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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 02/26/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roseman (US 2010/0326581).
Regarding claim 1 and 11: Roseman disclose a RFID conversion system for single-track or multi-track production of RFID products (¶0029), the RFID conversion system comprising:
a plurality of inlay dispensing modules (¶0024 and ¶0027); and
a control device for controlling the inlay dispensing modules (¶0027),
wherein each inlay dispensing module is meant and configured for direct placement of inlays onto a carrier material or for indirect placement of inlays onto a transport means (¶0027) and
wherein the inlay dispensing modules can be controlled independently of each other and can be operated in different operating modes (Figs. 2a-b & 3, ¶0027: “First and second applicators 62 and 64 can be programmed to position the labels 28 and 30 on release liner 26 as required”) and operable in different modes of operation (dispenser module 62 as “first type label 28” dispenser module and dispenser module 64 as “second type label 30” dispenser module).
Regarding claim 8: Roseman disclose the RFID conversion system according to claim 1, wherein at least two inlay dispensing modules are configured identically and/or wherein a control of the inlay dispensing modules is provided in such a way that the inlay dispensing modules can be operated as a placement module, buffer module and/or re-dispensing module as required. (¶0027: bot applicator 62 and 64 are identically configured to make the same identical task of label making).
Regarding claim 12: Roseman disclose the RFID conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the carrier material is a web-shaped or sheet-shaped carrier material.(Fig. 1 , item 24)
Regarding claim 13: Roseman disclose the RFID conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the transport means is a vacuum conveyor belt. (¶0023)
Regarding claim 17: Roseman disclose the RFID conversion system according to claim 8, wherein all the inlay dispensing modules are configured identically. (¶0027: bot applicator 62 and 64 are identically configured to make the same identical task of label making)
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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roseman (US 2010/0326581).
Regarding claim 6: Roseman disclose the RFID conversion system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of inlay dispensing modules are arranged one behind the other in a single track and wherein a control for the inlay dispensing modules is provided in such a way that placement with a plurality of inlay dispensing modules is effected simultaneously.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the inlay dispending modules of Roseman, so they are one behind the other in a single track and wherein a control for the inlay dispensing modules is provided in such a way that placement with a plurality of inlay dispensing modules is effected simultaneously, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, 14-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689