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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 10/10/25. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 have been amended. Claim 13 had been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears there is an extra space in the word “tamper” in line 4 of claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert et al [US 2015/0287299] in view of Irwin, Jr. et al [U.S. 7,819,739].
For claim 1, the system for resisting tampering (Abstract: disposable tamper strip) taught by Eckert includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed device is met by the alarm assembly (No. 49) comprising a printed circuit board (No. 51), 2) the claimed conductive ink is met by the conductor (No. 13) that may be a conductive trace formed by depositing a conductive ink (Paragraph 34), wherein the conductive path has a defined electrical property (Paragraph 87: an electrical path/circuit is closed which includes conductor 13 and the conductor in housing 3), and 3) the claimed microcontroller is met by the processing circuitry or alarm logic (Paragraph 88) to sense a change from a closed circuit to an open circuit. However, there is no mention of a tamper sensor and the conductive path having a resistance property and a conductive property and the microcontroller measuring the resistance property and to send an alert if it detects changes between the defined resistance property and the measured resistance property.
Comparisons between electrical properties using conductive inks have been performed in tamper sensing circuits for some time. The game apparatus taught by Irwin chooses a predetermined, measurable electrical property such as a resistance that will serve as an electrical signature of a document and a portion of the electrical circuit is printed on the document using conducive inks (Col. 6, Lns. 7-12). Then, an electronic verification device (No. 108) can test the integrity of a resistor track by comparing a measured resistance to the resistance which should result from the undisturbed configuration of the resistor track as originally printed (Col. 17, Lns. 53-58). This can detect tampering (Col. 27, Lns. 25-26).
The device taught by Eckert already uses conductive inks in order to detect tampering by detecting whether a circuit presents an open circuit as opposed to a closed circuit. The Irwin reference presents a system that can apply a more precise measurement in order to detect tampering. Measuring the resistance of an original application of the conductive ink allows the detecting circuit a more exact method of detecting possible tampering than a simple open or closed circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the resistance property and compare this property to an expected resistance property for the purpose of improving tamper detection by providing a more precise method. The defined conductance property is considered an obvious variation on the Irwin reference as Irwin states that a measurable property should be chosen (Col. 6, Lns. 7-8). Furthermore, the conductance of any circuit is a function of the resistance of the circuit and is easily deduced from the resistance.
For claim 2, the Eckert reference includes an enclosure (No. 303) for housing the printed circuit board and comprises processing circuitry or alarm logic (Paragraph 88).
For claim 3, the Eckert reference activates a speaker (No. 57) to emit an audible alarm upon sensing the change from closed to open circuit (Paragraph 88).
For claim 8, the strip (No. 307) of Eckert is applied to an adhesive layer (No. 315) that is applied to a sheet (Figs. 17 and 18).
For claim 10, the method (Abstract: method) of resisting tampering of an article (Abstract: disposable tamper strip) taught by Eckert includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed printed circuit board is met by the printed circuit board (No. 51), and 2) the claimed conductive ink is met by the conductor (No. 13) that may be a conductive trace formed by depositing a conductive ink (Paragraph 34), wherein the conductive path has a defined electrical property (Paragraph 87: an electrical path/circuit is closed which includes conductor 13 and the conductor in housing 3). However, there is no dedicated tamper sensor as well as the measured value is measured resistance, and the method further comprises sending an alert if it detects changes between the defined resistance and the measured resistance.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 11, as noted above, choosing the measured conductance as opposed to the resistance is not considered a patentable innovation as compared to the prior art. The Irwin reference (Col. 6, Lns. 7-8) is not specific as to which electrical property is known; furthermore, a conductive of a circuit is easily deduced and computed using its resistance and does not result in any new or unexpected result as opposed to a circuit’s resistance.
For claim 12, the article used in Eckert is a box (No. 301). The article of Irwin is a document.
For claim 15, the article (security device No. 1) comprising a system for resisting tampering (Abstract: disposable tamper strip) taught by Eckert includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed device is met by the security device (No. 1) comprising a printed circuit board (No. 51), 2) the claimed conductive ink is met by the conductor (No. 13) that may be a conductive trace formed by depositing a conductive ink (Paragraph 34), wherein the conductive path has a defined electrical property (Paragraph 87: an electrical path/circuit is closed which includes conductor 13 and the conductor in housing 3), and 3) the claimed microcontroller is met by processing circuitry or alarm logic (Paragraph 88). However, there is no dedicated tamper sensor and the measurement of resistance and sending an alert if it detects changes between the defined resistance property and the measured resistance property.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above. The Eckert reference activates a speaker (No. 57) to emit an audible alarm upon sensing the change from closed to open circuit (Paragraph 88).
For claim 16, the article used in Eckert is a box (No. 301). The article used in Irwin is a document.
For claim 17, as noted above, choosing the measured conductance as opposed to the resistance is not considered a patentable innovation as compared to the prior art. The Irwin reference (Col. 6, Lns. 7-8) is not specific as to which electrical property is known; furthermore, a conductive of a circuit is easily deduced and computed using its resistance and does not result in any new or unexpected result as opposed to a circuit’s resistance.
Claims 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert et al in view of Irwin, Jr. et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kittel et al [U.S. 7,135,973].
For claim 4, there is no mention of communication of data to a gateway located outside of the system in either reference noted above.
The tamper monitoring article taught by Kittel contains similar subject matter as the Eckert reference, particularly the conductive pathway (No. 144) found on a body portion (No. 110) that can sense a change in energy being conducted that then indicates a manipulation of the pathway. One important aspect of the Kittel reference is a monitor (No. 150) that can be an RFID that also communicates with the pathway or antenna (Col. 13, Lns. 40-43). This monitor may be used to communicate with commercially available wireless devices, either actively or passively (Col. 17, Lns. 54-60). Furthermore, if the monitor detects tampering it can respond by actively or passively signaling the occurrence of the tampering to a monitoring station.
The Kittel reference presents plain evidence that tamper detecting devices can and have been able to communicate with wireless devices for remote signaling. This would expand the alert distance to further than just the remote area around the tamper device. The user would not need to be located immediately beside the unit to be alerted of the tampering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wirelessly communicate to a gateway located outside the system of Eckert for the purpose of increasing the effective alert area, thereby increasing usefulness of the device.
For claim 5, the wireless communication mentioned in Kittel may use Bluetooth enabled devices (Col. 17, Ln. 58).
For claim 9, the conductive pathway found in Kittel may include silver particles (Col. 17, Ln. 9).
Claims 4, 6, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert et al in view of Irwin, Jr. et al as applied to claims 1, 10, and 15 above, and further in view of Bella et al [U.S. 11,315,397].
For claim 4, there is no mention of communication of data to a gateway located outside of the system in either reference noted above.
The anti-tampering assembly taught by Bella includes a device that is configured to be associated with a package. The reference teaches a conductive track (No. 12) that is printed with a conductive ink on the inner surfaces of a box (No. 10) that are then connected to an RFID tag (No. 111) to form a closed path that indicates a tampering event when interrupted. Figure 2 depicts the alarm unit of the assembly that also comprises a radio module (No. 112), which is configured to support radio technology for connecting to a wireless communication network (No. 30). This enables communication with a gateway device (No. 40) running an “anti-tampering application” (Col. 5, Lns. 11-13).
The obvious advantage of the Bella reference is that it provides an anti-tampering service wishing to secure transportation and storage of goods. The assembly is capable of detecting the event in real time and sending the alarm remotely through a server with information about when and where the tampering event occurred (Col. 2, Lns. 41-52). This allows the user and service provider to not have to be present when the tampering event occurs, thereby increasing reliability of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gateway outside the system of Eckert for the purpose of providing a real-time alert no matter where the package or box is, thereby increasing reliability of the system.
For claim 6, the gateway device of Bella can be a smartphone (Col. 5, Ln. 7).
For claim 14, there is no mention of communication of data to a gateway outside of the system in either the Eckert or Irwin references.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 4 above.
For claim 18, there is no mention of communication of data to a gateway outside of the system in either the Eckert or Irwin references.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 4 above.
For claim 19, the gateway device of Bella can be a smartphone (Col. 5, Ln. 7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert et al and Irwin, Jr. et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al [U.S. 7,753,685] (supplied with previous action).
For claim 7, neither the Eckert reference nor the Irwin reference mentions a spring-loaded pin that remains depressed when in the housing.
Spring-loaded pins have been used in the past in order to connect electronics to conductive pathways. The electrical connector taught by Lee includes conductive ink paths (Fig. 31) to integrate a variety of components. Furthermore, Figure 5 depicts a plurality of spring-loaded pin contacts (No. 16) used in the connector to contact said paths. Being compression-loaded, the snap connector contact pins compensate for vibration, twisting, and turning of the connector keeping a constant pressure between the metallic contact surfaces (Col. 5, Lns. 2-6).
The Eckert reference can directly benefit from these spring-loaded pins. One embodiment of Eckert (Figs. 17 and 18) depicts a housing (No. 303) having contact points (No. 316) that are meant to contact points (No. 320) on the other surface in the housing. If the contacts were spring-loaded pins, then they would be more resilient to outside forces and maintain their contacts more efficiently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spring-loaded pin in the system of Eckert for the purpose of providing a more robust and stronger electrical connection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Curtis A Kuntz can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
JAT
10/20/2025
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687