DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 11/24/2025.
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 .
Priority
Priority claim to JP2022-002032 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.
1. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious under Finocchiaro (US 2012/0168520) as modified by Akiho (2004/0256468).
As to claims 1, 11 and 16: Finocchiaro teaches an RFID auxiliary antenna (figure 14, 133) being an auxiliary antenna configured to be coupled with an RFID tag (103) antenna (102) provided for an RFID tag and including a coil antenna (as seen in figure 14) and with an RFID antenna, the auxiliary antenna comprising:
a conductor loop configured to be magnetically coupled with the coil antenna (paragraph 0079);
a dipole antenna (paragraph 0080); and
a capacitor that configures a resonant circuit together with an inductance of the conductor loop (paragraphs 0085-0086).
Finocchiaro teaches that the capacitor is disposed between two portions of the conductor loop (figure 8, elements lie within portions of the conductor loop) is silent as to that the capacitor is disposed in series in the conductor loop.
Akiho teaches a multi-antenna configuration for a smartcard (figure 1), wherein the loop antenna includes a resonance capacitor which can be connected in parallel or in series depending on an antenna driving method (paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Finocchiaro with the teachings of Akiho so that the capacitor is disposed in series in the conductor loop. The conductor loop discussed in Akiho is disposed either in series or parallel as is required by the configuration of the antenna desired by the device. Series and parallel circuits being the two possible configurations for resonant capacitor loops, Akiho teaches that the two are interchangeable for functionality reasons. It would not require undue testing to combine the two ideas as series circuits are the simples RLC circuit that is configurable, and in order to implement a parallel circuit as described in Finocchiaro, it would also be known to configure a series RLC circuit.
As to claims 2, 12 and 18: Finocchiaro teaches that when viewed in a direction perpendicular to a loop surface of the conductor loop, an opening of the conductor loop is larger than the RFID tag antenna (figure 14).
As to claims 3, 14 and 17: Finocchiaro teaches the RFID auxiliary antenna according to claim 1; the RFID antenna; and a communication circuit connected to the RFID antenna (103), wherein:
the RFID auxiliary antenna is relatively conveyed in a first direction with respect to the RFID tag antenna;
the first direction is a same direction as an extension direction of the dipole antenna;
the RFID antenna is a planar antenna or a dipole antenna (figure 14, shown is a planar antenna); and
the planar antenna or the dipole antenna is configured parallel to the first direction (figure 14, parallel antennas, all elements are planar and in the same direction).
As to claims 4 and 15: Finocchiaro teaches that length of an opening of the conductor loop in the first direction in a plane of the conductor loop is smaller than a placement distance of the RFID tag antenna (figure 14).
As to claims 5 and 19: Finocchiaro teaches that a length of the opening of the conductor loop in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in the plane of the conductor loop is smaller than the length in the first direction (as seen in figure 14, element 133 is rectangular).
As to claims 6 and 20: Finocchiaro teaches that an extension direction of the RFID antenna is placed in substantially parallel to an extension direction of the RFID auxiliary antenna (figure 14, all sides correspond to a parallel side of concentric antenna legs).
As to claim 7: Finocchiaro teaches that the RFID communication system is attached to an object (paragraph 0003) a conveying apparatus that conveys the article in the first direction (substrate 129, figure 15a-15b).
As to claim 10: Finocchiaro teaches the RFID auxiliary antenna according to claim 1; the RFID antenna; and a communication circuit connected to the RFID antenna, wherein: the RFID auxiliary antenna is relatively conveyed in a first direction with respect to the RFID tag antenna; the first direction is a same direction as an extension direction of the dipole antenna; the RFID antenna is a planar antenna or a dipole antenna; and the planar antenna or the dipole antenna is configured parallel to the first direction (figure 14, parallel antennas, all elements are planar and in the same direction).
As to claim 13: Finocchiaro teaches that the RFID tag antenna is configured for an RFID tag and includes a coil antenna (paragraph 0080, wherein the antennas are coil antennas or dipole antennas interchangeably).
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finocchiaro (US 2012/0168520) as modified by Akiho (2004/0256468) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murray (US 2021/0236736). The teachings of Finocchiaro as modified by Akiho are discussed above.
As to claim 8: Finocchiaro as modified by Akiho teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Finocchiaro as modified by Akiho is silent as to that the article includes a syringe; a needle configured to be attached to the syringe; and a cap configured to be attached to the syringe in order to cover the needle; and the RFID tag is provided at the cap.
Murray teaches that the article includes a syringe (figure 2, 103);
a needle configured to be attached to the syringe (126); and
a cap configured to be attached to the syringe in order to cover the needle (200); and
the RFID tag is provided at the cap (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Finocchiaro as modified by Akiho with the teachings of Murray. Finocchiaro recognizes that RFID tags have a multitude of uses (paragraph 0003), and that it is common in the art to use devices for medical purposes. Murray teaches an RFID tag operative to connect with a circuit and a reader, and is wholly compatible with the teachings of Finocchiaro. It would not require undue testing to combine the two inventions and the auxiliary antenna would merely add signal strength to the configuration of Murray without requiring any functional changes to the invention of either invention.
As to claim 9: Finocchiaro teaches that an opening of the coil antenna of the RFID tag is placed in substantially parallel to an opening of the RFID auxiliary antenna (figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Finocchiaro as modified by Akiho with the teachings of Murray. Finocchiaro recognizes that RFID tags have a multitude of uses (paragraph 0003), and that it is common in the art to use devices for medical purposes. Murray teaches an RFID tag operative to connect with a circuit and a reader, and is wholly compatible with the teachings of Finocchiaro. It would not require undue testing to combine the two inventions and the auxiliary antenna would merely add signal strength to the configuration of Murray without requiring any functional changes to the invention of either invention.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are amended to include that the capacitor is in a series.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claims are newly rejected by Finocchiaro (US 2012/0168520) as modified by Akiho (2004/0256468).
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