DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17 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.
Re Claim 1: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, “the frequency identification circuit,” in the claim.
Re Claim 4: The limitation, “cavity bottom,” is indefinite. The drawings seems to teach ‘cavity top’ instead.
Re Claims 4 and 10: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “until” seems to be used by the claim to mean “point(s) in space,” while the accepted meaning is “up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Re Claims 6 and 8-10: The limitation, “product axial end,” is indefinite. It is neither an art-recognized term nor a special definition.
Re Claim 11: The limitation, “leaving a gap between the first portion on the housing and the second portion on the RFID cover.” is indefinite. Neither the drawing nor the specification seems to disclose this “gap between the first portion on the housing and the second portion on the RFID cover.” The gap seems to be between the housing and the RFID cover, NOT between the first portion and the second portion.
All dependent claims are also indefinite at least due to the dependency on the indefinite base claim.
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) 1-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robadey (EP 3217326 A1).
Re Claim 1: Robadey discloses
Electronic hard tag (fig 2: 1) for application on a product, the electronic hard tag comprising a radio frequency identification circuit (fig 2: 3, 5) and a housing, wherein the electronic hard tag further comprises:
a first circuit adhesion layer (integrated circuit 3 and/or antenna 5 may be encapsulated or covered in a hardened product, such as a glue), arranged between the housing and the radio frequency identification circuit, and configured to attach the radio frequency identification circuit to the housing; and
a product adhesion layer (figs 2 & 3: 43), arranged on a product side of the housing and on the frequency identification circuit, and configured to attach the housing and the radio frequency identification circuit to the product.
Re Claim 2: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 1, further comprising:
a RFID cover (figs 2 & 3: 29), arranged between the product adhesion layer and the radio frequency identification circuit, wherein the product adhesion layer (figs 2 & 3: 43) is further configured to attach the RFID cover to the product; and
a second circuit adhesion layer (base 29 may be mechanically attached to the support 9 or attached using an adhesive (for example using a double sided, adhesive tape, glue or welding).), arranged between the RFID cover and the radio frequency identification circuit, and configured to attach the radio frequency identification circuit to the RFID cover.
Re Claim 3: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification circuit comprises an antenna (figs 2 & 3: 5), which is at least partially attached via the first circuit adhesion layer to the housing, wherein the antenna is further configured to be at least partially attached to the product via the product adhesion layer, or wherein the antenna is at least partially attached via the second circuit adhesion layer to the RFID cover.
Re Claim 4: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 1, wherein the housing has a cylindrical outer shape (figs 2 & 3: 15) and comprises a cavity (fig 3: 16), which extends from the product side of the housing into the housing until a cavity top, and wherein the first circuit adhesion layer (integrated circuit 3 and/or antenna 5 may be encapsulated or covered in a hardened product, such as a glue) attaches the radio frequency identification circuit to the cavity top.
Re Claim 5: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 4, wherein the housing has an outer circular cylindrical shape, and wherein the cavity has a circular cylindrical shape and extends coaxially with respect to circular cylindrical shape of the housing (fig 3).
Re Claim 6: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 3, wherein the RFID cover (figs 2 & 3: 29) has a cylindrical shape and is arranged within the cavity of the housing, and wherein the product axial end of the RFID cover is attached to the product adhesion layer (figs 2 & 3: 43), and wherein the second circuit adhesion layer (base 29 may be mechanically attached to the support 9 or attached using an adhesive (for example using a double sided, adhesive tape, glue or welding).) attaches the radio frequency identification circuit to the axial end of the RFID cover arranged opposite with respect to the product axial end.
Re Claim 7: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 6, wherein the RFID cover has an outer circular cylindrical shape (figs 2 & 3: 29), and wherein the RFID cover is arranged coaxially with respect to the housing (figs 2 & 3).
Re Claim 8: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 6, wherein the outer contour of the radio frequency identification circuit (fig 2: 3, 5) corresponds to the shape of the axial end of the RFID cover opposite to the product axial end (examiner: the contour of antenna 5 corresponds to the shape of the axial end of the RFID cover).
Re Claim 9: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 6, wherein the product axial end of the housing and the product axial end of the RFID cover are arranged coplanar with respect to each other, thereby forming a plane surface onto which the product adhesion layer is attached (fig 3, examiner: bottom of 15 and bottom 29 are coplanar).
Re Claim 10: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 9, wherein the product adhesion layer extends from the outer edge of the product axial end of the housing until the center point of the product axial end of the RFID cover (fig 3).
Re Claim 11: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 9, wherein the product adhesion layer comprises a first portion, which is arranged on the housing, and a second portion, which is arranged on the RFID cover, thereby leaving a gap between the first portion on the housing and the second portion on the RFID cover (fig 3: examiner: A portion of layer 43 is on 15 and another portion of the layer 43 is on 29; and thus, there is a gap between 15 and 29. The gap is taken up by 9.).
Re Claim 12: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 2, wherein the product adhesion layer is configured such that an attempted removal of the housing from the product, onto which the electronic hard tag is attached, results in a separation of the housing from the product adhesion layer and wherein at least one of the first or second circuit adhesion layers is configured such that the attempted removal of the housing from the product results in a destruction of the radio frequency identification circuit (The destruction means 11 is configured to act on the integrated circuit 3 or the antenna 5 when the tag is being separated from the object to which the tag is attached. The destruction means 11 act on the integrated circuit 3 or the antenna 5 to render the tag non-operational. That is, when the tag 1 that has been attached to an object 2 is being pulled or moved away from the object 2, the destruction means 11 is activated and renders the tag non-operational.).
Re Claim 17: Robadey discloses a product (fig 1: 2) comprising an electronic hard tag (fig 1: 1) according to claim 1.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robadey (EP 3217326 A1) in view of MATSUSHITA (WO 2004047017 A1).
Re Claim 13: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 12, wherein the first circuit adhesion layer is arranged between the housing and the radio frequency identification circuit or wherein the product adhesion layer is arranged between the product and the radio frequency identification circuit or wherein the second circuit adhesion layer is arranged between the radio frequency identification circuit and the RFID cover.
However, Robadey does not disclose that the adhesion layer is arranged only partially.
MATSUSHITA however discloses that the adhesion layer is arranged only partially (It has a structure in which an adhesive layer is laminated, and is partially located at the interface between the base sheet and the first adhesive layer,).
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 MATSUSHITA’s teaching in the tag of Robadey for the purpose of creating additional way for the tag to become non-operational after being tampered with.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robadey (EP 3217326 A1) in view of Masin (US 20120187197 A1).
Re Claim 14: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 1, with the housing or the RFID cover.
However, Robadey does not disclose that the housing or the RFID cover comprises at least one of: polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), poly amid.
Masin however discloses that the housing or the RFID cover comprises at least one of: polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), poly amid (p38: the plastic housing 204 may be made from ABS plastic. ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) plastic is a terpolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene.).
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 Masin’s teaching in the tag of Robadey for many benefits of ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) such as exceptional impact resistance, durability, good heat and chemical resistance, and excellent machinability.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robadey (EP 3217326 A1) in view of Nitta (WO 2021241656 A1).
Re Claim 15: Robadey discloses the electronic hard tag according to claim 2, with product adhesion layer, the first circuit adhesion layer or the second circuit adhesion layer.
However, Robadey does not disclose that the adhesion layer comprises an acrylic adhesive.
Nitta however discloses that the adhesion layer comprises an acrylic adhesive (Further, as shown in FIG. 4, the antenna pattern 22 is adhered to the base material 21 by, for example, an adhesive layer A3 made of an adhesive such as acrylic).
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 Nitta’s teaching in the tag of Robadey for many benefits of acrylic adhesive such as strong, durable bonds for diverse materials, excellent resistance to harsh conditions (heat, UV, chemicals, moisture), fast curing, minimal surface prep, good impact/vibration resistance, and etc.
Re Claim 16: Robadey discloses a consumer product (fig 1: 2) comprising the electronic hard tag (fig 1: 1) according to claim 1.
However, Robadey does not disclose a packaging.
Nitta however discloses a packaging (fig 14: P3).
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 Nitta’s teaching in the tag of Robadey for the purpose of protecting the consumer product.
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