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 .
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the response to restriction requirement filed on 11/14/2025. Claims 15-20 were elected with traverse. Claims 1-14 are cancelled. Claims 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-20 are 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the device manufacturer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the device manufacturer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the source of the composite product” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as neither “the source” or “the composite product” was previously introduced. Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20070008115 (“Morhard”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20060119471 (“Rudolph”).
Claim 15
As per claim 15, Morhard teaches a device comprising:
a fuse ([0028] “detecting, tracking, monitoring and identifying in real-time or in substantially-real-time the activities, movements, locations and positions associated with explosive materials, which encompasses . . . safety fuses . . . and igniters.”);
a combustible material ([0028] “explosive materials . . . Explosive materials also include, . . . “pyrotechnics,” as are generally known in the art.”);
a package substantially containing the combustible material ([0033] “RFID tags can be placed within or applied to explosive materials but can also be affixed to the . . . product packaging.” And, [0037] “included within explosives packaging materials.” And, [0055] “packaged or cartridged explosives.”);
a radio tag affixed to the package ([0008] “active and passive RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Devices).” And, [0033] “RFID tags can be placed within or applied to explosive materials but can also be affixed to the product and/or product packaging.” And, [0057] “RFID tag applicators are also provided for containers 22 at each packaging station.”).
wherein the radio tag stores a tag data record ([0068] “RFID tag data.” And, [0013] “attaching a first RFID tag to an explosive material and receiving data from the first RFID tag at a first RFID integration device.”).
Morhard discloses the radio tag stores data records but does not explicitly teach the following features taught by Rudolph:
a tag data record comprising ([0021] “The RFID tag 102 typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package 101 and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”),
a source identifier ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code.” And, [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”),
a product identifier ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code along with a limited amount of other product related and/or “lookup” data.” [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”),
a universal resource identifier (URI) ([0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination. The URL address on tag will automatically connect a user to a website which provides information such as trade name, manufacturer, product number, quantity per package, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify Morhard to include a tag data record comprising: a source identifier, a product identifier, and a universal resource identifier (URI) as taught by Rudolph in order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Claim 16
As per claim 16, Morhard does not explicitly teach but Rudolph teaches:
wherein the URI was first fixed prior to delivery of the device by the device manufacturer ([0019] “an RFID tag is attached to a product support or package or container.” And, [0020] “in one sequence of warehouse operations, such as at a production site, upon packing of container, a label including a conventional optical barcode and text, is applied to container. As part of the labeling process, Internet URL (Uniform Resource Locater) data pertaining to each package (item) is stored in a database either at the place where labeling occurs or on an Internet server accessible from that location. Typically, an operator optically reads the barcode on each item received and, using a scanner, determines the URL and other product identifying information to be written on RFID tag . . . The scanner transmits the data to an RFID writer to produce the smart label on package.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Morhard and Rudolph to include wherein the URI was first fixed prior to delivery of the device by the device manufacturer as taught by Rudolph in order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Claim 17
As per claim 17, Morhard does not explicitly teach but Rudolph teaches:
wherein the URI was modified after delivery of the device by the device manufacturer ([0013] “tag data can be rewritten or modified.” And, [0022] “A ‘basic’ HHT is contemplated as a wireless terminal having a display and the capability to connect to the Internet. HHT also contains an RFID reader/writer. Such a terminal is primarily for use in a warehouse after a product container is received for put-away and picking operations.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Morhard and Rudolph to wherein the URI was modified after delivery of the device by the device manufacturer as taught by Rudolph in include order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Claim 18
As per claim 18, Morhard does not explicitly teach but Rudolph teaches:
wherein the modified URI points to information about the device hosted by a retail seller ([0021] “the URL address on tag will automatically connect a user to a website which provides information such as trade name, manufacturer, product number, quantity per package.” And, [0019] “Database contains, for example, product name and/or number, manufacturer's name, item serial number, quantity in the package, shipping history (which is updated over time) . . . a manufacturer, warehouseman, wholesaler, etc. in the chain of commerce.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Morhard and Rudolph to include wherein the URI was modified after delivery of the device by the device manufacturer as taught by Rudolph in order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Claim 19
As per claim 19, Morhard does not explicitly teach but Rudolph teaches:
a second layer of packaging comprising the package and a composite radio tag affixed to the second layer of packaging ([0019] “an RFID tag is attached to a product support or package or container.” And, [0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code along with a limited amount of other product related and/or “lookup” data.” [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package.”):
the composite radio tag comprising a composite tag data record, the composite tag data record comprising ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code along with a limited amount of other product related and/or “lookup” data.” And, [0021] “The RFID tag 102 typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package 101 and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”);
a second source identifier associated with the source of the composite product ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code.” And, [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”);
a composite product identifier ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code along with a limited amount of other product related and/or “lookup” data.” [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”);
a second URI ([0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination. The URL address on tag will automatically connect a user to a website which provides information such as trade name, manufacturer, product number, quantity per package, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Morhard and Rudolph to include a second layer of packaging comprising the package and a composite radio tag affixed to the second layer of packaging, the composite radio tag comprising a composite tag data record, the composite tag data record comprising: a second source identifier associated with the source of the composite product, a composite product identifier, a second URI as taught by Rudolph in order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Claim 20
As per claim 20, Morhard does not explicitly teach but Rudolph teaches:
wherein the composite tag data record indicates that the composite radio tag is a composite radio tag ([0010] “The identification tag contains encoded data corresponding to a unique item identification code along with a limited amount of other product related and/or “lookup” data.” [0021] “The RFID tag typically contains a unique identification number, a URL address, a ‘From’ field to identify the source of the package and a ‘To’ field to identify its destination.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Morhard and Rudolph to include wherein the composite tag data record indicates that the composite radio tag is a composite radio tag as taught by Rudolph in order to provide “access [to] the full Internet database for information such as product information, MSDS, tracking, manufacturing data, specifications, quality control data and ability to order additional product” increasing user convenience (Rudolph [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20180211718 (“Heath”) discloses product data is placed on an EMFID tag with digits that identify the manufacturer, the product category and the individual item and an identifier (e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator, (URL) of the webpage associated with the EMFID tag)
US Patent Publication Number 10929738 (“Balgañon Canela”) discloses an NFC tag with a unique product identifier
US Patent Application Publication Number 20260177359 (“Gish”) discloses RFID tags on pyrotechnic material cartridges
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights