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 § 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) 32-39, 42, 45-49, 52, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610) in view of Kim (US 2012/0273577) and Takahashi (US 20080150725)
32. A surgical sponge comprising:
a sponge body (Fig. 6-7); and a radiofrequency (RF) tag positioned interior to the sponge body, the tag comprising:
a base layer comprising a first polymeric film material, a first protective layer comprising a second polymeric film material, and a radio frequency (RF) identifier laminated between the base layer and the first protective layer, the RF identifier comprising a metal foil antenna and an electrically responsive member (Aug610 teaches RFID 60 material is encapsulated in plastic, par. 57; Aug610 is silent to the RFID sandwiched between two polymeric layers; Kim discloses an RFID sandwiched between at least two polymeric layers 411-414, par. 28-32, 42-44, 47, Fig. 1-4; Kim further discloses antenna and an extra metal foil 113 are made of copper, par. 39; 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 Kim so that the two protective layers can be effectively bonded to each other)
wherein the base layer comprises an additional metal foil (70, par. 54) attached to the base layer and electrically separated from the metal foil antenna, the additional metal foil being configured to enhance x-ray opacity of the surgical sponge and comprising the same metal foil as the metal foil antenna (Aug610, par. 38, 54: RFID antenna and strip 70 both made of metal such as copper; Kim further discloses antenna and an extra metal foil 113 are made of copper, par. 39).
Aug’610 is silent to etched metal foil antenna and additional etched metal foil etched on to a base layer.
Takahashi discloses a tag comprising an inlet 1 including an IC chip 5 and antenna 3 and further including director and reflector 61/62 separate from the inlet (par. 78, 89). The antenna is composed of Aluminum (par. 89). [0165] In the above-mentioned first embodiment, the case is described where a large number of antennas 3 which constitute the inlet 1 are formed in advance at predetermined intervals on one surface of the insulating film 2 in the form of a continuous tape and such an insulating film 2 is used in the manufacture of the contactless electronic tag (refer to FIG. 13 and FIG. 14). In the present fourth embodiment, as shown in FIG. 62, not only the antennas 3 but also a large number of wave directors 61 and reflectors 62 are formed at predetermined intervals on one surface of the same kind of insulating film 2 as the insulating film 2 in the above-mentioned first embodiment. In the present third embodiment, the wave director 61 and the reflector 62 can be formed integrally with the antenna 3 by etching the Al foil into the shapes of the wave director 61 and the reflector 62 when etching the Al foil to form the antenna 3. Using such an insulating film 2, by cutting the insulating film 2 along the alternate long and short dash line in FIG. 62 after bonding the chip 5 to the antenna 3 (refer to FIG. 15 to FIG. 17), it is possible to manufacture the contactless electronic tag in the present fourth embodiment. By the way, the arrangement pattern of the antenna 3, the wave director 61, and the reflector 62 shown in FIG. 62 is the same as the arrangement pattern of the inlet 1 (antenna 3), the wave director 61, and the reflector 62 shown in FIG. 31 in the above-mentioned first embodiment, however, it may also be the arrangement pattern shown in FIG. 33 to FIG. 39 in the above-mentioned first embodiment, or the arrangement pattern shown in FIG. 50 to FIG. 55 in the above-mentioned second embodiment, or in FIG. 56 to FIG. 61 in the above-mentioned third embodiment.
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 Takahashi by etching a foil for forming both the antenna and the metal foil so that manufacturing cost may be reduce for not using different foil types or different etching processes.
33.32, where in the antenna is a UHF antenna (Aug’610, par. 14, 17).
34.33, where in the antenna is a generally elongate antenna (Aug’610, Figs. 3-9;).
35.32, wherein the antenna is an etched metal foil loop antenna (Takahashi, par. 89)
36.35 where in the antenna is generally square shaped and the surgical sponge is generally square shaped so as to maximize a size of the antenna relative to the surgical sponge (Aug610, Figs. 2-5).
37.32, wherein the electrically responsive member includes at least one of programmable integrated circuit (IC) chip, a capacitor, and a resistor (Aug’610, par. 14, 17).
38.32, a second protective layer positioned opposite to the first protective layer, the second protective layer comprising the second polymeric film material, the second protective layer and the first protective layer substantially enclosing the base layer and the RF identifier (Kim, par. 28-32, 42-44, 47, Fig. 1-4).
39.38, where in the second polymeric film material is a flexible tear-resistant film (polymeric/plastic material is known to be flexible tear resistant).
42.38, wherein the second polymeric film material is hydrophobic relative to the sponge body, the first and second protective layers being configured for repelling blood for better visibility of the tag (polymers including plastics are known to repel liquids including blood).
Re claims 45-49, 52, 57, see discussion regarding claims above.
Claim(s) 40-41, 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610)/ Kim (US 2012/0273577)/ Takahashi (US 20080150725) further in view of GarnerRichards (US 20140303606)
Re claim 40.38, Aug’610 is silent to where in the second polymeric film material is a colored polymeric film so as to visually contrast with blood and tissue.
GarnerRichards discloses a vibrant colored coating 112 may be applied to surgical related items including tags 200, 520, 530, tagged reinforcement 410 of more than three layers, and the sponge 400 (Figs. 1-10, par. 73-75, 97-105).
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 GarnerRichards by adding a vibrant coating on to the tag so that the presence of the sponge and tag can be detected using the vibrant coating.
41.38, where in the second polymeric film material is configured to fluoresce when illuminated by a light source at a predetermined wavelength (GarnerRichards, par. 77, 105-106).
Re claims 50-51.49, see discussion regarding claims above.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610)/ Kim (US 2012/0273577) Takahashi (US 20080150725) further in view of Martin (US 20140103116 A1)
Re claim 43.38, Aug’610 is silent to wherein at least one of the at least one tab is attached to the sponge body by heat bonding, wherein fibers of the sponge body are pressed into the polymeric protective film layers that have been heated and partially melted, creating a heat bond between the fibers and the polymeric protective film layers.
Martin discloses an RFID tag comprising heat fusible layers, which is attached to a garment by “applying heat and pressure to said heat fusible label to melt said heat activated layer and to fuse said label to said flexible surface” (par. 26, 84-85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Martin for stronger and more secure attachment. It would have also been obvious that the melted materials would bond with the fibers of the sponge garment.
Claim(s) 44, 53-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610) Kim (US 2012/0273577) Takahashi (US 20080150725) further in view of OnlyAChief (US 20110133893 )
Re claim 44.32, Mullen is silent to wherein: the base layer of the RF tag comprises at least one tab projecting from an outer perimeter of the tag, the first protective layer comprises at least one tab projecting from the outer perimeter of the tag and generally aligned with the at least one tab of the base layer, at least some of the additional metal foil attached to the base layer and electrically separated from the metal foil antenna is positioned on the tab of the base layer, and the at least one tab of each of the first protective layer and the base layer project radially outward beyond an edge of the sponge body when the tag is attached to the sponge body.
However, it has been recognized that duplication of parts and changing of shapes are within the skills of one of ordinary in the art. MPEP 2144.04. An example of such is seen in the Figs.1-6 of OnlyAChief where tabs forming star shaped tag or forming branches of a tree and an RFID can be placed at any of the tabs.
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 known teachings for easier recognition of the tag. It would have also been obvious that the additional foil(s) can placed at any tab(s).
Re claims 53.45-56, see discussion regarding claims above.
Claim(s) 58-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610) Kim (US 2012/0273577) Takahashi (US 20080150725) OnlyAChief (US 20110133893 ) further in view of GarnerRichards (US 20140303606)
Re claim 58-61.57, see discussion regarding claims above.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aug’610 (US 20150216610) Kim (US 2012/0273577) Takahashi (US 20080150725) OnlyAChief (US 20110133893 ) further in view of Martin (US 20140103116 A1)
Re claim 62, see discussion regarding claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 THIEN MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-8283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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.
/THIEN T MAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights