DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 7-9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh (US 20070069895 A1).
Re Claim 1: Koh discloses
a flexible electronic tag (fig 4: 400) for tamper detection, the flexible electronic tag comprising a radio frequency identification circuit (fig 4: 402) and a tamper loop circuit (fig 4: 404) connected to the radio frequency identification circuit, the flexible electronic tag further comprising:
a flexible inlay (fig 4: 400) having a flat and elongated shape, comprising:
a first portion, which comprises the radio frequency identification circuit (examiner: portion of 400 around 402 in fig 4), and
a second portion (examiner: rest of the 400 NOT around 402 in fig 4), which extends laterally from the first portion, and which comprises at least partially the tamper loop circuit,
at least two precuts (fig 4: 414, 412, 416), which extend from opposite outer edges of the second portion of the flexible inlay into the flexible inlay beyond the half width of the flexible inlay, and wherein the tamper loop circuit extends beyond the at least two precuts into the second portion of the flexible inlay (fig 4).
Re Claim 2: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification circuit is configured to detect, by the interrupted tamper loop circuit, attempted tampering (abst: tamper-evident seal… When the tag is broken along the line of weakness the RFID transponder is rendered unable to communicate with the RFID interrogator device.).
Re Claim 3: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, one of the radio frequency identification circuit or the tamper loop circuit is arranged within the flexible inlay (fig 4).
Re Claim 4: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the flexible electronic tag comprises a product adhesion layer, which is arranged on a product side of the flexible inlay and which is configured to attach the flexible electronic tag to a product (p57: adhesive coating on the reverse surface).
Re Claim 7: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the flexible inlay is made of at least one of: Polyethylenterephthalate (PET), Polypropylene (PP), nylon plastics, or paper (p57: at least one flexible web of backing material 406 such as paper or a plastic).
Re Claim 8: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the second portion of the flexible inlay has a substantially rectangular elongated shape (fig 4).
Re Claim 9: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the precuts extend with respect to an edge of the flexible inlay perpendicular or at an acute angle into the second portion of the flexible inlay (fig 4).
Re Claim 13: Koh discloses a packaging for a product comprising the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, in particular attached across a closed openable part of the packaging (fig 2).
Re Claim 14: Koh discloses a product comprising the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, in particular attached across a closed openable part of the product (fig 2, examiner: it’s well know that the packaging is considered an integral part of the product, NOT separate from the product.).
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh (US 20070069895 A1) in view of Bohn (DE 102006052516 A1).
Re Claim 5: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the flexible electronic tag comprises a cover layer, which is configured to cover the flexible inlay (p44: second web of flexible material (not shown in the figure) may also be applied over the top of the transponder).
However, Koh does not disclose that the flexible electronic tag further comprises a cover adhesion layer, which is arranged between the flexible inlay and the cover layer and which is configured to attach the cover layer to the flexible inlay.
Bohn however discloses that the electronic tag further comprises a cover adhesion layer (fig 1: 2), which is arranged between the inlay and the cover layer and which is configured to attach the cover layer to the inlay.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Bohn’s teaching in the tag of Koh for the purpose of securely attaching the cover layer.
Re Claim 6: Koh modified by Bohn discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 5, wherein the cover layer comprises the same precuts as the flexible inlay (p34: the line of weakness is provided in the first and/or the second web of flexible material.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh (US 20070069895 A1) in view of Chandra (US 20190135501 A1).
Re Claim 10: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of precuts extend into the second portion (fig 4).
However, Koh does not disclose that the plurality of precuts extend parallel with respect to each other.
Chandra however discloses that the plurality of precuts extend parallel with respect to each other (fig 5A: 517a-517d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Chandra’s teaching in the tag of Koh for the purpose of aligning the precuts with the line that represent a closed openable part.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh (US 20070069895 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 7876221 B2).
Re Claim 11: Koh discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 1.
However, Koh does not disclose that the tamper loop circuit is routed at least partially along a first side of at least one of the precuts, thereby following at least partially the shape of the at least one of the precuts.
Tanaka however discloses that the tamper loop circuit (fig 1: 10) is routed at least partially along a first side of at least one of the precuts (fig 1: 15), thereby following at least partially the shape of the at least one of the precuts (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teaching in the tag of Koh for the purpose of allowing miniaturization by accommodating meandering antenna shape.
Re Claim 12: Koh modified by Tanaka discloses the flexible electronic tag according to claim 11, wherein the tamper loop circuit is further routed around an inner end of the at least one of the precut and at least partially along a second side, opposing to the first side, of the at least one of the precuts, thereby following at least partially the shape of the at least one of the precuts (fig 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE W KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Steven S Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
/TAE W KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876