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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 132. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“Ionic Encasement” is vague/ indefinite and it is unclear what material or structures are encompassed by this feature and the scope of the terms is unclear, but the Examiner suggests incorporating claim 2 limitations could overcome the 112 issue.
Re claim 1, the last clue recites/ defines the tag by a functional result without specifying the structure that is required for such functioning and thus the scope is unclear/ it appears the claim could be written as a system with reader limitations possibly to overcome the 112/ and or further clarifying how the reading is made and what the read distance to size is determined by.
Re claim 1, 90% effectiveness is indefinite as to how this is established by the structure. “Size”, “at a read-distance-to-size ratio” is indefinite as the object could have varying dimensions so its unclear what type of structure tag this refers to.
Re claim 1, the “30dB RFID tag reader” is unclear how this is a tag limitation.
Re claim 4, the 10% failure rate is vague/ indefinite as to what constitutes failure, and thus scope of claim is not clear, and it is unclear how a curved arc angle is formed (at rest or if bendable).
Claim 12 has the same issues as overlapping with claim 1.
The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzari et al. (Polymer-Doped UHF RFID Tab for Wireless-Sensing of Humidity, as cited by the Applicant) in view of Knight et al. (US 20200045932) and Youn (US 20060250250).
Re claim 1, Manzari et al. teaches an improved passive micro-RFID tag comprising:
an elongated flexible substrate having a pair of opposed surfaces (FIG. 1, 7);
an RFID chip positioned on a first of the opposed surfaces and responsive to radio frequencies (implicit that an RFID chip of a tag is responsive to radio signals and p. 125 teaches RFID chip);
an antenna directly electrically connected to the RFID chip and disposed on at least one of the opposed surfaces of the substrate (antenna is implicit and/ or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to communicate RFID signals as known in the art of RFID tags), ;
an antenna matching circuit electrically connected to the antenna (RFID integrated circuit as disclosed obviates a matching circuit but is not explicitly taught); and
an ionic encasement surrounding at least a portion of the micro-RFID tag (FIG. 7, chap. II-A PEDOT:PSS is used, which is a ionic material);
such that the micro-RFID tag has maximum dimensions of 2.5 mm wide and 12 mm long and can be read with at least 90 percent effectiveness by a 30 dB RFID tag reader at a read-distance-to-size ratio of at least 4,000:1.
Manzari et al. is silent to the antenna matching circuit, thickness of the encasement, and dimensions as recited.
While larger dimensions are recited, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have smaller dimensions for smaller applications, as the change in size involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nonetheless, Knight et al. teaches an animal RFID tag 4mm x .6 x .5mm thick
Though silent to the matching circuit, Youn generally teaches RFID matching circuits with inductors in small RFID tags (paragraph [0026]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for such expected performance results using known means.
Re the limitations of the .1 to 1mm thickness of the encasement, Adams et al. teaches implantable tags/ sensors with coatings that are biocompatible are .1 to 10 microns thick (paragraph [0129]+ and paragraph [0130]+ teaches ionic moieties.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to have a thin coating so as to not impact performance.
Re the limtaitons that the tag can be read with at least 90 percent effectiveness by a 30 dB RFID tag reader at a read-distance-to-size ratio of at least 4,000:1, this is not a structural limitation of the claimed tag but appears to be drawn to a system/ reader. The prior art structure meets the claimed structural limitations and therefore would be expected to function as claimed.
Re claim 2, ionic moieties and PEDOT:PSS is taught above.
Claim(s) 3, 5-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzari/ Knight et al./ Youn, as discussed above, in view of Adams et al. (US 20220054007).
Re claim 3, Manzari/ Knight et al. Youn is silent to the insulative coating.
Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ strength/ device performance.
Re claim 5, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (claim 10), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired system performance/ specific system constraints per its intended use/ environment/ results.
Re claim 6, Adams et al. teaches such limitations )paragraph [0036] of the dielectric and maximum thickness. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials based on size and performance constraints.
Re claim 7, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0010]+ wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use know materials and known techniques for expected results.
Re claim 8, Mazari teaches UHF as discussed above but not the specific inductance. Adams et al. teaches an inductor with 20nH inductance (paragraph [0065]+ and UHF (claim 1).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired performance characteristics.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1. As the prior art structure is taught, limitations of its performance in a system which are not germane to the structure of the device limitations, are interpreted to be met, absent system limitations reciting further structure.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzari/ Knight et al./ Youn/ Adams et al., as discussed above, in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20070139203).
Re claim 4, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0011]+), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use known teachings for known manufacturing/ assembly for security/ durability/ reliability of assembly, but not the UV adhesive.
Ishikawa et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for securing/ protecting the chip using known means. Re the limitations of the bending, as a flexible tag is taught, merely optimizing the amount of flexibility is a result effective variable within the ordinary skill in the art based on system constraints.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 20080042849) in view of Adams et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Saito et al. teaches an improved passive micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0037]+ and [0047]+ which teaches an RFID tag implanted in a small animal and the IC chip 5 is passive) comprising:
an elongated flexible substrate having a pair of opposed surfaces (paragraph [0038]+ which teaches the antenna is wound on a resin rod made of flexible material);
an RFID chip positioned on a first of the opposed surfaces and responsive to radio frequencies (implicit that an RFID chip of a tag is responsive to radio signals and abstract+ teaches an RFID chip);
an antenna directly electrically connected to the RFID chip and disposed on at least one of the opposed surfaces of the substrate (FIG. 7+ and RFID is in the form of a microchip encapsulated by capsule 14 (paragraph [0076]+);
an antenna matching circuit electrically connected to the antenna (RFID integrated circuit as disclosed, is implicit and on the PCB 31 with a slit forms an antenna matching circuit, impedance matching); and
an encasement surrounding at least a portion of the micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0043]+ teaches a bio-affinity film is used to coat the RFID tag);
such that the micro-RFID tag has maximum dimensions of 2.5 mm wide and 12 mm long (paragraph [0038]+ teaches 7mm x 1mm diameter)
Re the limitations that the tag can be read with at least 90 percent effectiveness by a 30 dB RFID tag reader at a read-distance-to-size ratio of at least 4,000:1, this is not a structural limitation of the claimed tag but appears to be drawn to a system/ reader. The prior art structure meets the claimed structural limitations and therefore would be expected to function as claimed.
Re the limitations of the .1 to 1mm thickness of the encasement, Adams et al. teaches implantable tags/ sensors with coatings that are biocompatible are .1 to 10 microns thick (paragraph [0129]+ and paragraph [0130]+ teaches ionic moieties, which is interpreted as an ionic encasement.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to have a thin coating so as to not impact performance and have a particular biocompatible coating so as to not negatively effect the subject, wherein the selection of the particular type of coating is within the ordinary skill in the art as chosen from a variety of known solutions.
Re claims 2-3, Adams teaches such limitations as discussed above via ionic moieties and that the insulative coating is taught at paragraph ]0034]+ for security/ device performance and ionic moieties and PEDOT:PSS is taught above.
Re claim 3, Saito et al. silent to the insulative coating.
Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ strength/ device performance.
Re claim 5, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (claim 10), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired system performance/ specific system constraints per its intended use/ environment/ results.
Re claim 6, Adams et al. teaches such limitations )paragraph [0036] of the dielectric and maximum thickness. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials based on size and performance constraints.
Re claim 7, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0010]+ wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use know materials and known techniques for expected results.
Re claim 8, Manzari teaches UHF as discussed above but not the specific inductance. Adams et al. teaches an inductor with 20nH inductance (paragraph [0065]+ and UHF (claim 1).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired performance characteristics.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1. As the prior art structure is taught, limitations of its performance in a system which are not germane to the structure of the device limitations, are interpreted to be met, absent system limitations reciting further structure.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. Adams et al., as discussed above, in view of Ishikawa et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 4, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0011]+), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use known teachings for known manufacturing/ assembly for security/ durability/ reliability of assembly, but not the UV adhesive.
Ishikawa et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for securing/ protecting the chip using known means. Re the limitations of the bending, as a flexible tag is taught, merely optimizing the amount of flexibility is a result effective variable within the ordinary skill in the art based on system constraints.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 20200060229) in view of Manzari et al./ Youn, as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Knight et al. teaches an improved passive micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0003]+ teaches a passive RFID tag to identify animals) comprising:
an elongated flexible substrate having a pair of opposed surfaces (FIG. 7));
an RFID chip positioned on a first of the opposed surfaces and responsive to radio frequencies (implicit that an RFID chip of a tag is responsive to radio signals and abstract+ teaches an RFID chip);
an antenna directly electrically connected to the RFID chip and disposed on at least one of the opposed surfaces of the substrate (abstract+ and FIG. 6+ teaches the IC chip and antenna are mounted together);
an antenna matching circuit electrically connected to the antenna is not explicitly taught, but an RFID integrated circuit as disclosed, and impedance matching is routine and well known and therefore an obvious expedient for efficiency in communication, though the prior art is silent to such teachings); and
an encasement surrounding at least a portion of the micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0043]+ teaches a bio-affinity film is used to coat the RFID tag) and having a maximum thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm (parylene thickness is 2-5 um (paragraph [0122]);
such that the micro-RFID tag has maximum dimensions of 2.5 mm wide and 12 mm long (paragraph [0019]+ teaches 4.2/ 4mm long, height of .2mm, and transverse dimension of 500um, wherein general optimization of certain dimensions is within the ordinary skill in the art based on desired ranges being sufficiently close MPEP 2144.05).
Manzari et al. teaches an ionic casement as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for using the casement for UHF RFID performance impacts, such as for body/ wound measurements.
Knight et al./ Manzari et al. are silent to a matching circuit.
Youn generally teaches RFID matching circuits with inductors in small RFID tags (paragraph [0026]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for such expected performance results using known means.
Re the limitations that the tag can be read with at least 90 percent effectiveness by a 30 dB RFID tag reader at a read-distance-to-size ratio of at least 4,000:1, this is not a structural limitation of the claimed tag but appears to be drawn to a system/ reader. The prior art structure meets the claimed structural limitations and therefore would be expected to function as claimed.
Re claim 2, ionic moieties and PEDOT:PSS is taught above.
Claim(s) 3, 5-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al./ Manzari et al./ Youn, as discussed above, in view of Adams, as discussed above.
Re claim 3, Knight et al./ Knight et al./ Youn is silent to the insulative coating.
Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ strength/ device performance.
Re claim 5, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (claim 10), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired system performance/ specific system constraints per its intended use/ environment/ results.
Re claim 6, Adams et al. teaches such limitations )paragraph [0036] of the dielectric and maximum thickness. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials based on size and performance constraints.
Re claim 7, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0010]+ wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use know materials and known techniques for expected results.
Re claim 8, Manzari teaches UHF as discussed above but not the specific inductance. Adams et al. teaches an inductor with 20nH inductance (paragraph [0065]+ and UHF (claim 1).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired performance characteristics.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1. As the prior art structure is taught, limitations of its performance in a system which are not germane to the structure of the device limitations, are interpreted to be met, absent system limitations reciting further structure.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al./ Manzari/ Youn/ Adams et al., as discussed above, in view of Ishikawa et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 4, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0011]+), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use known teachings for known manufacturing/ assembly for security/ durability/ reliability of assembly, but not the UV adhesive.
Ishikawa et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for securing/ protecting the chip using known means. Re the limitations of the bending, as a flexible tag is taught, merely optimizing the amount of flexibility is a result effective variable within the ordinary skill in the art based on system constraints.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al., as discussed above, in view of Adams et al./ Youn, as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Knight et al. teaches an improved passive micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0003]+ teaches a passive RFID tag to identify animals) comprising:
an elongated flexible substrate having a pair of opposed surfaces (FIG. 7));
an RFID chip positioned on a first of the opposed surfaces and responsive to radio frequencies (implicit that an RFID chip of a tag is responsive to radio signals and abstract+ teaches an RFID chip);
an antenna directly electrically connected to the RFID chip and disposed on at least one of the opposed surfaces of the substrate (abstract+ and FIG. 6+ teaches the IC chip and antenna are mounted together);
an antenna matching circuit electrically connected to the antenna is not explicitly taught, but an RFID integrated circuit as disclosed, and impedance matching is routine and well known and therefore an obvious expedient for efficiency in communication, though the prior art is silent to such teachings); and
an encasement surrounding at least a portion of the micro-RFID tag (paragraph [0043]+ teaches a bio-affinity film is used to coat the RFID tag) and having a maximum thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm (parylene thickness is 2-5 um (paragraph [0122]);
such that the micro-RFID tag has maximum dimensions of 2.5 mm wide and 12 mm long (paragraph [0019]+ teaches 4.2/ 4mm long, height of .2mm, and transverse dimension of 500um, wherein general optimization of certain dimensions is within the ordinary skill in the art based on desired ranges being sufficiently close MPEP 2144.05).
Adams et al. teaches an ionic casement as discussed above, which Knight et al. does not teach.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for using the casement for UHF RFID performance impacts, such as for body/ wound measurements/ implantable.
Knight et al./ Adams et al. are silent to a matching circuit.
Youn generally teaches RFID matching circuits with inductors in small RFID tags (paragraph [0026]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for such expected performance results using known means.
Re the limitations that the tag can be read with at least 90 percent effectiveness by a 30 dB RFID tag reader at a read-distance-to-size ratio of at least 4,000:1, this is not a structural limitation of the claimed tag but appears to be drawn to a system/ reader. The prior art structure meets the claimed structural limitations and therefore would be expected to function as claimed.
Re claim 2, ionic moieties and PEDOT:PSS is taught above.
Re claim 3, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ strength/ device performance.
Re claim 5, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (claim 10), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired system performance/ specific system constraints per its intended use/ environment/ results.
Re claim 6, Adams et al. teaches such limitations )paragraph [0036] of the dielectric and maximum thickness. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials based on size and performance constraints.
Re claim 7, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0010]+ wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use know materials and known techniques for expected results.
Re claim 8, Adams et al. teaches an inductor with 20nH inductance (paragraph [0065]+ and UHF (claim 1).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for desired performance characteristics.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1. As the prior art structure is taught, limitations of its performance in a system which are not germane to the structure of the device limitations, are interpreted to be met, absent system limitations reciting further structure.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al./ Adams et al./ Youn, as discussed above, in view of Ishikawa et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 4, Adams et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0011]+), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to use known teachings for known manufacturing/ assembly for security/ durability/ reliability of assembly, but not the UV adhesive.
Ishikawa et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for securing/ protecting the chip using known means. Re the limitations of the bending, as a flexible tag is taught, merely optimizing the amount of flexibility is a result effective variable within the ordinary skill in the art based on system constraints.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights