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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 3/24/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claim 3 is added. Claims 1-3 are pending. Claim 2 is withdrawn from consideration.1 Claims 1 and 3 are under examination.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamgaing (US 2016/0020165, previously cited) in view of Wald (“Measuring the Elastic Modulus of Soft Thin Films on Substates, published in the Proceedings of the SEM Annual Conference, Society for Experimental Mechanics, June 7-10, 2010, previously cited)2 and in further view of Yamazaki, et al. (US 2011/0068438, herein Yamazaki).3 Regarding claim 1, Kamgaing teaches an IC tag comprising: an IC chip (paragraph 0021: IC assembly 100); an antenna that electrically transmits and receives information stored in the IC chip (paragraph 0043: antenna); a sheet-like substrate that supports the IC chip and the antenna (paragraph 0025: substrate 102); and a resin protective layer which is a dielectric covering the IC chip and the antenna between the resin protective layer and the substrate (paragraph 0029: resin). Kamgaing does not explicitly teach wherein a tensile modulus [GPa] of the substrate and a tensile modulus [GPa] of the protective layer are defined within an area surrounded by five lines represented by the following formulas (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), with the tensile modulus of the substrate on an X-axis and the tensile modulus of the protective layer on a Y-axis: X = 0.8 (1) X = 8 (2) Y = 0.03 (3) Y = X^0.4 (4) Y = 0.01 * X^2 (5). Wald teaches a tensile modulus [GPa] of the substrate and a tensile modulus [GPa] of the protective layer with the tensile modulus of the substrate, wherein the tensile modulus is on an X-axis and the tensile modulus of the protective layer is on a Y-axis (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Kamgaing and Wald so that the protective layer are defined within an area surrounded by five lines represented by the following formulas (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), with the tensile modulus of the substrate on an X-axis and the tensile modulus of the protective layer on a Y-axis: X = 0.8 (1) X = 8 (2) Y = 0.03 (3) Y = X^0.4 (4) Y = 0.01 * X^2 (5), because such a combination optimizes the stiffness of the substrates. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the prior art discloses the general conditions of the claims, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the ranges and formulas for the space on the tensile plot for a particular application. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”). Kamgaing in view of Wald does not explicitly teach the sheet-like substance being made of resin, the IC chip and antenna being disposed between the resin protective layer and the substrate, and the resin protective layer being bonded to the substrate so as to cover the IC chip and the antenna along the IC chip and the antenna on the substrate. Yamazaki teaches the sheet-like substance being made of resin, the IC chip and antenna being disposed between the resin protective layer and the substrate (see substrate 12 and resin 2 in Fig. 2, see also paragraph 0040), and the resin protective layer being bonded to the substrate so as to cover the IC chip and the antenna along the IC chip and the antenna on the substrate (see substrate 12 and resin 2 in Fig. 2, see also paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Kamgaing, Wald and Yamazaki, because such a combination helps prevent damages from stresses to the tag (paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki). Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki further teaches a sheet-like cover made of the same material as the sheet-like substrate and disposed on the resin protective layer (paragraph 0032).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 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. New reference Yamazaki has been used to teach the amended limitations. See above.
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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.4
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 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 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 See Response to Restriction dated 9/17/25.
2 See Non-patent literature dated 9/25/25.
3 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
4 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights