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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/26 has been entered.
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) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning Jr et al (USPN 10479556) in view of the Admitted Prior Art (para. 0003 of the instant specification, hereinafter APA), WO2017/085085, and DE202007009169 (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Browning Jr et al teach:
1. A container manufacturing method (Browning Jr et al: figs 1 and 3-4) comprising:
An RFID inlay providing step comprising providing an RFID inlay that comprises:
a substrate made of paper (Browning Jr et al: col 3:23-col 4:25; the substrate of flexible plastic sheet constitutes the claimed paper substrate; it should be noted that paper, in its broadest definition, is merely a sheet of material),
an RFID antenna, the RFID antenna being located on the substrate, and an IC chip (Browning Jr et al: (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4; tag 32 comprising an antenna and IC chip);
an RFID inlay disposing step of disposing the RFID inlay on an inner surface of a mold such that the RFID inlay faces away from the inner surface of the mold, wherein a thermoplastic adhesive is disposed on the RFID inlay (Browning Jr et al: col 3:60-col 4:25; fig 4; Browning Jr et al teaches an embodiment where a thermally activated adhesive layer 54 is directly applied to the inner surface of tag 32 in order to bond the tag 32 to the outer surface of container 36, i.e. the adhesive is in direct contact with the tag; Plexar adhesive is polyolefin based, thus it constitutes the thermoplastic adhesive); and
a molding step of supplying a heated material to the mold and molding a container provided with the RFID inlay on an outer surface thereof via the thermoplastic adhesive (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4).
However, Browning Jr et al do not teach a metal RFID antenna; a substrate made of paper having a lower thermal conductivity than resin; and the RFID antenna facing away from the inner surface of the mold, and the thermoplastic adhesive directly contacting the RFID antenna.
Regarding a metal RFID antenna, the APA teaches a molded containers having RFID inlays comprising metal RFID antennas. Since Browning Jr et al and APA are analogous with respect to molded containers having RFIDs inlays comprising RFID antennas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a metal RFID antenna as taught by the APA as the RFID antenna of Browning Jr et al in order to ensure a better link between the tags and readers.
Regarding a substrate made of paper having a lower thermal conductivity than resin, WO2017/085085 teaches an IML process for producing an embedded electronic circuit printed on a paper base (abstract; pg 3: 8-15), wherein the paper base is advantageous over a conventional plastic/resin base since the paper base has better thermal resistance than a plastic/resin base (pg 4:1-9 and 26-29) and better thermal dimensional stability (pg 2:13-31). Since Browning Jr et al and WO2017/085085 are analogous with respect to IML processes for producing an embedded electronic circuit printed on a base, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the plastic/resin base of Browning Jr et al with the paper base taught by WO2017/085085 in order to produce a higher quality product by using a paper base which has better thermal resistance and better thermal dimensional stability than a plastic/resin base.
Regarding the RFID antenna facing away from the inner surface of the mold, and the thermoplastic adhesive directly contacting the RFID antenna, DE202007009169 teaches a molded container having an RFID label/inlay 3 comprising a RFID transponder 2 and antenna structure 6, wherein the antenna structure 6 faces the outer surface of the molded container to protect the antenna structure from destruction (description of fig 1; figs 1-2). Since Browning Jr et al and DE202007009169 are analogous with respect to molded containers having a RFID inlay comprising a RFID antenna and RFID chip, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the RFID antenna of Browning Jr et al away from the inner mold surface as taught by DE202007009169 in order to protect the antenna and chip from destruction by embedding it in the outer surface of the molded container.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Browning Jr et al (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Browning Jr et al do not teach the melting point of the adhesive being lower than a melting point of the material. The use of a specific adhesive and material is a mere obvious matter of choice dependent on the desired final product and adhesive/material availability. Since adhesives having a melting point lower than a melting point of a molding material are well-known in the container and in-mold label arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an adhesive and molding material satisfying the melting point relationship in the process of Browning Jr et al in order to ensure sufficient bonding of the tag to the container.
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by Browning Jr et al (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4; it should be noted that the adhesive of Browning Jr et al is heated by the heated, thermoformable parison).
Regarding claim 6, such is taught by Browning Jr et al (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, such is not taught by Browning Jr et al; however, the claimed steps are well-known in the RFID inlay art for its efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the RFID tags of Browning Jr et al by the claimed steps in order improve efficiency without compromising quality. Also, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(E) that addresses the obviousness of making continuous a step where the prior art teaches the step as being singular, i.e. done one by one.
Regarding claim 8, such is taught by Browning Jr et al (Browning Jr et al: col 1:50-65; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4; the container is blow molded).
Regarding claim 9, Browning Jr et al teach blow molding the container, but does not teach injection molding the container. Since blow molding and injection molding a container are substitutable alternatives that achieve the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to injection mold the container of Browning Jr et al rather than blow mold since the two processes are substitutable and perform the same purpose.
Regarding claim 10, such is taught by the above combination of Browning Jr et al and DE202007009169 since Browning Jr et al teach the RFID tag comprising an IC chip and adhesive layer 54 directly contacting the tag, and DE202007009169 teaches a chip of a RFID label/inlay facing the outer surface of the molded container.
Regarding claim 11, such is taught by Browning Jr et al (Browning Jr et al: label 30, which is coupled to the antenna via a flexible substrate and in direct contact with the inner surface of the mold, can constitute the claimed substrate; col 3:23-col 4:25; figs 1 and 3-4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2009073518 (cited on IDS filed 2/22/24) teaches either blow molding or injection molding a container. WO89/09689 teaches in-mold labels for containers, wherein the labels include a thermoplastic adhesive. Both EP0521479 and JP5-24048 teaches in-mold labels for containers, wherein the labels have melt temperatures less than the melt temperature of the molded container. WO03/005296 teaches a RFID label having an adhesive intermediate layer 2 that both protects the chip and antenna and adheres the label to the molded article. CN101140633 teaches using an adhesive layer to protect the components of a RFID tag. USP20070030151 teaches applying an adhesive layer on a RFID and then thermoforming against the adhesive layer. **USP20130240631 teaches the step of providing the RFID inlay comprises providing an RFID inlay continuous body that comprises a plurality of RFID inlays; and then an adhesive disposing step of laminating a film formed of the thermoplastic adhesive on the RFID inlay continuous body such that the thermoplastic adhesive directly contacts the RFID antenna of each RFID inlay in which the RFID inlays are connected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights