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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeton et al, US Pub. 2009/0108994.
Regarding claim 21, Keaton et al disclose a two sided thermal RFID label comprising: a substrate 210 having a first side and a second side; a chipless radio frequency identification (RFID) 202 antenna on the substrate (the RFID has the antenna attached to it); and an adhesive applied to a portion of the first side or the second side; , a substrate; and a chipless radio frequency identification (RFID) antenna on the substrate; wherein the label is configured to be applied to a surface without a liner (see Fig. 3A). (See Fig. 2A-2H; par. 0050+).
Keaton et al fails to disclose wherein the chipless RFID is configured to reflect a unique electromagnetic signature when exposed to a radio frequency signal, enabling identification without requiring an embedded microchip. However, the chipless device can be a transaction receipt, a ticket, a label, a membership card, or a shipping packing slip. It would have been obvious to employ the chipless device for identification purpose, including individuals, merchandizes, and other items. With respect to the chipless RFID technology relies on electromagnetic properties of the chipless RFID antenna itself to create a unique signature, and wherein when radio frequency signals hit the chipless RFID antenna, the chipless RFID antenna reflects back specific phase and amplitude, it is based to the general knowledge of chip-less RFID tags where structure-based information encoding scheme is used, using specific patterns or structures on the tag itself. These patterns affect how electromagnetic waves reflect, scatter, or interact with the tag. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the chipless RFID antenna is configured to reflect a unique electromagnetic signature when exposed to radio frequency signals (see par. 0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a liner free label which includes a chipless radio frequency antenna formed on a substrate, operating by reflecting specific electromagnetic signatures hen exposed to radio frequency signals to enable identification, an adhesive applied to a side of the substrate, a release coating on the first side of the substrate to enable the substrate to be wound into a roll with the first released from the adhesive on the second side when being unwound by the printer. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art (Keaton 2009/0108994) fails to disclose a chipless RFID, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art discloses a chipless RFID tag (see para. 0020, 0062; and claim 4). While Keaton discloses the possibility of integrated circuit RFID, but it clearly discloses and claims a chipless RFID (see claim 4 of Keaton). With respect to liner free tag, when a chipless RFID tag is used, the tag could be printed on the printed surface without needing of a liner and/or a chip (no liner is needed when it is printed on the surface of the tag). The applicant further argued about the chipless RFID of Keaton would operate and/or manufacture, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chipless RFID use passive tags that encode information through a variety of other means, often using the tags’ physical structure. They provide larger storage encoding capability. Furthermore, while the applicant claims a liner free label, but fails to specifically claim a structure that is consisting of specific number of layers and/or how the layers are overlapped. The amendment to claim 21 states the fundamental function of a chipless RFID, which is relying on specialty designed materials that create a unique electromagnetic signature. These could be printed or etched on the substrate. Chipless tag are read by antennas that can detect specific frequencies or patterns emitted by the tag. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876