Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/169,860

Chip-Based RFID-Enabled Liner Free Labels and Rolls of Liner Free Labels

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Examiner
KIM, SHIN H
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Iconex LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
735 granted / 1149 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1149 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered. 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) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas Federico Caponago Rink U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0257860 A1 (Rink) in view of Haruhiko Nitta U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0070430 A1 (Nitta) in view of Stephan Heath U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0189174 A1 (Heath). Regarding claim 1, Rink discloses a liner free label, comprising: a substrate having a first side and a second side (Figure 2 Element 4 top and bottom); and an adhesive applied to a portion of the first side or the second side ([0073], Element 2b). Rink does not directly disclose a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay on the substrate, wherein the RFID inlay comprises a chip and an antenna; and an adhesive applied to a portion of the first side or the second side. Nitta discloses a label comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay on the substrate, wherein the RFID inlay comprises a chip (Element 13) and an antenna (Element 12). Therefore it would have an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink as taught by Nitta to include Nitta’s RFID with chip and antenna on a label. Such a modification would provide a means to keep track of the labeled contents with digital tools. Rink in view of Nitta does not directly disclose the RFID chip to store data enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication. Heath discloses a system comprising an RFID chip operable to store varying amounts of data ranging from basic identification numbers to complex product information, manufacturing data, or tracking history, enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication ([0089]). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink in view of Nitta as taught by Heath to include Heath’s RFID with various data. Such a modification would provide a means to identify properties of the product to inform users. Regarding claim 3, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the adhesive is applied as a full coverage layer on the first side or the second side of the substrate (Figure 2 Element 2b, Rink). Regarding claim 4, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label further comprises one of: a sense mark on the first side or the second side of the substrate; or no sense mark on either the first side or the second side of the substrate (Figure 2 Element 10 Rink in view of Nitta). Regarding claim 5, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the RFID inlay is configured to be the sense mark ([0031], Nitta). Regarding claim 6, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the RFID inlay is embedded under flood coated adhesive or patched adhesive on the first side or the second side of the substrate (Figure 2 Element 14, Nitta). Regarding claim 7, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the antenna comprises a printed antenna ([0069], Nitta). Regarding claim 8, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the antenna comprises a foil antenna ([0030], Nitta). Regarding claim 9, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label wherein the antenna comprises a combination of a printed antenna and a foil antenna ([0030, 0069], Nitta). Regarding claim 10 and 11, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label comprising the label with an RFID inlay having a chip and antenna (Figure 2 Element 12 and 13, Nitta). Rink in view of Nitta does not directly disclose an OEM wherein the RFID inlay is applied to the OEM label. However, Nitta discloses the application of the RFID inlay onto the form of the base label ([0017-0021], Nitta). It would be obvious to perform the application of the RFID inlay to an OEM label as taught in Nitta. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance features of the label to bear information readable by RFID readers. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas Federico Caponago Rink U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0257860 A1 (Rink) in view of Haruhiko Nitta U.S. Patent Publication 20254/0378410 A1 (Nitta) in view of Stephan Heath U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0189174 A1 (Heath) in view of Tommi Forslund et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0125286 A1 (Forslund). Regarding claim 2, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath discloses the liner free label comprising adhesive ([0073], Element 2b, Rink). Rink in view of Nitta does not directly disclose the adhesive to be patterned. Forslund discloses a label wherein the adhesive is applied in a pattern on the first side of the substrate (Element 2 [0042]). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath as taught by Forslund to include Forslund’s patterned adhesive. Such a modification would provide a means to selective adhere areas on the label the subject that is labeled. Claim(s) 12, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas Federico Caponago Rink U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0257860 A1 (Rink) in view of Stephan Heath U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0189174 A1 (Heath) in view of Haruhiko Nitta U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0378410A1 (Nitta) further in view of Elaine Wilkinson U.S. Patent 2022/0366208 A1 (Wilkinson). Regarding claim 12, Rink discloses a liner free label, comprising: a substrate having a first side and a second side (Figure 2 Element 4 top and bottom); and an adhesive applied to a portion of the first side or the second side ([0073], Element 2b). Rink does not directly disclose a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay on the substrate, wherein the RFID inlay comprises a chip and an antenna; and an adhesive applied to a portion of the first side or the second side. Nitta discloses a label comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay on the substrate, wherein the RFID inlay comprises a chip (Element 13) and an antenna (Element 12). Therefore it would have an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink as taught by Nitta to include Nitta’s RFID with chip and antenna on a label. Such a modification would provide a means to keep track of the labeled contents with digital tools. Rink in view of Nitta does not directly disclose the RFID chip to store data enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication. Heath discloses a system comprising an RFID chip operable to store varying amounts of data ranging from basic identification numbers to complex product information, manufacturing data, or tracking history, enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication ([0089]). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink in view of Nitta as taught by Heath to include Heath’s RFID with various data. Such a modification would provide a means to identify properties of the product to inform users. Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath does not directly disclose the labels to be in the form of a roll. Wilkinson discloses labels in a roll (Element 104). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath as taught by Wilkinson to include Wilkinson’s roll of labels. Such a modification would provide a means deliver labels in the roll packaged form. Regarding claim 14, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson discloses the roll of liner free label wherein the adhesive is applied as one or more continuous adhesive patches on the first side or the second side of each substrate (Figure 2 Element 2b, Rink). Regarding claim 16, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson discloses the roll of liner free label wherein the RFID inlay is configured to be the sense mark ([0031], Nitta). Regarding claim 17, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson discloses the roll of liner free label wherein adjacent liner free labels in the roll are separated by perforations (Element 118, Wilkinson). Regarding claim 18, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson discloses the roll of liner free label wherein the RFID inlay is embedded under flood coated adhesive or patched adhesive on the first side or the second side of the substrate (Figure 2 Element 14, Nitta). Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas Federico Caponago Rink U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0257860 A1 (Rink) in view of Haruhiko Nitta U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0378410 A1 (Nitta) in view of Stephan Heath U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0189174 A1 (Heath) further in view of Elaine Wilkinson U.S. Patent 2022/0366208 A1 (Wilkinson) in view of Tommi Forslund et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0125286 A1 (Forslund). Regarding claims 13 and 15, Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson discloses the roll of liner free label comprising adhesive ([0073], Element 2b, Rink). Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath does not directly disclose the adhesive to be patterned. Forslund discloses a label wherein the adhesive is applied as one or more discontinuous adhesive patches or stripes on the first side or the second side of each substrate (Element 2 [0042]). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rink in view of Nitta in view of Heath in view of Wilkinson as taught by Forslund to include Forslund’s patterned adhesive. Such a modification would provide a means to selective adhere areas on the label the subject that is labeled. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruhiko Nitta U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0378410 A1 (Nitta) in view of Stephan Heath U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0189174 A1 (Heath) Regarding claim 19 and 20, Nitta discloses a label comprising: a substrate (Element 1); and a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay (Element 10), wherein the RFID inlay comprises a chip (Element 13) and an antenna (Element 12); and wherein the label is configured to be applied to a surface (Element S) without a liner; wherein the RFID inlay is embedded within an adhesive layer on the substrate (Element 14). Nitta does not directly disclose the RFID chip to store data enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication. Heath discloses a system comprising an RFID chip operable to store varying amounts of data ranging from basic identification numbers to complex product information, manufacturing data, or tracking history, enabling advanced inventory management and product authentication ([0089]). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nitta as taught by Heath to include Heath’s RFID with various data. Such a modification would provide a means to identify properties of the product to inform users. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM. 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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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. /SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2025
Application Filed
May 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600276
INDEPENDANT AIR CONDITIONING SEAT FOR VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597370
Flag Label
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594866
VEHICLE USER SUPPORT INCLUDING UPPER HOOD MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583373
VEHICLE HEADREST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579916
POPUP VIDEO DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+11.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1149 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month