore, the determination step ends the claim without any corresponding action. Therefore, “the article has not passed through the gate” is interpreted as the processor determining the article has not stayed passed the gate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Mikami by integrating the teaching of an RFIP portal, as taught by Nixon.
The motivation would be to reduce the likelihood of theft of items (see Nixon, Page 10, Lines 24-27).
Claim 19, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 18, wherein in the passage determination step, if the specified flow line indicates a movement pattern of the object turning back after once approaching the gate, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to approaching the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Claim 20, Mikami in view of Nixon further teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to The non-transitory computer readable medium according to wherein in the passage determination step, if the specified flow line indicates that the object is staying near an entrance of the gate, it is determined that the article has not passed through the gate (Nixon, Fig. 4, Page 8, Lines 25-35 through Page 9, Lines 1-30, If the article is sensed in region 22A, it has not passed through door 62, but is equivalent to staying near the door 62, as monitored by region 22B. Subsequently, if the article stays in or leaves region 22A but does not enter region 22B, the article has not passed through the door 62.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
