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 .
Amendment
2. Receipt is acknowledged of the Amendment filed February 9, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiffany, III (2001/0015382), hereinafter Tiffany.
With respect to claim 1, Tiffany illustrates in figure 4, a layered electronic device (smartcard 10 – paragraph 0051), comprising: a first layer 20 of a first thermoplastic polymer material (paragraph 0051 discloses layer 20 includes a thermosetting polymeric material), the first layer 20 comprising a through cavity 24; an electronic module 12/30 (sensor and chip) inserted at least partially within the through cavity 24 of the first layer 20, and an adhesive second layer 52, of a second material having a higher adhesion than that of the first material (paragraph 0051 discloses the layer 52 is comprised of a bonding adhesive), the adhesive second layer 52 being at least partially in contact with the first layer 20 and with the electronic module 12/30.
With respect to claim 18, Tiffany discloses 0019, hardening of thermosetting polymers which comprises the second material 18.
With respect to claim 19, see Tiffany’s teachings above with regards to claim 1. Additionally, Tiffany teaches in paragraphs 0012 and 0017, after assembly, pressing the layered electronic device at a temperature enabling creeping at least of the first material so that the first layer creeps towards the electronic module in order to be brought at least partially in contact with the electronic module. Specifically, pressure forming with low temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 18, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiffany in view of Young et al (2004/0198924), hereinafter Young.
Tiffany’s teachings are discussed above. With respect to claims 18 and 27, Tiffany further teaches “that applicant’s use of terms like “polymeric,” “plastic,” “thermoplastic” and “thermosetting” each refer to a potentially wide variety of polymeric materials, however fails to specifically teach the first material being a polycarbonate (although mentions this as an option for layers in paragraph 0021), the second material having a hardness higher than that of the first material, and further fails to teach determining the hardness using a Shore D scale.
With respect to claim 28, Young teaches in paragraph 0014 measuring the hardness of a polymer using a Shore D scale.
In view of Tiffany’s own teachings and the teaching of Young, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have the first layer specifically be a polycarbonate material and include one layer having a higher hardness than another. One would be motivated to use a polycarbonate material, because it provides mechanical protection and stability in the Tiffany’s device. Furthermore, one would be motivated to have layers with different hardness in order to balance rigid protection and structural support with flexible shock absorption. Lastly, one would be motivated to use the Shore D scale as it quantitatively measures the hardness of hard plastics and rigid polymers, allowing consistent material comparison and selection.
7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiffany in view of Bosquet et al (2012/0138691), hereinafter Bosquet.
Tiffany’s teachings are discussed above. With respect to claim 19, see above with regards to claim 1. Tiffany’s teachings fails to specifically teach pressing the layered electronic device so that the first layer creeps towards the electronic module.
With respect to claim 19, Bosquet teaches in paragraph 0058, during lamination, allowing the material of the strong adhesion layer, to creep through the hole (securing the module – paragraph 0059).
In view of Bosquet’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to allowing the layer to creep towards the electronic module taught by Tiffany. One would be motivated to have the adhesive layer creep in order to secure the electronic module in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 3, 5-16, 20, 21, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s reason for allowance: Although Tiffany teaches a layered electronic device, comprising: a first layer of a first thermoplastic polymer material, the first layer comprising a through cavity; an electronic module inserted at least partially within the through cavity of the first layer; and an adhesive second layer of a second material having a higher adhesion to the electronic module than an adhesion of the first material to the electronic module, the adhesive second layer being at least partially in contact with the first layer and with the electronic module; wherein the first layer is at least partially in contact with the electronic module, the identified prior art of record, taken alone, or in combination with any other prior art, fails to teach or fairly suggest the specific features of claims 2, 3, 5-16, 20, 21, and 24 of the present claimed invention. Specifically, prior art fails to teach the device/method wherein the electronic module has a front face and a rear face, the first layer has a front face and a rear face, and the adhesive second layer has a front face, the assembly comprising bringing the adhesive second layer at least partially in contact with the rear face of the electronic module and with the rear face of the first layer and further fails to teach the device, wherein the electronic module comprises a connection area and a logic circuit electrically coupled to the connection area, the device comprising an electrical wire having a first portion electrically coupled to the connection area and a second portion at least partially in contact with the first layer, the device comprising a third layer of a third thermoplastic polymer material, the third layer comprising a through cavity so that the electronic module is inserted at least partially within the through cavity of the third layer, the third layer being at least partially in contact with the first layer and with the first and second portions of the electrical wire. The above limitations are not disclosed in prior art and moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to come to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to newly relied upon reference numbers from Tiffany.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See attached PTO form 892, Refence Cited.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights