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 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagao et al. (2007/0146140).
Regarding claim 1, Nagao discloses an RFID label for a medical device to be attached to the medical device, the RFID label comprising: a label body (1, Fig. 10) having a first surface (1a, Fig. 10) on which printing is possible and a second surface (1b, Fig. 10) on an opposite side of the first surface; a first adhesive layer (2, Fig. 10) provided on the second surface of the label body; an RFID inlay including a base film (33, Fig. 10) having a first surface attached to the second surface of the label body through the first adhesive layer and a second surface on an opposite side of the first surface, and having an area smaller than that of the label body, an antenna (32, Fig. 13), and an IC chip (31, Fig. 13); and a second adhesive layer (4, Fig. 10) provided on the second surface of the base film, wherein the first adhesive layer has an intermediate portion arranged between the label body and the base film, and an outer peripheral portion surrounding an outer periphery of the base film (Fig. 10), and a label attachment surface is formed by a surface of the outer peripheral portion of the first adhesive layer on an opposite side of the label body and a surface of the second adhesive layer on the opposite side of the label body.
Regarding claim 2, the antenna and the IC chip disclosed by Nagao are provided on the second surface of the base film (33, Fig. 10), and the second adhesive layer (4, Fig. 10) is provided on the second surface of the base film and covers the IC chip and the antenna.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (2007/0146140).
Nagao discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, it is not specifically disclosed that the area of the first adhesive layer in plan view is 1.5 to 3 times an area of the second adhesive layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the area of the first adhesive layer in plan view 1.5 to 3 times an area of the second adhesive layer because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (2007/0146140) in view of Ambartsoumian (2023/0177303).
Nagao discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Nagao does not disclose a release paper. Ambartsoumian teaches providing a release paper (paragraph 0055) in order to protect the adhesive prior to use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the RFID label disclosed by Nagao with a release paper, as taught by Ambartsoumian, in order to protect the adhesive prior to use.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (2007/0146140) in view of Nitta (2024/0028861).
Nagao discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Nagao does not disclose using thermal paper. Nitta teaches using thermal paper as a label substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermal paper as the label substrate in the RFID label disclosed by Nagao, as taught by Nitta, in order to print indicia on the label substrate.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (2007/0146140) in view of Katarya et al. (2014/0170341).
Nagao discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Nagao does not disclose making the label resistant to alcohol. Katarya teaches making a label resistant to alcohol (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the label disclosed by Nagao resistant to alcohol, as taught by Katarya, in order to protect it from accidental exposure to alcohol.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights