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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13-15, and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, necessitated by amendment. See new ground of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 discloses “a network analyzer to transmit radio-frequency signals”. The amended claims subject matter that was not explicitly disclosed and/or described in the specification at the time the application was filed or that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore the amended claimed subject matter is considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected do to dependency.
Claim 10 discloses “in response to electromagnetic interaction between the parallel plate resonators and fluid in the fluid container”. The amended claims subject matter that was not explicitly disclosed and/or described in the specification at the time the application was filed or that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore the amended claimed subject matter is considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected do to dependency.
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, 3-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the antenna" in Lines 7 and 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appears “the antenna” should be “the resonant antenna”. All subsequent are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWARTZ et al. (US 20170328761) hereinafter, “Schwartz”, and further in view of Reuel et al. (US 20200264122), hereinafter ‘Reuel’.
Regarding Claim 1, Schwartz discloses a sticker configured to attach to a fluid container (Para [0021], (a “smart label”) 102, which is adhered to a surface 104 of a container 106.” Reads on, “a sticker configured to attach to a fluid container”), the sticker comprising a metal layer forming an antenna, the antenna comprising parallel electrodes (Para [0023], “level sensor label 200 contains a capacitor 202 comprised of two conductive strips, conductive strip 202a and conductive strip 202b,” reads on “metal layer”; Para [0035] the capacitance changes as a function of the level of the material, the reader measures a change in the resonant frequency in accordance with the changing level of the material internal to the container; Para [0043], Other configurations are also possible, including using multiple strips of electrodes to form the capacitor of the structures thus reads on parallel electrodes placed adjacent to each other) a processor (Para [0024], Further shown in FIG. 3 is a simplified reader circuit 308 having an inductive coil portion 310 and electronics 312 used to process signals” reads on, “processor.” See [0039]) the processor configured to: cause a network analyzer to detect a shift in a resonant frequency of the antenna; (Para [0022], ”The level of the material 108 inside the container 106 affects the impedance of the mentioned resonant tank circuit in such a way as to be measurable remotely via inductive (e.g., near-field) coupling achieved by use of reader 110” Reads on “Detect” and “resonant frequency.”) and measure, based on the shift in the resonant frequency, an amount of fluid in the container (Para [0037], “for a system such as shown in FIG. 5. For example, from 1 cm to 3 mm (702), the resonant frequency is approximately 42.8 MHz; when the reader is from 1 cm to 2 mm (704) the resonant frequency is 42.4 MHz; when the reader is from 1 cm to 1 mm (706) the resonant frequency is 42.0 MHz; and when the reader is from 1 cm to 0 mm from the level sensor label (708) the resonant frequency is 41.2 MHz.” Reads on “measure” and “shift in resonant frequency.” [0003], “level sensing system” Para [0001-0005]; Para [0022] The level of the material inside the container affects the impedance of the mentioned resonant circuit in such a way as to be measurable remotely via inductive (e.g., near-field) coupling achieved by use of reader 110).
Schwartz discloses the antenna as part of a resonant circuit where the capacitance changes as a function of the level of the material, the reader measures a change in the resonant frequency in accordance with the changing level of the material internal to the container in Para [0035] however fails to explicitly disclose the antenna as a resonant antenna and a network analyzer to transmit radio-frequency signals over a range of frequencies toward the antenna.
Reuel discloses a resonant sensor coupled to a container via an adhesive and a network analyzer to transmit radio-frequency signals over a range of frequencies toward the antenna (Para [0047-0048] frequency interrogation disclosed) and receives signals from the resonant sensor (Para [0027]; Para [0041] the sensor structured with electrically conducting coil can be embedded on container using epoxy or transfer tape used to adhere the sensor attached to the outside of container). The network analyzer wirelessly interrogates the resonant sensor from outside a container and wirelessly transmits data collected from the interrogation to a computer (Para [0027, 0037]) for the benefit of measuring dielectric permittivity and conductivity changes of a substance inside the container which contributes to capacitance of the resonant sensor to affect a resonant frequency shift of the resonant sensor (Claim 6) resulting in a reduction of contamination of substances in a container and allowing measurements of substances to be made without breaking sterile conditions (Para [0022, 0025]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the antenna as a resonant antenna and a network analyzer to transmit radio-frequency signals over a range of frequencies toward the antenna for the benefit of measuring dielectric permittivity and conductivity changes of a substance inside the container which contributes to capacitance of the resonant sensor to affect a resonant frequency shift of the resonant sensor, resulting in a reduction of contamination of substances in a container and allowing measurements of substances to be made without breaking sterile conditions as taught by Reuel in Claim 6; Para [0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0041, 0047-0048].
Regarding Claim 3, Schwartz further teaches, wherein the sticker is attached to an outside of the container ([0021], “FIG. 1 provides a side view of a simplified drawing of a level sensing system 100 including disposable electronic printed level sensor (a “smart label”) 102, which is adhered to a surface 104 of a container 106.” Reads on, “sticker is attached to outside of the container.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Schwartz teaches, “the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid container is a flexible fluid bag.” ([0025], “Ideally in this use the container 414 is in an upright position. Again, container 414, while shown as a solid stiff structure, may also be in the form of a flexible bag, including plastic bags as well as in other forms.” Read on “flexible fluid bag.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Schwartz teaches, “The system of claim 1, wherein the sticker comprises an adhesive layer” ([0025], “being adhered to the container 414 by use of an adhesive or other appropriate manner.” Reads on “adhesive layer”) “which covers the metal layer and attaches the metal layer to the fluid container.” ([0025], “The conductive strips 404a, 404b of capacitive structure 404 are generally oriented along the height of the container 414.” Reads on “attaches metal layer to fluid container.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Schwartz in view of Reuel further disclose, wherein the resonant antenna is a first antenna, ([0003], “level sensor label” reads on “first antenna”; Reuel disclosing antenna as resonant antenna Para [0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0041, 0047-0048) “where the system further comprises: a second resonant antenna, ([0045], “far field reader” reads on “second antenna.”; Reuel disclosing antenna as resonant antenna Para [0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0041, 0047-0048) “wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a change in an amplitude of a resonant peak of the second resonant antenna; ([0032], “a reader device having a reader coil (e.g., 110 of FIG. 1; 308 of FIG. 3; 418 of FIG. 4) on a second substrate (for example a PCB)” reads on “detect a change in an amplitude of a resonant peak”) and measure, based on the change in the amplitude of the resonant peak of the second resonant antenna, a conductivity of the fluid.” ([0045], “far field reader” reads on “measure” and “resonant peak of the second antenna, a conductivity of the fluid.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Schwartz in view of Reuel further disclose, wherein the second resonant antenna comprises parallel plate resonators.” ([0032], “reader coil” reads on parallel plate resonators; Reuel disclosing antenna as resonant antenna Para [0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0041, 0047-0048).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWARTZ et al. (US 20170328761) hereinafter, “Schwartz”, in view of Reuel et al. (US 20200264122), hereinafter ‘Reuel’ and further in view of Sannala et al. (US 9794522), hereinafter ‘Sannala’.
Regarding Claim 8, Schwartz in view of Reuel further discloses attaching the first resonant antenna and the second resonant antenna to the fluid container (Schwartz in ([0021], a smart label 102, which is adhered to a surface 104 of a container 106; Reuel disclosing antenna as resonant antenna Para [0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0041, 0047-0048).
Schwartz in view of Reuel fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first resonant antenna and the second resonant antenna share an adhesive layer.
Sannala teaches the first antenna and the second antenna share an adhesive layer ([0115; Col. 30, Lines 1-26], “placement of antennas”; antennas may be integrated into or secured by stickers or tape (or alternatively fixed using a non-conductive adhesive)) for the benefit of reducing the impact of interference otherwise experienced.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwartz in view of Reuel further in view of Sannala. As one would have been motivated to configure the first and second resonant antennas of Schwartz to share an adhesive layer as taught by Sannala in order to attach multiple antennas to the fluid container. Which in turn, yields predictable results such as efficiently improving communication and data collection by mounting the antennas to containers and reducing the impact of interference otherwise experienced as taught by Sannala in Col. 30, Lines 1-26.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWARTZ et al. (US 20170328761) hereinafter, “Schwartz”, in view of Reuel et al. (US 20200264122), hereinafter ‘Reuel’ and further in view of Sazegar et al. (US 10903572), hereinafter ‘Sazegar’.
Regarding Claim 9, Schwartz in view of Reuel are silent on, “The system of claim 6, wherein the second resonant antenna comprises parallel plate electrodes and wherein the parallel plate electrodes of the first resonant antenna are longer than the parallel plate electrodes of the second resonant antenna.”
Sazegar teaches, “second resonant antenna comprises parallel plate electrodes,” ([0031], “dual resonator sets” reads on “parallel plate electrodes.”) “Wherein the parallel plate electrodes of the first resonant antenna are longer than the parallel plate electrodes of the second resonant antenna.” ([0033], “RX1 dipole 104 and RX2 dipole which can be of different lengths”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Swartz in view of Reuel in view of Sazegar to implement the differing lengths of dipoles in order to tune the antennas to different resonant frequencies, which is a well-known and predictable design in antenna systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 15, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “providing a metalized paper comprising a release layer, a first adhesive layer, a substrate layer, and a metal face layer; laser cutting an outline of a resonant antenna comprising parallel electrodes into the metal face layer, the substrate layer, and the first adhesive layer; removing, from the release layer, a portion of the metal face layer, a portion of the substrate layer, and a portion of the first adhesive layer leaving the resonant antenna attached to the release layer; and applying a second adhesive layer over the resonant antenna so that the adhesive layer adheres to the resonant antenna and the release layer, thereby forming an antenna sticker configured for attachment to a surface of a fluid container” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights