DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 9/28/2026:
The amendments to claims 2 and 14 are acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of new claim 18 is acknowledged and accepted.
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the first adhesive layer provided on the second portion and the second adhesive provided on the first portion are attached to a same plane of the adherend in a vicinity of an end portion of the first portion”. Suggested language is “when folded at the base point portion, the first adhesive layer provided on the second portion and the second adhesive provided on the first portion are attached to a same plane of the adherend in a vicinity of an end portion of the first portion”.
Claim 18 recites “the heat-resistant substrate is folded at the base point portion, the first portion is bonded to an adherend by the second adhesive layer, and the tip of the second portion is bonded to a tip of the first portion by the first adhesive layer”. Suggested language is “the heat-resistant substrate is folded at the base point portion, and when folded at the base point portion, the first portion is bonded to an adherend by the second adhesive layer, and the tip of the second portion is bonded to a tip of the first portion by the first adhesive layer”.
Claim 18 contains an acronym, however, does not provide the full name. If the applicant is to claim the acronym, the full name should be referenced at least once within the claims in parentheses (e.g. integrated circuit (IC))
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn (DE 10136502) in view of Fujiki et al. (US 2004/0262404).
With respect to claim 18, Bohn discloses a radio frequency identification (RFID) label comprising:
a substrate that is formed in a band shape, has a first portion (7) and a second portion (3, 4, 5) divided by a base point portion (11) intersecting a longitudinal direction and extending in a width direction ([0035], Figs. 1-5);
an antenna and an integrated circuit (IC) chip connected to the antenna, the antenna and the IC chip provided in the second portion ([0005], [0034]);
a first adhesive layer (adhesive 6 of section 5) provided on a tip of the second portion ([0035], Fig. 2); and
a second adhesive layer (adhesive 6 of section 7) provided on the first portion ([0035], [0036]), wherein:
wherein a length of the second portion (3, 4, 5) in the longitudinal direction is formed to be larger than a length of the first portion (7) in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2),
the first adhesive layer is disposed on a first surface of the substrate and the second adhesive layer is disposed on a second surface of the substrate which is opposite to the first surface (adhesive 6 of section 5 is disposed on a first surface of the substrate (surface of the substrate of section portion 5) on an end portion side of the second portion (5) opposite to the base point portion (11), and the adhesive layer 6 of section 7 is disposed on at least a part of the a second surface (surface of the substrate of section 7) opposite, with respect to the base point portion 11, to the first surface (the surface of the substrate of section 5) (Figs. 1 and 2),
the substrate is folded at the base point portion (Figs. 1, 4 and 5)
the first portion is bonded to an adherend (13) by the second adhesive layer (adhesive 6 of section 7) ([0036]), and
when folded at the base point portion, the tip of the second portion is bonded to a tip of the first portion by the first adhesive layer (adhesive 6 of section 5) ([0035], Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
Bohn fails to expressly disclose the substrate being a heat-resistant substrate that has heat resistance.
Bohn teaches the substrate being made of plastic and label is used for luggage tags ([0006], [0035]). It is well known in the art for RFID luggage tags to have substrate material made of polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Fujiki et al. ([0039]). Fujiki et al. additionally teaches it is well known in the art for an adhesive to for the luggage tag to be made an acrylic adhesive ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate to be made of polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate in order to provide a substrate that has a large tearing strength. Since the applicant has listed these same materials as being heat-resistant in para. [0039] of the applicant’s specification, the modified substrate of Bohn would necessarily have a same property of being heat-resistant. See MPEP 2112.01(II) – if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, the first adhesive layer provided on the second portion and the second adhesive layer provided on the first portion are attached to a same plane of the adherend in a vicinity of an end portion of the first portion, in addition to the other limitations of the claim.
With respect to claim 14, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, attaching the first adhesive layer provided on the second portion and the second adhesive layer provided on the first portion to a same plane of the adherend in a vicinity of an end portion of the first portion, in addition to the other limitations of the claim.
With respect to claim 15, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, a third adhesive layer disposed on the first surface of the heat-resistant substrate from the base point portion toward an inner side of the second portion, in addition to the other limitations of the claim.
Claims not specifically addressed are/would be allowable due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection in view of the newly presented claim.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights