DETAILED ACTION
Response dated 3/3/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap (US 20050068182 A1) in view of Bourilkov (WO 2013101652 A1) and DYCHE (CN 112534441 A) and Tuttle (US 8531298 B2).
Re Claim 1: Dunlap discloses a radio frequency identification (RFID) labelled article comprising: a front end; a rear end; and at least one sidewall between the front end and the rear end (fig 4); wherein the at least one sidewall comprises an embedded RFID label (fig 4: 72).
However, Dunlap does not disclose that the radio frequency identification label is curved.
Bourilkov however discloses that the radio frequency identification label is curved (figs 2a-d and fig 3a, The curved sides of the tag antenna closing on the opposing sides of the cylinder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Bourilkov’s teaching in the article of Dunlap for the purpose of incorporating label(s) in curved wall(s) of products.
However, Dunlap modified by Bourilkov does not disclose that the radio frequency identification label is an Ultra High Frequency radio frequency identification label; and allowing reading and writing of multiple RFID labelled articles in bulk using a single RFID reader.
DYCHE however discloses that the radio frequency identification label is an Ultra High Frequency radio frequency identification label (abst) and allowing reading and writing of multiple RFID labelled articles in bulk using a single RFID reader (a high density environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate DYCHE’s teaching in the article of Dunlap modified by Bourilkov for the purpose of allowing bulk reading using a single RFID reader; and thus, allowing items in bulk to be read accurately and cost efficiently.
However, Dunlap modified by Bourilkov and DYCHE does not disclose that an antenna of the Ultra High Frequency radio frequency identification label is sized for the RFID label to be readable from more than one directions.
Tuttle however disclose that an antenna of the radio frequency identification label is sized for the RFID label to be readable from more than one directions (col 3 ll 51: three dimensions of antenna polarity are achieved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Tuttle’s teaching in the article of Dunlap modified by Bourilkov and DYCHE for the purpose of allowing RFID labels to be read irrespective of the orientation of the RFID labels with respect to the reader; and thus, allowing items in bulk to be read accurately and cost efficiently.
Re Claim 2: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, wherein the RFID label is embedded within the article using in-mould labelling, over moulding, or a combination of both (p12: injection molded and/or blow molded with a small computer or memory chip applied thereto in the injection molding or blow molding process, p13: inserting the RFID in the mold when the plastic article is injection molded).
Re Claim 3: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, wherein the article is a rigid needle shield (RNS), a luer lock tip closure, a syringe, a tube, a storage container (fig 4, p12: hollow container), a ring, or a bird ring.
Re Claim 4: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, wherein the RFID label is placed either on an inner surface of the at least one sidewall, on an outer surface of the at least one sidewall (p13: The RFID may if desired be applied in the molding process so that it is flush with the outside surface of the article.) or between the inner surface of the at least one sidewall and the outer surface of the at least one sidewall.
Re Claim 5: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, except for the thickness of the at least one sidewall being between 0.2 mm and 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the thickness of the at least one sidewall, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re Claim 6: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, except for an antenna of the RFID label having an area up to 1000 sq·mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the area of the antenna of the RFID label, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re Claim 16: Dunlap modified by Bourilkov DYCHE and Tuttle discloses the RFID labelled article as claimed in claim 1, wherein the antenna of the Ultra High Frequency radio frequency identification label is characterized by absence of a dipole (DYCHE: eliminates the need of the matching loop.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection.
DYCHE discloses that the radio frequency identification label is an Ultra High Frequency radio frequency identification label (abst) and allowing reading and writing of multiple RFID labelled articles in bulk using a single RFID reader (a high density environment).
Tuttle disclose that an antenna of the radio frequency identification label is sized for the RFID label to be readable from more than one directions (col 3 ll 51: three dimensions of antenna polarity are achieved).
Conclusion
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 TAE W KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Steven S Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
/TAE W KIM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876