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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 01/15/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected because of the following informalities: claim 14 is dependent on claim 8 when it should be dependent on claim 7. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as dependent of claim 7.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravindranathan et al. (US 2021/0280286) in view of Itagaki (JP 2011053873).
Regarding claim 1: Ravindranathan discloses a patch comprised:
a support body (Fig. 2B, item 216, ¶0089);
a plaster provided on one main surface of the support body (Fig. 2B, 214, ¶0089);
a communication device provided on another main surface of the support body and wirelessly communicating with a communication terminal (Fig. 2B, item 218, ¶0089).
Ravindranathan does not explicitly disclose an electromagnetic wave shielding member provided on at least one of the plaster and the communication device and allowing the communication device to be in an uncommunicable state.
In analogous art regarding bocking communications, Itagaki ddisclosesa support body with a plaster provided on a surface, further disclosing an electromagnetic wave shielding member provided on at least one of the plaster and the communication device and allowing the communication device to be in an uncommunicable state.(¶0020-0021)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of an electromagnetic wave shielding member provided on at least one of the plaster and the communication device and allowing the communication device to be in an uncommunicable state, as disclosed by Itagaki, to the patch of Ravindranathan. The motivation is to allow blocking of the communication in order to protect the patch from inadvertent or unwanted communication.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave shielding member is a protective film covering the plaster. (Itagaki: ¶0020-0021)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki discloses the patch according to claim 2, herein the plaster is larger than the communication device. (Ravindranathan: Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plaster is smaller than the communication device, and the electromagnetic wave shielding member is a protective film that covers the plaster and is larger than the communication device. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the features of wherein the plaster is smaller than the communication device, and the electromagnetic wave shielding member is a protective film that covers the plaster and is larger than the communication device since such a modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claim 1, comprising a first protective film covering the plaster (Ravindranathan: ¶0089: item 216 can comprise a fabric or the like ),wherein the electromagnetic wave shielding member is a second protective film covering the communication device. (Itagaki: ¶0020-0021: sticker 100 is interpreted to be the second protective film covering the communication device)
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claim 1, wherein the support body has adhesiveness with which the communication device is detachably attached (Ravindranathan: ¶0089).
Regarding claims 8-14: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claims 1-7, wherein the communication device is a radio tag that operates by obtaining energy from a surrounding electromagnetic wave (Ravindranathan: ¶0091: NFC).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravindranathan et al. (US 2021/0280286) in view of Itagaki (JP 2011053873) and further in view of Hagen et al. (US 6,572,636)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki disclose the patch according to claim 1, comprising a package that shields an electromagnetic wave, wherein the support body, the plaster, the communication device, and the electromagnetic wave shielding member are placed in the package.
In analogous art regarding patches, Hagen disclose comprising a package (housing ) that shields an electromagnetic wave, wherein the support body, the plaster, the communication device, and the electromagnetic wave shielding member are placed in the package (Col, 7, Lines 1-10).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a package that shields an electromagnetic wave, wherein the support body, the plaster, the communication device, and the electromagnetic wave shielding member are placed in the package, as disclose by Hagen, to the system of the combination of Ravindranathan and Itagaki. The motivation is to protect the patch for exterior contaminants (Col, 7, Lines 1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights