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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 3/2/2026 in which Claims 1-17, 19, 22, 25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 13, 14, 22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”).
As to Claim 1, Sugimura teaches a long-range UHF RFID tag functional both on and off metal (RFID tag provided with an antenna and an IC chip, see ¶ 0008; the RFID tag 300 with a boost antenna may be fixed to the conductor 310 using an adhesive and connected to the conductor 310 via a capacitance composed of an adhesive layer, see ¶ 0099; the boost antenna 100 provided with a metal fitting 80 to fix the RFID tag 200 to the ground unit 30, see ¶ 0112) comprises: a chip comprising a transponder (The RFID tag sends back identification data or the like of a transported object recorded in the IC chip to an RFID reader/writer on a reflected wave. This allows the RFID tag to communicate with the RFID reader/writer without touching the RFID reader/writer to the RFID tag, see ¶ 0008); an inverted-L monopole antenna structure (Fig. 17a illustrates a monopole antenna [boost antenna 100] with a L shape); a resonant impedance matching structure attached to the inverted-L monopole antenna structure, which resonant impedance matching structure is in the form of an elongated resonant means (connection part 21 can be screwed to the ground unit 30 using mounting hole 40, see ¶ 0164; Figure 17a illustrates a connection part 21 acting as a resonant impedance matching structure connected to the monopole antenna [boost antenna 100]);
a conductive interposer layer capacitively coupled to the inverted-L monopole antenna structure (The hybrid loop-slot antenna may be similar to the structure described above with regard to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, with a pair of arms 26 and 28 coupled to different contact points of the RFID chip 14, and a conductive connection 38 between the arms 26 and 28, with the conductive connection 38 and the arms 26 and 28 defining the slot 30, see ¶ 0080; The monopole antenna element 90 is a folded dipole element 96 that is electrically coupled to another contact point (connection) 100 of the RFID chip 14. The dipole element 96 has a serpentine shape, with a number of back-and-forth segments 102. The antenna structure 12 thus utilizes the hybrid loop-slot antenna as a ground plane [ground reflector] for the folded dipole element 96. The antenna structure 12 is thus a dual polarization antenna, see ¶ 0081; RFID device 10 that have capacitive coupling between the RFID chip 14 and at least one of the arms 26 and 28. Referring first to the embodiment of the RFID device 10 shown in FIGS. 7-9, the conductive leads 20 and 22 of the RFID interposer 16 are adhesively coupled to the arms 26 and 28 of the antenna structure 12 by respective adhesive pads or layers 110 and 112, see ¶ 0082).
Sugimura does not explicitly disclose a conductive interposer layer configured to act as a ground reflector to create a single dipole antenna by reflecting the monopole, thereby increasing the efficiency of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure; wherein the resonant impedance matching structure is positioned partly over the conductive interposer layer and wherein a position of the resonant impedance matching structure is moveable to provide frequency tuning of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure and an impedance match to the transponder.
Forster teaches a conductive interposer layer configured to act as a ground reflector to create a single dipole antenna by reflecting the monopole, thereby increasing the efficiency of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure (a dielectric layer; an antenna structure atop a first face of the dielectric layer; an RFID chip coupled to the antenna; and a conductive plane atop a second face of the dielectric layer, wherein the dielectric layer is interposed between the conductive plane and the antenna structure, see ¶ 0025; the RFID device 670 may be located on a carton or other container 698, oriented so that the reflective structure 690 is interposed between the conductive tabs 682 and 684, and the interior of the container 698, see ¶ 0129; an RFID device 700 having an essentially monopole antenna structure 702. The RFID device 700 includes a wireless communication device 706 (e.g., a strap) that is coupled to a pair of conductive tabs 708 and 710 that are mounted on a substrate 712, with a reflective structure or ground plane 714 on an opposite side of the substrate 712 from the conductive tabs 708 and 710, see ¶ 0130; The RFID device 700, with its monopole antenna structure 702, has the advantage of a smaller size, when compared with similar devices having dipole antenna structures. The length of the tag can be nearly halved with use of a monopole antenna, such as in the device 700, in comparison to a dipole antennaed device having similar size of antenna elements (conductive tabs), see ¶ 0147);
wherein the resonant impedance matching structure is positioned partly over the conductive interposer layer and wherein a position of the resonant impedance matching structure is moveable to provide frequency tuning of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure and an impedance match to the transponder (The matching referred to above may include making the relative impedances of the antenna structure 102 and the wireless communication device 106 complex conjugates of one another. In general, the impedance of the antenna structure 102 will be a series combination of various impedances of the RFID device 100, including the impedance of the conductive tab 108 and its capacitive coupling with the reflective structure 114, see ¶ 0133; The RFID device in FIG. 25 includes a resonator (a conductive tab) 750 with a capacitive ground 752 at one end. The wireless communication device 706 is coupled to the resonator 750 at a suitable impedance point. The wireless communication device 706 is also coupled to a capacitive ground 754. The connection point between the wireless communication device 706 and the resonator 750 may be selected to suitably match impedances of the wireless communication device 706 and the active part of the resonator 750 [a position of the resonant impedance matching structure is moveable to provide frequency tuning of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure and an impedance match to the transponder], see ¶ 0141).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura with Forster to teach a conductive interposer layer configured to act as a ground reflector to create a single dipole antenna by reflecting the monopole, thereby increasing the efficiency of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure; wherein the resonant impedance matching structure is positioned partly over the conductive interposer layer and wherein a position of the resonant impedance matching structure is moveable to provide frequency tuning of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure and an impedance match to the transponder. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to re-tune the antenna structure to compensate at least in part for effects of the dielectric layer on performance of the antenna structure (see ¶ 0026).
As to Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura teaches a supporting structure and an inlay on the supporting structure and, disposed on the inlay, the inverted-L monopole antenna structure, the resonant impedance matching structure and the chip containing the transponder (when the insulating support member 50 [inlay on the supporting structure] with high relative permittivity is inserted between the radiation unit 10 and the ground unit 30 of the boost antenna 100 [monopole antenna structure], see ¶ 0157; boost antenna 100 is described as having an inverted L structure, see ¶ 0161; after mounting the RFID tag 200 on the ground unit 30 first, the integrally formed radiation unit 10 and short circuit 20 are connected to the ground unit 30 using the connection part 21 [resonant impedance matching structure] provided in the short circuit 20, and workability when mounting the RFID tag 200 on the boost antenna 100, see ¶ 0165).
As to Claim 4, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Forster teaches wherein the inlay comprising the inverted-L monopole structure and resonant impedance matching structure is disposed on the interposer (The matching referred to above may include making the relative impedances of the antenna structure 102 and the wireless communication device 106 complex conjugates of one another. In general, the impedance of the antenna structure 102 will be a series combination of various impedances of the RFID device 100, including the impedance of the conductive tab 108 and its capacitive coupling with the reflective structure 114, see ¶ 0133; The RFID device in FIG. 25 includes a resonator (a conductive tab) 750 with a capacitive ground 752 at one end. The wireless communication device 706 is coupled to the resonator 750 at a suitable impedance point. The wireless communication device 706 is also coupled to a capacitive ground 754. The connection point between the wireless communication device 706 and the resonator 750 may be selected to suitably match impedances of the wireless communication device 706 and the active part of the resonator 750 [a position of the resonant impedance matching structure is moveable to provide frequency tuning of the inverted-L monopole antenna structure and an impedance match to the transponder], see ¶ 0141).
As to Claim 5, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura teaches wherein the supporting structure is discrete from an article or packaging article to which the tag is to be applied (Figure 22a illustrates the insulating supporting member 50 [support structure] is separate from the RFID tag 200).
As to Claim 6, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura teaches wherein the supporting structure forms part of an article or packaging article on which the tag is formed or is to be formed (Figure 22a illustrates the insulating supporting member 50 [support structure] forms part of an article where the RFID tag 200 is formed).
As to Claim 13, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura teaches wherein the resonant impedance matching structure is an elongated resonant structure with its length and width ratio set so that when tuned by its position over the interposer the length of the attached antenna is also changed so that the antenna tuned frequency tracks with the resonant impedance matching structure's tuned frequency (By adopting a long hole that extends in the longitudinal direction of the ground unit 30 for the mounting hole 40, it is possible to slide the connection part 21 in the longitudinal direction of the ground unit 30 and thereby adjust the distance between the short circuit unit 20 and the RFID tag 200. By so doing, even if the resonance frequency of the RFID tag 200 varies from lot to lot, for example, it is possible to tune the resonance frequency of the RFID tag 300 with a boost antenna to a target frequency, see ¶ 0166; Dependency of the resonance frequency of the boost antenna 100 on the shape (length L, width W) of the radiation unit 10, see ¶ 0114; a case where the boost antenna 100 is fixed to a metal surface, the area of the ground unit 30 is set to 112 mm×56 mm, larger than the area of the radiation unit 10, see ¶ 0115; a relationship between a value of 2L+W of the radiation unit 10 and the resonance frequency when the length L and the width W of the radiation unit 10 are changed. In Figure 8, the resonance frequency of the boost antenna 100 is substantially proportional to 1/(2L+W) and is plotted at a position close to a straight line representing a relationship between 1/(2L+W) and the resonance frequency when a half wavelength of the resonance frequency is equal to 2L+W, see ¶ 0116).
As to Claim 14, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura teaches which is configured to use a metal surface of an article or packaging article to be tagged to re-tune the resonant impedance matching structure and inverted-L monopole antenna structure providing different tuning when the tag is on or off metal (By adopting a long hole that extends in the longitudinal direction of the ground unit 30 for the mounting hole 40, it is possible to slide the connection part 21 in the longitudinal direction of the ground unit 30 and thereby adjust the distance between the short circuit unit 20 and the RFID tag 200. By so doing, even if the resonance frequency of the RFID tag 200 varies from lot to lot, for example, it is possible to tune the resonance frequency of the RFID tag 300 with a boost antenna to a target frequency, see ¶ 0166).
As to Claim 22, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura teaches wherein the interposer is elongated so that the inverted-L monopole antenna structure is a half lambda resonant length when off-metal or elongated by the addition of meanders of any shape to improve off-metal performance (at least one linear non-feeding antenna element having a length of ½ or less of a wavelength of a transmission/reception radio wave of the radio is fixed in parallel near the radiation conductor plate inside the cover, see ¶ 0003).
As to Claim 25, Sugimura and Rahola depending on Claim 1, Sugimura teaches an article or a packaging article comprising a long-range UHF RFID tag (the RFID tag is fixed to an object such as a conductor via the boost antenna, see ¶ 0022).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0412026 to Lavikko et al (“Lavikko”).
As to Claim 3, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the inlay is free from plastic and other polymer materials. Lavikko teaches wherein the inlay is free from plastic and other polymer materials (The RFID identifier comprises a substrate. The substrate has a first surface and a second surface. The substrate may be a sheet-like material. The substrate may have a fibrous portion that consists of non-plastic biodegradable fibers…Usually the non-plastic biodegradable fibers are originated from wooden fibers. The fibrous portion may comprise mechanical and/or chemical pulp. The fibrous portion may comprise deinked pulp. Further, the substrate may be of wood or veneer, see ¶ 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Lavikko to teach wherein the inlay is free from plastic and other polymer materials. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to decrease or dispense with plastics (see ¶ 0006).
As to Claim 7, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the supporting structure is free from plastic or other polymer materials. Lavikko teaches wherein the supporting structure is free from plastic or other polymer materials (the fibrous portion the substrate may comprise at least one filler [supporting structure]. The filler may be, for example, kaolin, talc, or any other mineral additive, see ¶ 0017).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Lavikko to teach wherein the supporting structure is free from plastic or other polymer materials. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to decrease or dispense with plastics (see ¶ 0006).
As to Claim 9, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose which is a plastic-free environmentally friendly tag that incorporates an inlay with a non-plastic substrate. Lavikko teaches which is a plastic-free environmentally friendly tag that incorporates an inlay with a non-plastic substrate (The RFID identifier comprises a substrate. The substrate has a first surface and a second surface. The substrate may be a sheet-like material. The substrate may have a fibrous portion that consists of non-plastic biodegradable fibers…Usually the non-plastic biodegradable fibers are originated from wooden fibers. The fibrous portion may comprise mechanical and/or chemical pulp. The fibrous portion may comprise deinked pulp. Further, the substrate may be of wood or veneer, see ¶ 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Lavikko to teach which is a plastic-free environmentally friendly tag that incorporates an inlay with a non-plastic substrate. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to decrease or dispense with plastics (see ¶ 0006).
As to Claim 11, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the supporting structure comprises a plastic or any polymer. Lavikko teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a plastic or any polymer (the substrate may be made of at least one biodegradable bioplastic, or the substrate may comprise at least one biodegradable bioplastic, see ¶ 0021).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Lavikko to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises a plastic or any polymer. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to include only a minor amount of conventional plastic material (see ¶ 0010).
As to Claim 12, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the supporting structure is any material that has a low conductivity and low permeability, such as dry wood.
Lavikko teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a plastic or any polymer (the substrate may be made of at least one biodegradable bioplastic, or the substrate may comprise at least one biodegradable bioplastic, see ¶ 0021).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Lavikko to teach wherein the supporting structure is any material that has a low conductivity and low permeability, such as dry wood. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the fibrous portion may comprise fibers that are not originated from wooden fibers (see ¶ 0016).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”) in further view of Korean Patent Publication 2010/0000467 to Jang (relied upon English translation).
As to Claim 8, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the supporting structure is cardboard or corrugated cardboard. Jang teaches wherein the supporting structure is cardboard or corrugated cardboard (a base sheet containing any one of cardboard…A loop antenna positioned on one surface of the base sheet; An RFID chip positioned on one surface of the base sheet and connected to the loop antenna, see pg. 2, line 20 – pg. 3, line 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Jang to teach wherein the supporting structure is cardboard or corrugated cardboard. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to use environmentally friendly materials in the manufacturing of RFID tags (see pg. 3, lines 7-8).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0106699 to Shimada et al (“Shimada”).
As to Claim 10, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 2, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the supporting structure comprises a foam of any type, such as box packing material. Shimada teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a foam of any type, such as box packing material (The insulating layer 103 is formed of an insulator having low conductivity (e.g., synthetic resin, rubber, etc., favorably foamed plastic such as urethane foam, acrylic foam, etc.), see ¶ 0024).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Shimada to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises a foam of any type, such as box packing material. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to form an insulator having low conductivity (see ¶ 0024).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0157260 to Herron et al (“Herron”).
As to Claim 15, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose incorporates an NFC (Near Field Communication) tag of any type. Herron teaches incorporates an NFC (Near Field Communication) tag of any type (By including Bluetooth, NFC, UHF, and LF, the tracking tag 100 uniquely provides the same traceable unique identifier regardless of the technology being used to query to the tracking tag 100, see ¶ 0034).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Herron to teach incorporates an NFC (Near Field Communication) tag of any type. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow a user to scan a tracking tag (see ¶ 0003).
As to Claim 16, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein a single chip contains both UHF and NFC transponders. Herron teaches wherein a single chip contains both UHF and NFC transponders (a first read of the NFC module 102 is performed after the NFC module 102 is programmed with the unique identifier. For example, an external NFC reader reads the NFC module 102 and receives the unique identifier stored in a non-volatile memory of the NFC controller 108, see ¶ 0031; the tracking tag 100 includes RFID chips and antennas for communicating the unique identifier to an external reader using both UHF and LF, see ¶ 0033).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Herron to teach wherein a single chip contains both UHF and NFC transponders. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the tracking tag to include RFID chips and antennas for communicating the unique identifier to an external reader (see ¶ 0033).
As to Claim 19, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose wherein the frequency of operation is in the worldwide bands for Bluetooth transponders, Wi-Fi transponders, or mobile communication. Herron teaches wherein the frequency of operation is in the worldwide bands for Bluetooth transponders, Wi-Fi transponders, or mobile communication (the Bluetooth module 104 transmits the unique identifier using a BLE transmission protocol. For example, the Bluetooth module 104 may transmit the unique identifier with the antenna 114 using a BLE beaconing protocol, see ¶ 0032).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Herron to teach wherein the frequency of operation is in the worldwide bands for Bluetooth transponders, Wi-Fi transponders, or mobile communication. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the tracking tag to include RFID chips and antennas for communicating the unique identifier to an external reader (see ¶ 0033).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Publication 3,951,660 to Sugimura et al (“Sugimura”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0054710 to Forster et al (“Forster”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0157260 to Herron et al (“Herron”) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0281044 to Tseng et al (“Tseng”).
As to Claim 17, Sugimura and Forster depending on Claim 1, Sugimura and Forster do not expressly disclose which comprises a UHF transponder circuit and optionally an NFC transponder circuit. Herron teaches which comprises a UHF transponder circuit and optionally an NFC transponder circuit (a first read of the NFC module 102 is performed after the NFC module 102 is programmed with the unique identifier. For example, an external NFC reader reads the NFC module 102 and receives the unique identifier stored in a non-volatile memory of the NFC controller 108, see ¶ 0031; the tracking tag 100 includes RFID chips and antennas for communicating the unique identifier to an external reader using both UHF and LF, see ¶ 0033); and
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura and Forster with Herron to teach which comprises a UHF transponder circuit and optionally an NFC transponder circuit. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the tracking tag to include RFID chips and antennas for communicating the unique identifier to an external reader (see ¶ 0033).
Sugimura, Forster and Herron do not expressly disclose further comprises a tamper detection loop means or a temperature detection means, each independently either on the UHF transponder circuit or the NFC transponder circuit.
Tseng teaches further comprises a tamper detection loop means or a temperature detection means, each independently either on the UHF transponder circuit or the NFC transponder circuit (battery-free NFC transponders integrated with strain and temperature sensors transferring respective sensor status to an NFC reader, see ¶ 0121).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugimura, Forster and Herron with Tseng to teach further comprises a tamper detection loop means or a temperature detection means, each independently either on the UHF transponder circuit or the NFC transponder circuit. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to transfer respective sensor status to an NFC reader (see ¶ 0057).
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 EBONI N GILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm EST.
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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at (571)272-7603. 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.
/EBONI N GILES/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
/PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights