DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendments and arguments filed 05/21/2026.
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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church (9,395,718) as modified by Hadley (2009/0109002).
As to claim 1: Church teaches a method of manufacturing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag on a non-planar surface (abstract) comprising:
determining a three dimensional position and shape of the RFID tag (column 6, lines 15-45, figures 2 and 4 showing this determination),
forming an antenna by spraying or printing the antenna on the non-planar surface of the object (column 6, lines 46-67);
positioning a reactive RFID strap on the non-planar surface (claim 1, conformal RF circuitry) of the object so as to operatively couple the reactive RFID strap with the antenna and induce an antenna response (claim 28 explaining that the conformal RF circuit connects to the conformal antenna after forming the object), and
and measuring the RF performance of the RFID tag and adapting the antenna design based on the measured performance (figure 2, steps 206, 226).
Church is silent as to that the reactive RFID strap is coupled to the antenna via an electric field.
Hadley teaches an RFID strap which is coupled to an antenna by capacitive or inductive coupling (figures 6, 7, paragraphs 0062-0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Church with the teachings of Hadley so that the antenna was not connected to the chip. It is well explored in the art to use contactless connections between an IC and corresponding antenna for a number of reasons, including being able to impedance match smoothly and to employ a modular design of elements wherein different modules of antennas and ICs can be employed based on the anticipated need of the device. In the instant case, since Church is directed toward forming the device on a non-linear surface, it would be obvious to modify Church to include a contactless connection for flexibility and durable design in addition to the reasons provided above. Since this method is well known in the art, no undue testing would be required to make this modification.
As to claim 2: Church teaches that the reactive RFID strap is positioned on the non-planar surface prior to forming the antenna (figure 4, the underlayer, column 6, lines 15-35, wherein the underlayer comprises the circuit layer, wherein the underlayer is positioned before the antenna due to the underlayer).
As to claim 5: Church teaches that the reactive RFID strap is coupled to the antenna via an electroelectric field (column 2, lines 13-19).
As to claim 7: Church teaches that the antenna is sprayed on the non-planar surface (column 6, last paragraph).
As to claim 8: Church teaches that the antenna is printed on the non-planar surface (column 6, last paragraph).
As to claim 9: Church teaches that the antenna is formed from a conductive ink (column 6, last paragraph).
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended to include that the reactive RFID strap is coupled to the antenna via an electric field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not directed toward the combination of references currently used in the claims.
The claims are newly rejected by Church (9,395,718) as modified by Hadley (2009/0109002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30.
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 at (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.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/STEVEN S PAIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights