Ex Parte YIN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14168262 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/168,262 01/30/2014
21839 7590 03/26/2018
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Le-Jun YIN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0082206-000001 1019
EXAMINER
LIN, ALLENS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LE-JUN YIN
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 2
1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Le-Jun Yin, as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 30, 2014,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed April 25, 2016, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 19, 2017, the Supplemental Appeal Brief
("Supp. Br.") filed April 12, 2017 submitting a compliant Summary of the
Claimed Subject Matter, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 1,
2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 1, 2017.
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and systems for "loss prevention"
and "for detecting entry and egress, particularly unauthorized egress, of
objects from a predefined area with managed entry and exit points." (Spec.
1 :7-9, Abstract.) Appellant's methods and systems enable a "user or owner
of [a] protected object [to] dynamically create a security perimeter by using
[a] key ID tag and object ID tag pair," such that an "area security system
will be armed after reading and validating [the] key ID tag scanned by the
user"; thereafter, "[i]f anyone takes [the] protected object with [the] object
ID tag out of the area without proper key ID tag authentication, [an] alarm
will be triggered." (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of loss prevention of an object from a
predetermined area comprising:
reading a key ID tag at an entrance of the predetermined
area bearing a source ID and an algorithm code, wherein the
algorithm code identifies an algorithm for calculating a target ID
from an algorithm database;
calculating, by a central control system, a first calculated
target ID based on the source ID in accordance with the
algorithm identified by the algorithm code of the key ID tag;
storing the first calculated target ID in a database as an
active first calculated target ID;
reading an object ID tag having an object target ID at an
exit of the predetermined area;
the entrance and the exit to the predetermined area being
an identical location or at least two different locations within the
predetermined area;
comparing, by the central control system, the object target
ID to all active calculated target IDs stored in the database; and
2
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
upon determining the object target ID is associated with
an active calculated target ID in the database, entering a
notification state.
(App. Br. 2 (Claims App.).) 3
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 13, 16-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bauchot et al. (US 2009/0169019 Al,
published July 2, 2009, "Bauchot"), Kreiner et al. (US 2004/0085207 Al,
published May 6, 2004, "Kreiner"), Maloney (US 2004/0113786 Al,
published June 17, 2004), and Cho et al. (US 2002/0019943 Al, published
Feb. 14, 2002, "Cho"). (Final Act. 4--23.)
(2) Claims 8, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Bauchot, Kreiner, Maloney, Cho, and Lee (US 2013/0126601 Al,
published May 23, 2013). (Final Act. 23-25.)
(3) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Bauchot, Kreiner, Maloney, Cho, and Granatelli et al. (US 2009/0212936
Al, published Aug. 27, 2009, "Granatelli"). (Final Act. 25-26.)
(4) Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Bauchot, Kreiner, Maloney, Cho, and Rau (US 2012/0131252 Al,
published May 24, 2012). (Final Act. 26-28.)
3 The Appeal Brief counts the Claims Appendix's pages starting with page
2.
3
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
ANALYSIS
The loss prevention method of claim 1 enables a notification state
upon determining that an object's ID tag is present at an exit of a
predetermined area, using another tag (a key ID tag) previously read at an
entrance of the predetermined area. In particular, the claimed method
employs two target IDs ("a first calculated target ID" and "an object target
ID") determined from two respective tags ("a key ID tag" and "an object ID
tag") at a predetermined area's entrance and exit, respectively. (App. Br. 2
(Claims App.).) The ''first calculated target ID" is "calculat[ed] ... based
on the source ID [of the key ID tag read at the entrance of the predetermined
area] in accordance with the algorithm identified by the algorithm code of
the key ID tag," and the "object target ID" is determined from the "object ID
tag" read at the exit of the predetermined area. (App. Br. 2 (Claims App.).)
The "object target ID" is then compared to the ''first calculated target ID." 4
(App. Br. 2 (Claims App.).)
The Examiner, among other things, finds Bauchot discloses "reading a
key ID tag ... bearing a source ID and an algorithm code," and "calculating,
by a central control system, a first calculated target ID based on the source
ID in accordance with the algorithm identified by the algorithm code of the
key ID tag," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 4--5 (citing Bauchot i-fi-158, 61,
80-81, and 109--116).) Particularly, the Examiner finds Bauchot's
authenticity certificate teaches a RFID key ID tag bearing a source ID
(Bauchot's step certificates), and Bauchot's "object ID and retailer
4 Claim 1 recites "comparing ... the object target ID to all active calculated
target IDs" that include the "first calculated target ID" stored "as an active
first calculated target ID." (App. Br. 2 (Claims App.).)
4
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
manufacturer certificates"-which are decrypted from the step certificates-
teach or suggest a "first calculated target ID" as claimed. (Ans. 3, 5; Final
Act. 5.) The Examiner further finds "Kreiner discloses a system where an
identification tag is to be searched in a database" and "[ t ]he identification
tag in Kreiner reads on the calculated target ID because the calculated target
ID is being compared against an object ID much in the same way that
Kreiner teaches." (Ans. 5.) The Examiner additionally finds "the claims do
not clearly define what is meant by a calculated target ID" and "do not make
any indication as to whether or not the source ID must be the basis or the
result of a process." (Ans. 4--5.) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Bauchot and Kreiner, alone or in
combination with the other cited references to Cho and Maloney, fail to
teach or suggest the claimed "key ID tag" and "first calculated target ID."
(App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-5.) The claimed "key ID tag" and "first
calculated target ID" enable a notification state upon determining the
presence of another tag and ID (the "object ID tag" and "object target ID")
at the exit of a predetermined area. (See App. Br. 2 (Claims App.).) In
contrast, Bauchot's authenticity certificate and the certificate's decrypted
information merely authenticate the object (e.g., wine bottle in Fig. 3)
bearing the authenticity certificate; however, Bauchot's authenticity
certificate and the certificate's decrypted information do not enable tracking
or authentication of another tag and ID, as required by claim 1. (See
Bauchot Abstract; Reply Br. 2-3.) Bauchot's "authenticity certificate can be
seen as a set of step certificates, maintained by the brand company to certify
that brand good has been manufactured, transported, sold, or the like, by an
authorised party," and "information 'recorded on this [authenticity]
5
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
certificate are generated by the brand company, thanks to a clearing house
that generates an encrypted title key for each step certificate'." (Reply Br. 3
(citing Bauchot i-f 59); see also Bauchot i-fi-158, 60-61.)
Thus, Bauchot's authenticity certificate does not function as the "key
ID tag" of Appellant's claim 1. Additionally, Bauchot's step certificates
"refer to the final proof of the authenticity," and do not teach the claimed
key tag's "'source ID' [that] is a basis for another process, i.e., calculating
the first target ID" based on "the source ID in accordance with the
algorithm," as claimed. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4--5; see also Bauchot i-fi-158,
61.) Furthermore, the claimed "'[first] calculated target ID' is not equivalent
to the object ID of Bauchot, because [Bauchot's] object ID is merely
recorded on Bauchot's RFID tag at the time of manufacturing, and is not
calculated based on anything, such as [based on] Bauchot's step
certificates." (Reply Br. 4 (citing Bauchot i-f 116).)
Kreiner does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Bauchot. The Examiner finds the "identification tag in Kreiner reads on the
calculated target ID because the calculated target ID is being compared
against an object ID much in the same way that Kreiner teaches." (Ans. 5
(citing Kreiner i-fi-132-33, 41, 44).) We do not agree that Kreiner's
identification tag reads on the claimed calculated target ID. Rather,
Kreiner's identification tag is merely "attached to the object ... to be
monitored or tracked" using "databases ... [that] store information about the
identification tags .... [t]his information includ[ing] an association between
a specific identification tag and the object to which that tag is attached."
(See Kreiner i-fi-124, 30.) Thus, Kreiner's identification tag is neither a "key
ID tag" nor a "first calculated target ID" as claimed because Kreiner's
6
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
identification tag (i) does not enable tracking of another tag and ID, and (ii)
"is simply assigned," not calculated "based on the [key tag's] source ID in
accordance with the algorithm identified by the algorithm code of the key ID
tag." (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5.)
Cho similarly fails to teach a "key ID tag" and key tag's "first
calculated target ID" that enable a notification state upon determining the
presence of another tag and ID ("object ID tag" and "object target ID") at
the exit of a predetermined area, as required by claim 1. Rather, Cho merely
discloses assigning encrypted IDs to goods and providing those IDs to a
client having purchased the goods. (App. Br. 7-8 (citing Cho i-fi-f 149, 153,
245, Abstract).) Maloney does not remedy the deficiencies ofBauchot,
Kreiner, and Cho, as it merely discloses security containers bearing
identification codes. (Reply Br. 5-6 (citing Maloney i-f 11); App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Lee,
Granatelli, and Rau make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Bauchot,
Cho, Kreiner, and Maloney.
As the Examiner has not shown where the references disclose the
claimed "key ID tag" and "first calculated target ID" that is "calculat[ ed], by
a central control system ... based on the [key ID tag's] source ID in
accordance with the algorithm identified by the algorithm code of the key ID
tag," we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and
claims 2-15 dependent therefrom. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 16 (reciting "a key ID tag
bearing a source ID and an algorithm code, wherein the algorithm code
identifies an algorithm for calculating a target ID from an algorithm
database," and "calculat[ing] a first calculated target ID based on the source
7
Appeal2017-010404
Application 14/168,262
ID in accordance with the algorithm identified by the algorithm code of the
key ID tag" for comparison with an "object target ID of the object ID tag
[read] at an exit of the predetermined area"), and claims 17-21 dependent
therefrom. We do not address Appellant's remaining arguments as to the
rejections of claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 because the issues discussed supra are
dispositive as to all pending claims on appeal.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
8