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
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lerch (US 20070120687)
Lerch discloses
1. A device, comprising:
a wristband having a flexible elongated body, the wristband having an open state in which the wristband is capable of being positioned in a planar configuration and having a closed state in which the wristband is wrapped in a loop such that a first end of the wristband overlaps a second end of the wristband and is fixed to the body (Figs. 1-3); an RFID circuit supported by the elongated body of the wristband, the RFID circuit being positioned on the body such that the RFID circuit is configured to be included in the loop when the wristband is in the closed state, the RFID circuit including an antenna (Figs. 1-3)
a line of weakness 303 in the antenna, the line of weakness defines a tearable antenna segment that is removeable to change a length of the antenna (par. 17, 38: “the disabling wire may be cut at any point beyond where the fastening is engaged without disrupting RFID functionality … a cut can now be made across the bracelet as indicated by dotted line 303 without disabling the circuit function”. To cut is generally thought as to detach, severe, and separate (https://www.wordnik.com/words/cut) and does not necessarily require a scissor to cut. Moreover, the claim does not recite how weak the line of weakness is supposed to be as compared to others. In Lerch, the dotted line is interpreted to be weak enough to allow a cut to be made, whether by using hands to separate or using a scissor or not. Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2114.II “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 … ”; thus, the way in which the wristband is severed is immaterial to the structure of the wristband.)
2.1, wherein the antenna extends over fifty percent to one hundred percent of a length of the elongated body (Lerch, Fig. 3).
3.1, wherein the tearable segment is extends over five percent to fifty percent of the wristband (Lerch, Fig. 3).
Re claims 16, see discussion regarding claims above.
21.1, wherein the line of weakness comprises a perforation or score (Lerch, Fig. 3, par. 38)
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-11, 13-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerch (US 20070120687) in view of Gaskill (US 4922260)
Re claim 4.1, Lerch is silent to further comprising: a plurality of lines of weakness include the line of weakness, the plurality of lines of weakness defining a plurality of tearable antenna segments, the length of the antenna changes based on a quantity of the plurality of tearable antenna segments that are removed
Gaskill discloses a plurality of lines of weakness include the line of weakness, the plurality of lines of weakness defining a plurality of tearable antenna segments, the length of the antenna changes based on a quantity of the plurality of tearable antenna segments that are removed (c3: 40-55, c4:10-55: a “line” (sic) such that “Cutting or severing the length of band 70 along a line between plastic strips 235 and 236”; as can be seen in Fig. 2, the “line” that is between strips 235 and 236 is much thinner than at the locations of the strips 235 and 236, which is considered a line of weakness since this specific line is to be severed or cut, but not at the line where the strips 235 and 236 are).
Furthermore, changing size and duplication of parts have been recognized as an obvious extension of the prior art. MPEP 2144.04
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Gaskill so that the band can fit multiple wrist sizes by tearing segment(s) to achieve a desire length.
Re claims 5.4, Lerch/Gaskill is silent to the tearable antenna segment lengths and diameter in inches
However, this is considered an obvious extension of Lerch/Gaskill’s teachings since Lerch teaches a longer tearable segment than those in Gaskill. It has also been recognized that changing size is an obvious expedient. MPEP 2144.04.
6.4, wherein each of the plurality of antenna segments have an equal segment length (Gaskill, Fig. 2).
7.4, wherein at least two of the plurality of antenna segments have different segment lengths (Lerch, Fig. 3; Gaskill, c4: 40-55).
8.4, wherein each of the plurality of antenna segments extend over two percent to twenty-five percent of the length of the elongated body (Lerch, Fig. 3; Gaskill, Fig. 1).
9.1, wherein the line of weakness extends across the antenna and the device comprises: a further line of weakness offset from the line of weakness, the further line of weakness extends across the elongated body, the line of weakness and the further line of weakness defining the tearable antenna segment, the antenna being tearable along the line of weakness and the elongated body being tearable along the further line of weakness (see all Figs.).
10.9, wherein a portion of the antenna remaining intact in the wristband is offset inward from a remaining end of the elongated body when the tearable antenna segment is removed (see all Figs.).
Re claims 11.1, 13.1, 14.1, see discussion regarding claims above. Although silent to different lengths in each segments, this is considered an obvious extension of Lerch/Gaskill’s teachings since Lerch teaches a longer tearable segment than those in Gaskill. It has also been recognized that changing size is an obvious expedient. MPEP 2144.04.
Re claims 17-20, see discussion regarding claims above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerch (US 20070120687) in view of McHugh (US 20050231366)
12.1, wherein the length of the antenna is equal to a wavelength of an interrogation signal to which the RFID circuit is configured to respond when the tearable antenna segment is intact and the length of the antenna is one quarter of the wavelength or one half of the wavelength when the tearable antenna segment is removed
(Lerch/Gaskill is silent to ¼ or ½ wavelength; McHugh discloses [0042] Typically, the length of an antenna is equal to a fraction of the wavelength being transmitted, i.e. 1/2, 5/8, 1/4 and 1/8 of the wavelength. The length of the electrical path 702 can be designed to be equal to an optimal transmission length based on the wavelength of the alert signal. In addition to designing the length of the electrical path 702 to be equal to an optimal length, the breakpoint of the strap 102 can also be designed to break the electrical path 702 at a corresponding optimal point. Using the electrical path 702 provides the control circuitry 1104 with a more powerful antenna during critical transmission stages. By using the electrical path 702 as an antenna, the monitoring tag 100 can decrease the chances of the monitoring station not receiving the alert signal wireless transmission;
therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of McHugh by having the segments and lines of weakness to yield a length of the antenna is equal to a wavelength of an interrogation signal so that the communication between the tag and reader is more effective)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerch (US 20070120687) in view of Lai (US 9594992 )
Re claim 15.1, Lerch is silent to wherein the antenna is a dipole antenna
Lai discloses an antenna 30 of tab 20 comprising an impedance adjusting portion 50, radiators 31, 32 at the end of the legs on both sides of the chip 21, which is known to be a dipole antenna. The adjusting portion 50 comprises separable parts 12 (Fig. 3) that can be torn off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Lai so that other types of antenna including a dipole antenna can made with tearable segments.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Forster (US 20160180213 A1) and Pachler (US 20150090798 A1) disclose dipole antennas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lerch does not disclose a line of weakness that is tearable.
It is respectfully submitted that the wristband in Lerch is made of disposable material such that “the disabling wire may be cut at any point beyond where the fastening is engaged without disrupting RFID functionality … a cut can now be made across the bracelet as indicated by dotted line 303 without disabling the circuit function” (par. 17, 38). To cut is generally thought as to detach, severe, and separate (https://www.wordnik.com/words/cut) and does not necessarily require a scissor to cut. Moreover, the claim does not recite how weak the line of weakness is supposed to be as compared to others. In Lerch, the dotted line is interpreted to be weak enough to allow a cut to be made, whether by using hands to separate or using a scissor or not. Furthermore, the MPEP 2114.II says:
II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."HewlettPackard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Thus, according to the MPEP, the way in which the wristband is severed is immaterial to the structure of the wristband.
Applicant further argues that Gaskill, like Lerch, fails to disclose an antenna having a line of weakness.
However, Gaskill discloses that “Watch 20, used by each receiving user, is arranged much like a conventional digital wristwatch. The watch has a wrist band or watchband 70, which incorporates an antenna, described hereinafter, and an electronic clock and paging device 72 … The main elements of band 70 are an insulating or dielectric strip 201 which has capacitor plates 231B, 231C, 231D, . . . on the bottom thereof and corresponding capacitor plates 232A, 232B, 232C, . . . on the top thereof. Dielectric strip 201 is formed of electrically nonconductive material such as thermoplastic rubber, polyimide or other suitably flexible material while plates 231 and 232 are formed of copper in the preferred embodiment. Alternatively, beryllium copper can be substituted for the conductive plates disposed on strip 201. Portions of each plate 231 and 232 are covered by molded plastic strips 235A, 235B, 235C, ... on the top of insulating strip 201 and molded plastic strips 236A, 236B, 236C, . . . on the bottom thereof. Plates 231 and 232 can also be plated with nickel or a palladium nickel alloy first and then gold for electrical and physical protection as well as for ornamental purposes.” Gaskill also provides a line such that “Cutting or severing the length of band 70 along a line between plastic strips 235 and 236 decreases the inductance, L.” As also discussed above, since the claim does not recite how weak is the line of weakness, the line of Gaskill is considered weak enough for wristband 70 to be cut or severed, either by hand or a scissor. Again, according to the MPEP, the way in which the wristband is severed is immaterial to the structure of the wristband.
For these reasons, the previous rejection(s) is/are respectfully maintained.
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 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 THIEN T. MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-8283. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Steve S. 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 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.
/Thien T Mai/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2887
Prosecution Insights