DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendments and arguments filed 10/28/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kato (2010/0237152). As to claim 1: Kato teaches a two-part RFID (paragraph 0093) inlay comprising
a. a feeding element (figure 6A, 6) comprising a slot antenna (explained in paragraph 0060, cut out section, shown in figure 8B, figures 9A and 9B, paragraph 0080); b. a radiating element (figure 6A, 6B), and c. a strap attachment (paragraphs 0080-0083, IC chip and 65a and 65b),
wherein the radiating element is a metallic packaging or container (figure 6A, 6B).
As to claims 3-5: Kato teaches that the metallic packaging or container is a pouch, bag, envelope (claim 9, wherein these terms are synonyms).
As to claim 6: Kato teaches a metallic packaging comprising the integrated inlay (paragraph 0066, figure 4).
As to claim 7: Kato teaches a strap attachment process (paragraphs 0004-0005).
As to claim 8: Kato teaches that the strap comprises an RFID chip connected to two or more conductors that can be coupled to an antenna (paragraph 0064).
As to claim 9: Kato teaches that the coupling comprises a conductive connection, an electric field connection, a magnetic field connection, or a combination thereof (properties of a wireless chip).
As to claim 10: Kato teaches that the inlay is a wet (adhesive) inlay (paragraph 0072).
As to claim 11: Kato teaches that the inlay is a dry (web) inlay (paragraph 0106, substrate board).
As to claim 12: Kato teaches that the feeding element comprises an integrated circuit (IC) or chip (claim 1).
As to claim 14: Kato teaches that the slot antenna is located anywhere on the metallic package, wherein the slot antenna is completely surrounded by a metallic surface of the metallic packaging (figure 6A, 8B, section 66 is the slot, also seen in figures 9A and 9B, wherein the cutout sections 62 and 66 form the slot for the antenna section, paragraph 0080 explaining that the cut out section acts as an electrode).
As to claim 15: Kato teaches contacting an RFID chip and electrical elements that couple electrically to the slot antenna or electrically equivalent element in a direct or indirect manner (wireless IC device, abstract).
As to claim 16: Kato teaches that the inlay is a label (shown in figures as a label element).
As to claim 17: Kato teaches that the slot antenna is in the form of a T, and H, or an L (figures 9A, 9B show the slot antenna in an “H” configuration, with two symmetric branches coming from a central area).
Response to Amendment
2. Claim 2 is amended into claim 1. Claim 13 is cancelled and limitations similar to claim 13 are removed from claims 14 and 15. Claim 17 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kato merely describes a cut-out area and not a slot antenna, as in a slot antenna, material is removed as defined by a specific length and as defined by impedance-matching necessities. In Kato, a section of the material is removed, and this removal of material is removed in a specific pattern so that the removed area acts as an electrically active feeding loop. Kato merely differs in terminology, as the reference does not use the terminology “slot antenna”, but functions in the same manner. Examiner cannot guess as to the motivations of Kato as far as length specificity, but not only is this limitation not written in the claims, but it is functional language, and the teachings of Kato teach the structure of a slot antenna.
Applicant further argues that Kato does not teach a strap attachment, but instead teaches a completely different structure which is terminals of a loop electrode connected to a feeder circuit board, whereas a strap is a structure in which conductive leads form a contacting zone for the contacts of the RFID chip and an electrical “bridge” to the antenna, further arguing that Kato teaches away from a strap attachment. Examiner is genuinely unclear what this argument is intended to express. It appears to examiner that Kato straightforwardly teaches an IC chip (figure 8B, 1) which connects or is “bridged” electrically to the antenna through conductive leads (65a, 65b connected to 65, which is the antenna equivalent). Examiner is unclear what other interpretation applicant is taking which differentiates the reference from the intent of “strap” in the claims and specification. Generally, one of ordinary skill in the art understands a “strap” to mean an IC electrically connected to another element, which appears to be both the definition used in the specification, and what Kato teaches.
Examiner disagrees with arguments, and therefore repeats the rejection, with modified identified aspects of Kato to match arguments brought forward.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-6:30. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876